To investigate anything, you first turn on the most basic function of the human intellect, the one that Jews hate the most on Goyim: pattern recognition, the one that helps you notice things out of the norm.
The people who were critical of Israel before didn’t break the pattern after October 7.
People who have licked Israeli boots all their lives and now they’re foaming their mouths against it, that’s who’s breaking the norm.
Who are they and what patterns can we notice in that camp?
Observably, it’s mostly the same army of presstitutes and NPCs that pushes all globalist liberal agendas, particularly the Soros or WEF agendas. Their funding goes through globalist Jew hands too, almost always.
Media has already revealed some hard evidence that ties Soros NGOs to anti-Israel protesters, but you can recognize the same people with your own naked eyes.
Symmetrically, what can we notice about the opposite camp?
So this actually looks more like Tim Pool’s civil war, escalated to the most deranged levels and transplanted in Israel.
The poles haven’t been opposed on moral grounds before, they’ve rarely been on adversarial over Palestinian lives before.
They are polar opposites not on the moral axis, but on the ideological one. Which is another smokescreen for mercantile and control games, as shown below.
It’s time to remember there have been murmurations about a Jewish schism for many years now.
This has started once Bibi has consolidated his position strong enough to raise the flag of Israeli nationalism, claiming Israel for Israelis.
He claimed it from whom?
Israel’s clocks have been set from the City of London and New York / Washington DC for the longest time, by people who spend less time in Israel than a 8 year old Palestinian prisoner to IDF.
It’s international(ist) Jewry vs local Israeli Jewry who wants to be the sole decider of its own fate.
There’s an ever-growing understanding within the Jewish world that we are approaching a point of no return in the gap between Israel and Diaspora Jewry. Recently, the fallout in this battle can be seen in American Jews’ erosion of identity and solidarity with Israel and Israeli Jews’ rising nationalism and resistance to pluralism.
For the simpletons who have difficulties abstracting and need to put a face on everything: it’s Soros, his Rothschild handlers (also Israel founders) and their satellites vs. the new Israeli oligarchy.
Leaders of the Jewish community in Hungary appealed to Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in 2017 to end the poster campaign against Soros. Orbán rejected the appeal and suggested that Hungarian Jews should do much more to oppose Muslim immigration to Europe. Israel’s ambassador to Hungary initially denounced the anti-Soros posters, stating that the campaign “sows hatred and fear”, but then Israel’s Foreign Ministry issued its own statement critical of Soros. According to the Israeli media, the change in position was ordered personally by Netanyahu. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs complained that the philanthropist “continuously undermines Israel’s democratically elected governments by funding organizations that defame the Jewish state and seek to deny it the right to defend itself ”. Aspen Institute, 7.6.2019
Rothschild henchman who has them on speed dial can’t stop hating on Bibi, proving once again Gaza is the arena of an internal war in the Jewniverse.
Hamas, a Jewish accessory, only plays the proxy role here, like Ukrainians, Gaza is Ukraine 2.0.
The attacks on Israel are a decoy for simpletons, the target are Netanyahu and the new Israeli elite, such as Benny Steinmetz, the richest and closest to Bibi local billionaire.
I can almost promise you when Bibi goes, things will fold back to the same status quo as before him. Liberals will go back to shining hegemonic boots instantly, and with even more devotion.
Which reminds me about another illusion programmed into the collective mental globally by Jewish propaganda:
Contrary to the popular belief, the right wing does not exist, has never existed. Nazis were not opposite to communists on free market and democracy grounds or anything like this. These went on limited trial only later, but rhey empowered “whitey” too much. They were all leftoid marxists. What separated them was the stance on GLOBALISM. It’s never been left wing vs right wing. It’s always been INTERNATIONALIST COMMIES vs NATIONALIST COMMIES.
People’s Overton Window is narrower than their buttocks.
So no surprise Marxism has already won since that’s all we have been experiencing since Karl Marx and we think that’s the full spectrum of politics.
“The birds born in a cage think flying is a disease”
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
It’s not that they are close, we’ve talked a lot about it, it’s how Chinese frame it and celebrate it… It’s like seeing your world through the eyes of an alien civilization.
The seventh generation of the Rothschild banking dynasty will take over the centuries-old bank this summer, according to the Financial Times.
Controversy and conspiracy theories over the family’s supposed control of wealth have long existed in the West, but in recent decades more and more Chinese economists and budding entrepreneurs have closely studied the Rothschilds.
At the same time, members of the Rothschild family have looked to a rising China for new business opportunities.
The next generation
According to the Financial Times, Alexandre de Rothschild will take over as chairman of Rothschild Bank from his father David de Rothschild this summer, with the 37-year-old expected to lead the way in diversifying the group beyond “its core French and British advisory business.”
Outgoing Chairman David de Rothschild. /VCG Photo
Alexandre de Rothschild joined the family business a decade ago, overseeing a period when the bank has looked to push beyond Europe in terms of investment strategy.
In fact, the Rothschild family came to China as long ago as the 1830s, when it set up a small gold and silver trading business in Shanghai. In 1953, four years after the founding of New China, Rothschild was one of the first major Western banks to establish relations with the country.
A history of investments in China
In 2008 La Compagnie Financiere Edmond de Rothschild (LCFR), the bank’s French branch, was on the verge of securing 2.3 billion yuan (336 million US dollars) worth of investment from the Bank of China. That deal however fell through after failing to get approval from the Chinese government.
In 2011, UK-based Rothschild subsidiary RIT Partners set up one of the first private equity funds in China to raise renminbi in the country and invest it overseas, with a target of amassing 750 million US dollars within its first year.
Alexandre de Rothschild (L) with CEFC China Energy Chairman Ye Jianming in Shanghai, May 2017. /China Daily Photo
Last year, Alexandre de Rothschild met with Ye Jianming, chairman of CEFC China Energy, with both sides agreeing to strengthen cooperation in sectors including energy, financial services, aviation, infrastructure construction, food and high-end property management.
China’s fascination with the Rothschilds
Beyond its growing financial presence in the country, the past decade has seen growing cultural awareness in China of the Rothschild family.
Several bestselling but controversial books have seen a wave of interest in Jewish business practices, particularly among wealthy entrepreneurs and investors looking to establish their own family legacies.
Published in 2007, Song Hongbing’s Currency Wars was an instant success in China, with publisher CITIC claiming there were some 600,000 copies in circulation within months of it being released.
In the book, Song, who studied and lived in the US from 1994 and worked as an IT consultant, claims the Rothschild family control five trillion US dollars’ worth of global wealth.
Song’s work was widely criticized in the West as an “economic novel,” and lambasted for promoting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.
The Financial Times reported that Currency Wars was widely read by Chinese company heads and government officials, with Song himself saying “I never imagined it could be so hot and that top leaders would be reading it.” He insisted that the book was not anti-Semitic.
Jon Benjamin, then the chief executive of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, told the Financial Times he was concerned by the book, and was worried that the Rothschild conspiracy theory was gaining traction “in the world’s most important emerging economy,” despite China having “little or no concurrent culture of anti-Semitism.”
Song Hongbing, who currently has almost two million followers on Sina Weibo, has gone on to publish five books in his Currency Wars series, and since 2007 more and more books on the Rothschilds and more generally on so-called Jewish business practices have been published.
Chinese books on Jewish business practices, from top left, clockwise: How do Jewish People win?; Jewish Business Bible; Jewish Businessmen’s Wisdom; Jewish Business Teachings. /Images from China Daily, Douban
Titles such as “The Legend of Jewish Wealth,” “Jewish Family Education” and “The Illustrated Jewish Wisdom Book” can all be found in the business sections of bookstores across China.
Han Bing, who wrote business self-help guide “Crack the Talmud,” told Newsweek in 2010 that Jews and Chinese shared historic and cultural similarities. When pressed on whether his book was promoting stereotypes, Han admitted that he had never met a Jewish person in his life.
Falling for fake wine and frauds
The Rothschild name is also synonymous with Chateau Lafite in China, one of the most popular wine labels for the country’s wealthiest people.
Selling for as much as 10,000 US dollars per bottle, Xinhua reported in 2011 that the majority of Lafite sold in China could be fake, as sales figures reported in just Zhejiang Province were exceeding official global production figures.
Beyond fake bottles of Rothschild wine, a man named Oliver Rothschild who pretended to be part of the banking dynasty infamously fooled Tsinghua University in 2016.
The British man was given the red carpet treatment by the university, with Dean Qiu Yong calling him “one of the successors of the Rothschild family,” and claiming he was a former head of UNICEF.
The real Rothschild family released a statement saying Oliver Rothschild was not connected to the family in any way, after reports that he had traveled around China for several years giving speeches under the guise of being part of the banking family.
The “fake Rothschild” Oliver Rothschild in 2014. /VCG Photo
After Tsinghua admitted it had fallen for the fraud, The Global Times said the story showed China’s “longing for international endorsement, especially from the developed world, as an indicator of being something.”
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
! 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
“Via the BIS, the American and British bankers would maintain a mostly secret friendship with their Nazi and Japanese counterparts straight through World War II while thousands and thousands of American and British men in uniform were being killed and maimed in the fight to defeat the Nazis and Japanese.”
Except they were mostly Jewish Germans with no real loyalty to either America, UK, Germany or even Jewry.
In its early years, intermarriage among the German-Jewish elite was common. Consequently, the partners of Kuhn, Loeb were closely related by blood and marriage to the partners of J & W Seligman, Speyer & Co., Goldman, Sachs & Co., Lehman Brothers and other prominent German-Jewish firms. Prior to the Second World War, a particularly close relationship existed between the partners of Kuhn, Loeb and M. M. Warburg & Co. of Hamburg, Germany, through Paul and Felix, who were Kuhn, Loeb partners. Later on, following World War II, their cousin Sigmund Warburg would briefly continue this relationship as a partner and Executive Director of the firm.
This chapter explores the conflicting pressures to which the American investment banking firm Kuhn, Loeb and Company was exposed during the period of American neutrality preceding US entry into World War I. All the partners were of German Jewish origin. Two, Paul M. Warburg and Felix M. Warburg, were brothers of Max M. Warburg, who was heavily involved in financing the German war effort. Others, including the senior partner Jacob H. Schiff, were emigres from Germany. Some, however, especially partner Otto H. Kahn, were staunchly anglophile in outlook. Many Wall Street bankers, notably the pre-eminent investment bank J. P. Morgan and Company, were fiercely pro-Allied in sympathy, and put heavy pressure on Kuhn, Loeb to participate in Allied war loans. Their German associates, however, Kuhn, Loeb to abstain from such business, and if possible to take part in German war financing. With partners in the firm divided, Kuhn, Loeb tried to remain neutral. The firm did not invest in Allied war loans. Jacob Schiff, a leading member of the Jewish community, stated that this stance did not reflect any sympathies with Germany, but the fact that Tsarist Russia, notorious for its persecution of its Jewish minority, was one of the Allies. Meanwhile, certain individual partners made well-publicized purchases of these securities.
“The BIS would shelter hundreds of millions of dollars in Nazi gold, stolen from conquered nations and from slaughtered Jews (including dental fillings, jewelry, and such).”
John Strausbaugh, Victory City, A History Of New York and New Yorkers During World War II
“BANKING WITH HITLER” – DOCUMENTARY / HISTORY CHANNEL
371 Swiss banks stand accused of collaborating with the Nazis during World War II. This was suspected at the time by by U.S. Secretary of Treasury Henry Morgenthau, who began investigating this collaboration. He found the Swiss were not alone. His archives reveal that both British and American bankers continued to do business with Hitler, even as Germany was invading Europe and bombing London.
This investigative film next shows in detail the roles played by the Anglo-German banking clique. Key members of the Bank of England together with their German counterparts established the BIS, the Bank for International Settlement, which laundered the plundered gold of Europe. On its board were key Nazis such as Walther Funk and Hjalamar Schact The president of BIS was an American, Thomas McKittrick, who readily socialized with leading Nazis. Not only the BIS, but other allied banks worked hand in hand with the Nazis. One of the biggest American banks kept a branch open in Occupied Paris and, with full knowledge of the managers in the U.S., froze the accounts of French Jews. Deprived of money to escape France, many ended up in death camps.
When Pres. Roosevelt died in April 1945, Morgenthau lost his protector and his crusade against the banks came to an end. He was further weakened when men in his department were accused of being Communists during the McCarthy era. This incredible story contains interviews with surviving members of banking families and Morgenthau’s investigative team as well as newly found archive material.
The leader of the BIS during the war was a Wall Streeter named Thomas McKittrick.
“He traveled freely in Nazi territory and in Mussolini’s Italy during the war. In 1943, U-Boats received orders not to meddle with the ship that carried him back to NY for high-level meetings to discuss BIS business, after which he traveled to Berlin for a debriefing at the Reichsbank.”
When the war ended, McKittrick was made Vice President at the Rockefeller’s Chase National Bank. He couldn’t have picked a more suitable employer.
It turns out six months before Hitler invaded Poland, Chase Bank wired $25 million for his war machine.
Chase and J.P. Morgan weren’t done in their role as Hitler’s private bankers.
“When Germany occupied France in 1940, most American businesses there left. Chase and J.P. Morgan kept their banks in France open for the duration. They did business with and for the Nazi occupiers, from seizing the accounts of Jewish customers to funding the Gestapo’s brutal activities against the Franch people.”
Evidently, one of Chase’s growth strategies targeted Nazi-occupied France.
The Daily News reported:
“The relationship between Chase and the Nazis apparently was so cozy that Carlos Niedermann, the Chase branch chief in Paris, wrote his supervisor in Manhattan that the bank enjoyed “very special esteem” with top German officials and “a rapid expansion of deposits,” according to Newsweek. Niedermann’s letter was written in May 1942 five months after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and the U.S. also went to war with Germany.”
Sometimes Wall Street gets a bad rap, often serving as a scapegoat for populist leaders looking to rally the troops against a pretty unlikable foe.
James J Puplava with Adam LeBor, author of “Tower of Basel – The Shadowy History of the Secret Bank That Runs the World”
A Very Unauthorized History of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Switzerland
“In a special reprise edition of the Financial Sense Newshour from earlier this year, Jim welcomes journalist Adam LeBor, author of “Tower of Basel”, a very unauthorized history of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Basel, Switzerland. For many decades it has stood at the center of a global network of money, power and covert global influence. LeBor and others call it the most important bank the world. The BIS predates both the IMF and the World Bank, yet very few have heard of it or knows what it does. The BIS helped finance the Nazi war machine before, and during, WWII. It also hosted much of the planning and technical preparation for the Euro. LeBor believes without the BIS, the Euro would likely not exist. The bank is also immensely profitable, making over a billion dollars tax-free in 2012, from a very small number of important customers. The BIS continues to host the world’s most powerful central bankers every year in Basel.”
Never mind the Czech gold the Nazis stole…
The Bank for International Settlements actually financed Hitler’s war machine
The documents reveal a shocking story: just six months before Britain went to war with Nazi Germany, the Bank of England willingly handed over £5.6 million worth of gold to Hitler – and it belonged to another country.
The official history of the bank, written in 1950 but posted online for the first time on Tuesday, reveals how we betrayed Czechoslovakia – not just with the infamous Munich agreement of September 1938, which allowed the Nazis to annex the Sudetenland, but also in London, where Montagu Norman, the eccentric but ruthless governor of the Bank of England agreed to surrender gold owned by the National Bank of Czechoslovakia.
The Czechoslovak gold was held in London in a sub-account in the name of the Bank for International Settlements, the Basel-based bank for central banks. When the Nazis marched into Prague in March 1939 they immediately sent armed soldiers to the offices of the National Bank. The Czech directors were ordered, on pain of death, to send two transfer requests.
The first instructed the BIS to transfer 23.1 metric tons of gold from the Czechoslovak BIS account, held at the Bank of England, to the Reichsbank BIS account, also held at Threadneedle Street.
The second order instructed the Bank of England to transfer almost 27 metric tons of gold held in the National Bank of Czechoslovakia’s own name to the BIS’s gold account at the Bank of England.
To outsiders, the distinction between the accounts seems obscure. Yet it proved crucial – and allowed Norman to ensure that the first order was carried out. The Czechoslovak bank officials believed that as the orders had obviously been carried out under duress neither would be allowed to go through. But they had not reckoned on the bureaucrats running the BIS and the determination of Montagu Norman to see that procedures were followed, even as his country prepared for war with Nazi Germany.
His decision caused uproar, both in the press and in Parliament. George Strauss, a Labour MP, spoke for many when he thundered in Parliament: “The Bank for International Settlements is the bank which sanctions the most notorious outrage of this generation – the rape of Czechoslovakia.” Winston Churchill demanded to know how the government could ask its citizens to enlist in the military when it was “so butter-fingered that £6 million worth of gold can be transferred to the Nazi government”.
It was a good question. Thanks to Norman and the BIS, Nazi Germany had just looted 23.1 tons of gold without a shot being fired. The second transfer order, for the gold held in the National Bank of Czechoslovakia’s own name, did not go through. Sir John Simon, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had instructed banks to block all Czechoslovak assets.
The documents released by the Bank of England are revealing, both for what they show and what they omit. They are a window into a world of fearful deference to authority, the primacy of procedure over morality, a world where, for the bankers, the most important thing is to keep the channels of international finance open, no matter what the human cost. A world, in other words, not entirely different to today.
The BIS was founded in 1930, in effect by Montagu Norman and his close friend Hjalmar Schacht, the former president of the Reichsbank, known as the father of the Nazi economic miracle. Schacht even referred to the BIS as “my” bank. The BIS is a unique hybrid: a commercial bank protected by international treaty. Its assets can never be seized, even in times of war. It pays no taxes on profits. The Czechoslovaks believed that the BIS’s legal immunities would protect them. But they were wrong.
The Bank of England’s historian argued that to refuse the transfer order would have been a breach of Britain’s treaty obligations with regard to the BIS. In fact there was a powerful counter-argument that the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia had rendered any such obligations null and void as the country no longer existed.
A key sentence in the Bank of England documents is found on page 1,295. It reads: “The general attitude of the Bank of England directors of the BIS during the war was governed by their anxiety to keep the BIS to play its part in the solution of post-war problems”. And here the secret history of the BIS and its strong relationship with the Bank of England becomes ever more murky.
During the war the BIS proclaimed that it was neutral, a view supported by the Bank of England. In fact the BIS was so entwined with the Nazi economy that it helped keep the Third Reich in business. It carried out foreign exchange deals for the Reichsbank; it accepted looted Nazi gold; it recognised the puppet regimes installed in occupied countries, which, together with the Third Reich, soon controlled the majority of the bank’s shares.
Indeed, the BIS was so useful for the Nazis that Emil Puhl, the vice-president of the Reichsbank and BIS director, referred to the BIS as the Reichsbank’s only “foreign branch”.
The BIS’s reach and connections were vital for Germany. So much so, that all through the war, the Reichsbank continued paying interest on the monies lent by the BIS. This interest was used by the BIS to pay dividends to shareholders – which included the Bank of England. Thus, through the BIS, the Reichsbank was funding the British war economy. After the war, five BIS directors were tried for war crimes, including Schacht. “They don’t hang bankers,” Schacht supposedly said, and he was right – he was acquitted.
Buried among the typewritten pages of the Bank of England’s history is a name of whom few have ever heard, a man for whom, like Montagu Norman, the primacy of international finance reigned over mere national considerations.
Thomas McKittrick, an American banker, was president of the BIS. When the United States entered the war in December 1941, McKittrick’s position, the history notes, “became difficult”. But McKittrick managed to keep the bank in business, thanks in part to his friend Allen Dulles, the US spymaster based in Berne. McKittrick was an asset of Dulles, known as Codename 644, and frequently passed him information that he had garnered from Emil Puhl, who was a frequent visitor to Basel and often met McKittrick.
Declassified documents in the American intelligence archives reveal an even more disturbing story. Under an intelligence operation known as the “Harvard Plan”, McKittrick was in contact with Nazi industrialists, working towards what the US documents, dated February 1945, describe as a “close cooperation between the Allied and German business world”.
Thus while Allied soldiers were fighting through Europe, McKittrick was cutting deals to keep the Germany economy strong. This was happening with what the US documents describe as “the full assistance” of the State Department.
The Bank of England history also makes disparaging reference to Harry Dexter White, an official in the Treasury Department, who was a close ally of Henry Morgenthau, the Treasury Secretary. Morgenthau and White were the BIS’s most powerful enemies and lobbied hard at Bretton Woods in July 1944, where the Allies met to plan the post-war financial system, for the BIS to be closed.White, the Bank history notes rather sneeringly, had said of the BIS: “There is an American president doing business with the Germans while our boys are fighting the Germans.”
Aided by its powerful friends, such as Montagu Norman, Allen Dulles and much of Wall Street, the BIS survived the attempts by Morgenthau and White to close it down. The bank’s allies used precisely the argument detailed on page 1,295 of the Bank of England’s history: the BIS was needed to plan the post-war European economy.
From the 1950s to the 1990s the BIS hosted much of the planning and technical preparation for the introduction of the euro. Without the BIS the euro would probably not exist. In 1994, Alexander Lamfalussy, the former BIS manager, set up the European Monetary Institute, now known as the European Central Bank.
The BIS remains very profitable. It has only about 140 customers (it refuses to say how many) but made a tax-free profit of about £900 million last year. Every other month it hosts the Global Economy Meetings, where 60 of the most powerful central bankers, including Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England, meet. No details of meetings are released, even though the attendees are public servants, charged with managing national economies.
The BIS also hosts the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, which regulates commercial banks, and the new Financial Stability Board, which coordinates national regulatory authorities. The BIS has made itself the central pillar of the global financial system.
Montagu Norman and Hjalmar Schacht would be very proud indeed.
Adam LeBor is the author of ‘Tower of Basel: The Shadowy History of the Secret Bank That Runs the World’, published by PublicAffairs
Following his retirement, he was raised to the peerage as Baron Norman, of St Clere in the County of Kent, on 13 October 1944. In addition to receiving the Distinguished Service Order, Norman was sworn of the Privy Council in 1923 and was created a Grand Officer of the Order of the Crown.
Let me rephrase that: The Nazi-loving chief of Bank of England was anointed among Crown’s most trusted dozen, having only the Jewish-blooded queen and princes above him.
<<Chairman McFadden informed the House of a dispatch in the Public Ledger of Philadelphia, October 24, 1931, “GERMAN REVEALS HOOVER’S SECRET. The American President was in intimate negotiations with the German government regarding a year’s debt holiday as early as December, 1930.” McFadden continued,
“Behind the Hoover announcement there were many months of hurried and furtive preparations both in Germany and in Wall Street offices of German bankers. Germany, like a sponge, had to be saturated with American money. Mr. Hoover himself had to be elected, because this scheme began before he became President. If the German international bankers of Wall Street — that is Kuhn Loeb Company, J. & W. Seligman, Paul Warburg, J. Henry Schroder — and their satellites had not had this job waiting to be done, Herbert Hoover would never have been elected President of the United States.
The election of Mr. Hoover to the Presidency was through the influence of the Warburg Brothers, directors of the great bank of Kuhn Loeb Company, who carried the cost of his election. In exchange for this collaboration Mr. Hoover promised to impose the moratorium of German debts. Hoover sought to exempt Kreuger’s loan to Germany of $125 million from the operation of the Hoover Moratorium. The nature of Kreuger’s swindle was known here in January when he visited his friend, Mr. Hoover, in the White House.”
Not only did Hoover entertain Francqui in the White House, but also Ivar Kreuger, the most famous swindler of the twentieth century. …
On December 13, 1932, Chairman McFadden introduced a resolution of impeachment against President Hoover for high crimes and misdemeanors, which covers many pages, including violation of contracts, unlawful dissipation of the financial resources of the United States, and his appointment of Eugene Meyer to the Federal Reserve Board. The resolution was tabled and never acted upon by the House.
In criticizing Hoover’s Moratorium of German War Debts, McFadden had referred to Hoover’s “German” backers. Although all of the principals of “the London Connection” did originate in Germany, most of them in Frankfurt, at the time they sponsored Hoover’s candidacy for the Presidency of the United States, they were operating from London, as Hoover himself had done for most of his career.
Also, the Hoover Moratorium was not intended to “help” Germany, as Hoover had never been “pro-German”. The Moratorium on Germany’s war debts was necessary so that Germany would have funds for rearming. In 1931, the truly forward-looking diplomats were anticipating the Second World War, and there could be no war without an “aggressor”.
Hoover had also carried out a number of mining promotions in various parts of the world as a secret agent for the Rothschilds, and had been rewarded with a directorship in one of the principal Rothschild enterprises, the Rio Tinto Mines in Spain and Bolivia.
Francqui and Hoover threw themselves into the seemingly impossible task of provisioning Germany during the First World War. Their success was noted in Nordeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, March 13, 1915, which noted that large quantities of food were now arriving from Belgium by rail. Schmoller’s “Yearbook for Legislation, Administration and Political Economy” for 1916, shows that 1 billion pounds of meat, 1.5 billion pounds of potatoes, 1.5 billion pounds of bread, and 121 million pounds of butter had been shipped from Belgium to Germany in that year.
A patriotic British woman who had operated a small hospital in Belgium for several years, Edith Cavell, wrote to the Nursing Mirror in London, April 15, 1915, complaining that the “Belgian Relief” supplies were being shipped to Germany to feed the German army. The Germans considered Miss Cavell to be of no importance, and paid no attention to her, but the British Intelligence Service in London was appalled by Miss Cavell’s discovery, and demanded that the Germans arrest her as a spy.
Sir William Wiseman, head of British Intelligence, and partner of Kuhn Loeb Company, feared that the continuance of the war was at stake, and secretly notified the Germans that Miss Cavell must be executed. The Germans reluctantly arrested her and charged her with aiding prisoners of war to escape. The usual penalty for this offense was three months imprisonment, but the Germans bowed to Sir William Wiseman’s demands, and shot Edith Cavell, thus creating one of the principal martyrs of the First World War.
With Edith Cavell out of the way, the “Belgian Relief” operation continued, although in 1916, German emissaries again approached London officials with the information that they did not believe Germany could continue military operations, not only because of food shortages, but because of financial problems. More “emergency relief” was sent, and Germany continued in the war until November, 1918.>>
Mr. Paul M. Warburg, the famous banker, who was the initiator of the American Federal Reserve Bank System, a brother of Mr. Felix M. Warburg and of Herr Max Warburg, is seriously ill with pneumonia, and his condition is causing extreme anxiety.
Mr. Warburg is 63 years of age.
If Americans were in the habit of conferring titles of distinction on creative thinkers, Paul M. Warburg would have been accorded this honour for his work in the introduction of the Currency Reform in the United States which culminated in the Federal Reserve System, Professor Edwin R. A. Seligman of Columbia University wrote in the “New York Evening Post” in 1927.
Mr. Warburg, who like all his brothers, bears the middle name Moritz, which was the name of their father, was a member of the Kuhn, Loeb banking firm (Mrs. Warburg was before her marriage Nita Loeb) resigning all his directorships, trusteeships, etc. when he was appointed by President Wilson in 1914 as a member of the Federal Reserve Board. In 1917 he was appointed a member of the United States Section of the International High Commission.
A year ago, Mr. Warburg delivered a speech in New York decrying the American isolation theory and advising the United States to seek larger international co-operation and courageous action to help the world to emerge from the stagnation into which it has fallen.
When Mr. Henry Ford was still conducting his antisemitic campaign, he launched an attack on Mr. Paul Warburg in 1925, accusing him of being the head and front of a movement in which the Federal Reserve System was being used as an instrument to foist German financial methods on the United States and to bring about a German control of American industry and business. Mr. Bernard Baruch and Mr. Aaron Sapiro, whose libel action against Mr. Henry Ford was the immediate point which brought about his recantation of his antisemitism, were included with Mr. Paul Warburg as his chief assistants in the plot.
The “Pacific Banker”, the leading financial paper in the North-west, dismissed the accusation as “a ridiculous obsession”, and wrote: Paul M. Warburg is a name which stands very high in American banking as that of the man who laid down the central idea upon which the whole Federal Reserve System was erected; who cast aside all thought of remuneration to become a member of the original Board, in fact its Deputy Governor; who has shown a genius in sound finance and a whole hearted service to the country which is recognised everywhere in responsible quarters”.
Associated Press, 30 Jul 1996: Switzerland gave the American, British and French Allies around 60 million dollars of Nazi gold to help pay for the reconstruction of Europe after the Second World War – according to documents just revealed. Jewish groups say this is just a fraction of the hoard which belongs to them – stolen from Jews in Germany before and during the war. The documents reveal that more than four billion dollars worth of gold was shipped by the German Reichsbank to Switzerland during the war. These Swiss banks have traditionally closed their doors to any attempt to investigate their notoriously secret accounts. Now it has been revealed they made a very secret deal with the victorious Western Allies after World War II which allowed them to keep millions of dollars worth of gold. Jewish groups claim they concealed the theft and were permitted to get away with it, because of British fears that if they forced the issue, Swiss loans to their war-ravaged country would not be forthcoming. In a new spirit of openness, the Swiss banks are now cooperating with the World Jewish Congress. External auditors are to be allowed full access to all banking records. However a Swiss lawyer acting for many of the claimants says the task is a massive one – not least because of the difficulty in tracing who deposited the money. “The problem is with names – you don’t know with what name, or what code, or what fantasy name accounts existed. Did the person who put it here put it in his own name or a fantasy name or code or did he give it to a Swiss cousin, attorney or somebody else to do it? That’s the first problem – second problem is the time that has gone by. If an account is still there the old account opening form should also be there – but as result of the time that has gone by – fifty years – with computerisation in the meantime I hear, although unofficially from various banks we may not have these documents any more”, said Dr Herbert Winter, lawyer.
Exploring the Vatican’s role in aiding Nazi criminals to escape punishment for their crimes, this book, originally published in 1991, first revealed the Vatican-Swiss bank connection to Nazi gold and documented the hidden links to Western investors in Nazi Germany. Since its publication, major revelations about the role of Swiss banks have confirmed Unholy Trinity’s expose of the flight of the Nazi’s stolen treasures; the new introduction and new final chapters, written by Aarons and Loftus for this edition, bring the book completely up to date and show how the media have missed the vital Vatican connection in the Swiss-bank story.
Among other things, the authors demonstrate that U.S. and British code-breakers were fully aware of the Holocaust as early as 1941 but lied to the Western press; that the code-breakers bugged the Swiss banks and then buried secrets of Nazi gold transfers to protect U.S. intelligence chief Allen Dulles; and that the Australian, British, and Canadian governments are still waging a campaign to keep their citizens ignorant about the Nazi war criminals living among them.
Covering all these topics and more, Unholy Trinity is the definitive history of a series of profoundly disturbing cover-ups involving the Holy See, Allen Dulles, the Swiss banks, and the remnants of the Third Reich.. – Amazon
ROTHSCHILD BANKING CARTEL AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE – MAPPING THE OCTOPUS – IRANIAN TV DOCUMENTARY
“In 1928, “the London Connection” decided to run Herbert Hoover for president of the United States. There was only one problem; although Herbert Hoover had been born in the United States, and was thus eligible for the office of the presidency, according to the Constitution, he had never had a business address or a home address in the United States, as he had gone abroad just after completing college at Stanford. The result was that during his campaign for the presidency, Herbert Hoover listed as his American address Suite 2000, 42 Broadway, New York, which was the office of Edgar Rickard. Suite 2000 was also shared by the grain tycoon and partner of J. Henry Schroder Banking Corporation, Julius H. Barnes. After Herbert Hoover was elected president of the United States, he insisted on appointing one of the old London crowd, Eugene Meyer, as Governor of the Federal Reserve Board. Meyer’s father had been one of the partners of Lazard Freres of Paris, and Lazard Brothers of London. Meyer, with Baruch, had been one of the most powerful men in the United States during World War I, a member of the famous Triumvirate which exercised unequalled power; Meyer as Chairman of the War Finance Corporation, Bernard Baruch as Chairman of the War Industries Board, and Paul Warburg as Governor of the Federal Reserve System. A longtime critic of Eugene Meyer, Chairman Louis McFadden of the House Banking and Currency Committee, was quoted in The New York Times, December 17, 1930, as having made a speech on the floor of the House attacking Hoover’s appointment of Meyer, and charging that “He represents the Rothschild interest and is liaison officer between the French Government and J.P. Morgan.” On December 18, The Times reported that “Herbert Hoover is deeply concerned” and that McFadden’s speech was “an unfortunate occurrence.” On December 20, The Times commented on the editorial page, under the headline, “McFadden Again”, “The speech ought to insure the Senate ratification of Mr. Meyer as head of the Federal Reserve. The speech was incoherent, as Mr. McFadden’s speeches usually are.” As The Times predicted, Meyer was duly approved by the Senate.”
Posted on by The Bernician With added images and links from Silview.media
In order to prove that the House of Rothschild was the hidden hand behind the founding of the Bank of International Settlements [BIS] in Basle, Switzerland – purportedly the central bank for the central banks, pictured above – the following facts need to be sustained with compelling evidence:
1. The men who founded BIS were working for or with the House of Rothschild when they founded the bank.
2. The governors of the central banks which became members of the BIS board of directors were working for or with the House of Rothschild in their financial policy-making.
3. The House of Rothschild has benefited, whether directly or indirectly, from any aspect of the business conducted by BIS.
BIS was founded by four men on 17/05/1930,: Hjalmar Schacht [Head of Reichsbank], Charles G Dawes [Chairman of City National Bank], Owen D Young [founder of RCA and chairman of General Electric] and Montague Norman [governor of the Bank of England and partner in JP Morgan].
From the founding of the bank until at least 1939, Schacht worked closely with Jacob Schiff, the Warburgs and Montague Norman, in funneling Wall Street and City of London money into Hitler’s rearmament program; as is documented in Professor Antony Sutton’s painstaking work, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler:
“In October 1931, Warburg received a letter from Hitler which he passed on to Carter at Guaranty Trust Company, and subsequently another bankers’ meeting was called at the Guaranty Trust Company offices. Opinions at this meeting were divided. “Sidney Warburg” reported that Rockefeller, Carter, and McBean were for Hitler, while the other financiers were uncertain.
Montague Norman of the Bank of England and Glean of Royal Dutch Shell argued that the $10 million already spent on Hitler was too much, that Hitler would never act. The meeting finally agreed in principle to assist Hitler further, and Warburg again undertook a courier assignment and went back to Germany.
On this trip Warburg reportedly discussed German affairs with “a Jewish banker” in Hamburg, with an industrial magnate, and other Hitler supporters.
One meeting was with banker von Heydt and a “Luetgebrunn.” The latter stated that the Nazi storm troopers were incompletely equipped and the S.S. badly needed machine guns, revolvers, and carbines.”
This evidence shows that the transfers of those funds into the accounts held in trust by BIS for Hitler’s regime were all facilitated by the Warburgs, a family which long ago assimilated itself into the House of Rothschild by marriage and without whom the Rothschild’s hand in world affairs would not have been capable of remaining hidden for so long.
It is therefore fair to deduce from this circumstantial evidence alone that the Warburgs were acting as Rothschild proxies in the financing of Hitler’s rise to power, in which they were aided and abetted by at least two of the four BIS founders, in Schacht and Norman.
Paul Warburg was also the driving force behind the creation of the US Federal Reserve, which congressman Charles Lindbergh described as: “…the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President [Wilson] signs this Bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalised… The greatest crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill.”
Warburg’s reward for bringing into being the U.S. Federal Reserve was to be its first chairman. While speaking before the House Committee on Banking and Currency in 1913, he confessed that, having emigrated to America in 1902, following an extensive education in international banking in Europe, he became a partner of Kuhn, Loeb & Co, which was to become a Rothschild-controlled shareholder of the American central bank.
It is self-evident that the education Warburg received was given by the Rothschilds, just as it was given to Jacob Schiff whilst he lived at their Frankfurt home before emigrating to America.
Between the American Civil War and the beginning of the First World War, the main U.S. agents of the Rothschild Empire were JP Morgan, Abraham Kuhn and Solomon Loeb. Newsweek magazine published a brief history of Kuhn, Loeb & Co on February 1st 1936, which stated:
“Abraham Kuhn and Solomon Loeb were general merchandise merchants in Lafayette, Indiana, in 1850. As usual in newly settled regions, most transactions were on credit. They soon found out that they were bankers…
In 1867, they established Kuhn, Loeb and Co., bankers, in New York City, and took in a young German immigrant, Jacob Schiff, as partner. Young Schiff had important financial connections in Europe.
After ten years, Jacob Schiff was head of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., Kuhn having retired. Under Schiff’s guidance, the house brought European capital into contact with American industry.”
Those European “financial connections” were the Rothschilds, in whose Frankfurt house Jacob Schiff was purportedly educated; and their German partners, the M.M. Warburg Company of Hamburg and Amsterdam, who were and remain but an extension of the same all-powerful banking house – Rothschild by anther name.
During the latter decades of the previous century, the Rothschilds provided John D. Rockefeller with enough finance to develop and dramatically expand his Standard Oil business. The mechanics of the investment were performed by the Warburgs and Jacob Schiff at Kuhn Loeb, who also financed Edward Harriman’s and Andrew Carnegie’s rail-road and steel empires; whilst JP Morgan’s empire was founded on credit extended by the Rothschild-controlled bank in New York.
It naturally follows that, on the basis that the names of Warburg, Morgan and Schiff are synonymous with that of Rothschild, the banking house is widely considered to have power, control or undue influence over every member of the Federal Reserve board, as well as the selection of its chairman.
In August 1976, the House Banking Committee Staff Report was published, detailing the history of the board members of the Federal Reserve, a portion of which can be seen below:
N.M. Rothschild , London - Bank of England
______________________________________
| |
| J. Henry Schroder
| Banking | Corp.
| |
Brown, Shipley - Morgan Grenfell - Lazard - |
& Company & Company Brothers |
| | | |
--------------------| -------| | |
| | | | | |
Alex Brown - Brown Bros. - Lord Mantagu - Morgan et Cie -- Lazard ---|
& Son | Harriman Norman | Paris Bros |
| | / | N.Y. |
| | | | | |
| Governor, Bank | J.P. Morgan Co -- Lazard ---|
| of England / N.Y. Morgan Freres |
| 1924-1938 / Guaranty Co. Paris |
| / Morgan Stanley Co. | /
| / | \Schroder Bank
| / | Hamburg/Berlin
| / Drexel & Company /
| / Philadelphia /
| / /
| / Lord Airlie
| / /
| / M. M. Warburg Chmn J. Henry Schroder
| | Hamburg --------- marr. Virginia F. Ryan
| | | grand-daughter of Otto
| | | Kahn of Kuhn Loeb Co.
| | |
| | |
Lehman Brothers N.Y -------------- Kuhn Loeb Co. N. Y.
| | --------------------------
µ
| | | |
8
| | | |
Lehman Brothers - Mont. Alabama Solomon Loeb Abraham Kuhn
| | __|______________________|_________
Lehman-Stern, New Orleans Jacob Schiff/Theresa Loeb Nina Loeb/Paul Warburg
------------------------- | | |
| | Mortimer Schiff James Paul Warburg
_____________|_______________/ |
| | | | |
Mayer Lehman | Emmanuel Lehman \
| | | \
Herbert Lehman Irving Lehman \
| | | \
Arthur Lehman \ Phillip Lehman John Schiff/Edith Brevoort Baker
/ | Present Chairman Lehman Bros
/ Robert Owen Lehman Kuhn Loeb - Granddaughter of
/ | George F. Baker
| / |
| / |
| / Lehman Bros Kuhn Loeb (1980)
| / |
| / Thomas Fortune Ryan
| | |
| | |
Federal Reserve Bank Of New York |
|||||||| |
______National City Bank N. Y. |
| | |
| National Bank of Commerce N.Y ---|
| | \
| Hanover National Bank N.Y. \
| | \
| Chase National Bank N.Y. \
| |
| |
Shareholders - National City Bank - N.Y. |
----------------------------------------- |
| /
James Stillman /
Elsie m. William Rockefeller /
Isabel m. Percy Rockefeller /
William Rockefeller Shareholders - National Bank of Commerce N. Y.
J. P. Morgan -----------------------------------------------
M.T. Pyne Equitable Life - J.P. Morgan
Percy Pyne Mutual Life - J.P. Morgan
J.W. Sterling H.P. Davison - J. P. Morgan
NY Trust/NY Edison Mary W. Harriman
Shearman & Sterling A.D. Jiullard - North British Merc. Insurance
| Jacob Schiff
| Thomas F. Ryan
| Paul Warburg
| Levi P. Morton - Guaranty Trust - J. P. Morgan
|
|
Shareholders - First National Bank of N.Y.
-------------------------------------------
J.P. Morgan
George F. Baker
George F. Baker Jr.
Edith Brevoort Baker
US Congress - 1946-64
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholders - Hanover National Bank N.Y.
------------------------------------------
James Stillman
William Rockefeller
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholders - Chase National Bank N.Y.
---------------------------------------
George F. Baker
The chart above first published 1976, reveals the linear connection between the Rothschilds and the Bank of England, and the London banking houses which ultimately control the Federal Reserve Banks through their stockholdings of bank stock and their subsidiary firms in New York. The two principal Rothschild representatives in New York, J. P. Morgan Co., and Kuhn,Loeb & Co. were the firms which set up the Jekyll Island Conference at which the Federal Reserve Act was drafted, who directed the subsequent successful campaign to have the plan enacted into law by Congress, and who purchased the controlling amounts of stock in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in 1914. These firms had their principal officers appointed to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Advisory Council in 1914. In 1914 a few families (blood or business related) owning controlling stock in existing banks (such as in New York City) caused those banks to purchase controlling shares in the Federal Reserve regional banks. Examination of the charts and text in the House Banking Committee Staff Report of August, 1976 and the current stockholders list of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks show this same family control. Source: Federal Reserve Directors: A Study of Corporate and Banking Influence. Staff Report, Committee on Banking,Currency and Housing, House of Representatives, 94th Congress, 2nd Session, August 1976.
In the event this table is accurate [and there is no reason to believe it is not], there is not one individual or bank or investment company included that could not be considered a Rothschild interest, whether by partnership, investment, lending, commissioning or founding, at the time the Federal Reserve Act was passed into law.
Back in 1907, before the creation of the Federal Reserve, Rothschild-controlled Kuhn Loeb chief, Jacob Schiff, warned the New York Chamber of Commerce that:
“…unless we have a Central Bank with adequate control of credit resources, this country is going to undergo the most severe and far reaching money panic in its history.”
Not long after this speech, the Rothschilds’ agents created a financial panic on Wall Street by making margin calls on the market’s biggest borrowers, just as Nathan Rothschild did by selling government bonds low in the aftermath of the Battle of Waterloo in 1815, both of which resulted in an enormous transfer of wealth to the international bankers during the financial panics that ensued.
Reflecting upon the 1907 panic, Paul Warburg, when speaking to the Banking and Currency Committee, confirmed that he was a driving force behind the Aldrich Plan for the creation of a privately owned US central bank:
“In the Panic of 1907, the first suggestion I made was, “let us have a national clearing house” [Central Bank]. The Aldrich Plan [for a Central Bank] contains many things that are simply fundamental rules of banking. Your aim must be the same.”
In addition to this compelling evidence of the hidden hand of Rothschild influence and control, the Telegraph newspaper published an article on 31/07/2013, detailing the revelations contained in documents released by the Bank of England, concerning the transfer of Czech gold to the Reichsbank BIS account. The article stated:
“The documents reveal a shocking story: just six months before Britain went to war with Nazi Germany, the Bank of England willingly handed over £5.6 million worth of gold to Hitler – and it belonged to another country.
The official history of the bank, written in 1950 but posted online for the first time on Tuesday, reveals how we betrayed Czechoslovakia – not just with the infamous Munich agreement of September 1938, which allowed the Nazis to annex the Sudetenland, but also in London, where Montague Norman, the eccentric but ruthless governor of the Bank of England agreed to surrender gold owned by the National Bank of Czechoslovakia.
The Czechoslovak gold was held in London in a sub-account in the name of the Bank for International Settlements, the Basel-based bank for central banks. When the Nazis marched into Prague in March 1939 they immediately sent armed soldiers to the offices of the National Bank. The Czech directors were ordered, on pain of death, to send two transfer requests.
The first instructed the BIS to transfer 23.1 metric tons of gold from the Czechoslovak BIS account, held at the Bank of England, to the Reichsbank BIS account, also held at Threadneedle Street.
The second order instructed the Bank of England to transfer almost 27 metric tons of gold held in the National Bank of Czechoslovakia’s own name to the BIS’s gold account at the Bank of England.”
In more simplistic terms, Montague Norman transferred 21 tonnes of Czech gold held by BIS in a Bank of England account, to a Reichsbank account it also held in trust at the English central bank, in order that his friend and fellow central bank head Schacht could finance the final stages of the rearmament of Hitler’s Germany; in addition to transferring 27 tonnes of Czech gold into another BIS account held at the Bank of England, for purposes we can realistically suppose were of a similar criminal nature.
Before any further investigations, it is already clear that Schacht and Norman, the governors of the Reichsbank and the Bank of England respectively, turned a blind eye to a massive theft of wealth from a sovereign nation, to provide arms for the Hitler’s Reich, for whom the drums of war had been beating since 1930. This was done in their unaccountable capacities as trustees of BIS national accounts.
Whilst there is a mountain of additional evidence, for the purposes of this essay, it has already been shown that, on the balance of probabilities, two of the four men who founded BIS were working for or with the House of Rothschild, on the ground that all of the money transferred to Schacht’s Reichbank was sent by Rothschild proxy, Jacob Schiff [or his agents] at Kuhn Loeb; whilst the gold transfer from the Bank of England was authorised by Schacht’s fellow BIS founder, Montague, who both must have known that Hitler’s troops had invaded Prague and that the Czech government would never have consented to gifting such a vast amount of gold to Hitler’s Reich and BIS at the time the transfer was sanctioned.
The only question remaining is whether the House of Rothschild has benefited from the operations of BIS, but the answer arises swiftly from a summary of the answers to the other two questions posed.
We have already established that Schacht and Montague co-founded BIS in 1930 and were carrying out Nazi money laundering operations for Rothschild interests, MM Warburg and Kuhn Loeb; and that Paul Warburg was appointed the first chairman of the Federal Reserve in 1914, after the Act he drafted was passed into law; so it is reasonable to assert that the House of Rothschild benefited from these events in the following ways:
1. A Rothschild agent was placed in charge of the issue of American credit, at the helm of a new privately owned US central bank, the board of which was entirely made up of the representatives of Rothschild interests. This meant that when the heads of the central banks were appointed to the BIS board of directors, Rothschild agents were guaranteed influence over the bank’s operations.
2. This sequence of events significantly increased Rothschild influence and power over both the US Government and the European nations who needed BIS to facilitate loans to their central banks in order to wage WWII; the evidence of which can still be seen today in the form of Donald Trump’s Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross, who worked for Rothschild Inc for three decades, as well as Rothschild controlled President Macron of France.
3. The House of Rothschild clearly used their agents, Schacht, Montague, Warburg and Schiff, to fund both sides in WWII in order to provide the circumstances required for the creation of the Zionist state of Israel; which could not have been achieved with such efficiency and secrecy without the participation of BIS, the sovereign bank which grants the protection of immunity from criminal prosecution to any Rothschild agent appointed to the board or to act as its representative, under the terms its Headquarters Agreement with the Swiss Federal Council. This allows Rothschild operations to be carried out above and beyond any legal jurisdiction or national government scrutiny.
There is a veritable plethora of evidence which would further substantiate the logical assertion that the Rothschilds have benefited, both directly and indirectly, from the operations of the Bank of International Settlements since its creation, but the compelling sources cited in the foregoing passages substantiate that in and of themselves.
The inescapable conclusion is therefore that BIS is and always has been a House of Rothschild interest, despite the fact that the evidence is disguised by the governors of the world’s central banks sitting on the board, every one of which is controlled in much the same way the Rothschilds control the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve. A rigged system in their favour, if ever there was one.
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 territory is the birthplace of the Chabad guru, rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, of the first mayor of Tel-Aviv and ofKlezmer music. Also a good home to Trotsky, for a while. It was meant to be a second Palestine, but Stalin ruined their plans. And the only gentile I know that got this far with his research on this topic was murdered.
The local population, the dead ones especially. The ones in the separatist regions and the South most specifically, as they’re the only Ukrainians shelled by Ukrainian Army rather than by the “invaders”. But the ripples are global and can be manipulated in more ways than we can imagine.
“Be cursed, Zelensky!” shout the Mariupol people you won’t see on JTV
Doesn’t that victimized local population include lots of Chabad / Jews?
Not quite, they’re mostly gone by now, but promise to return, as this Kharkov Chabad rabbi announced on April 22, 2022:
Who are the Jews of Ukraine, according to Chabad.org :
“Today, Ukraine boasts a thriving Jewish infrastructure that includes synagogues, mikvahs, a matzah bakery, Jewish schools and yeshivahs, and social services organizations. The first permanent post-Perestroika Chabad-Lubavitch emissaries to Ukraine arrived in 1990 to what was still the Soviet Union, and began leading the synagogues in Kharkov and Dnipro (Dnepropetrovsk until 2014) that had just been returned to the Jewish community by the authorities. Their work built on Chabad’s deep roots in the region, including decades of underground Jewish activism throughout the Soviet era. … Chabad maintains Jewish orphanages in Zhitomir—the children were evacuated farther west this week—Odessa, and Dnipro. It is far from only relief work that they are engaged in. As the quality of life in Ukraine has risen, so has the quality of Jewish life. Chabad maintains a Jewish university in Odessa and has built the largest Jewish center in the world in Dnipro. Kosher restaurants dot the country as well, signaling a level of material and spiritual comfort few could have predicted just a few decades ago. … According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Musuem, prior to Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, “Ukraine was home to the largest Jewish population in Europe… While scholars are still researching the scale of the Holocaust in Ukraine, they estimate at least one and a half million Jews were killed there.” The Nazis, with the help of local collaborators, gathered Ukraine’s Jews in local ghettos, but, for the most part, instead of deporting them to camps, shot them in forests and fields close to home. Such killing fields dot the entire Ukraine, with places such as Babi Yar outside of Kiev—where some 40,000 Jews were murdered—among the most well-known.
Many surviving Jews returned home after the war, and traces of the former Pale of Settlement were readily visible as late as the 1980s and early 90s. Back then, small, historically Jewish towns in western Ukraine still had synagogues and significant numbers of native Yiddish speakers, their concentration diminishing the farther east one went. When Chabad of Zhitomir was established in the early 1990s by Rabbi Shlomo and Esther Wilhelm, one of their responsibilities was to reach out to the dozens of smaller Jewish towns where throngs of older Jews still lived.” – Chabad.org
What I pictured so far suggests an ethnically targeted depopulation agenda and a revenge agenda that don’t argue, just may overlap with other agendas. A reverse pogrom.
Depop policies are not entirely new to them, Ukraine has hardly survived through Holodomor once, under the helms of Jews…
“Last July, the Ukrainian Security Service released a list of high-ranking Soviet state and Communist Party officials — as well as officials from NKVD, the police force of Soviet Russia — that essentially blamed Jews and Latvians responsible for perpetrating and executing the famine because most of the names on the list were Jewish.”
“Zelensky told reporters that he had asked Netanyahu to recognize as a genocide the 1932 Holodomor famine caused by Soviet policies, but Netanyahu did not.”
Rare documents and press reports tell a rare story.
A CRAZY HIDDEN STORY OF ROTHSCHILD-WARBURG PROTO-COMMUNISM
THE LIFE STORY OF SHMUEL YELISHEVITCH Related orally in Yiddish by Shmuel Yelishevitch in 1992, at the age of 92. This written record was translated simultaneously from Yiddish and written in Hebrew.[Translated by Chaim Freedman, 1998/9]
I was born in a Jewish house, father, mother and seven children. I was the youngest of the six sons and the daughter who was the firstborn. We lived in an old house on an estate called Azarevitch. The estate had a Russian landowner and we worked his land. When we built a larger house, my grandfather and grandmother continued to live in the old house. Grandfather was a religious Jew and attended the synagogue every day which was one kilometer from the house. One day, a severe winter day, on the way home from the synagogue he fell and broke his foot. Due to his inability to work he wanted to move to his son Gotlieb who lived close to the synagogue. Grandmother was afraid to sleep alone in the house at night. She paid me two kopecks per night so that I should stay with her. I was then aged six and grandmother told me each evening about the history of the family which is engraved in my memory.
The Colonies
The estate was founded in 1800 before which it was desolate. Rothschild, who was friendly with Queen Katerina was aware of the difficult life of the Jews in Polotsk and in Vitebsk and it was forbidden for them to live in the villages unless they were craftsmen. In the same period army service in Russia was by those who were abducted whose service was for twenty five years.
Rothschild approached the Queen Katerina and suggested to her to grant the Jews an area of land and he would finance the settlement of Jews there. The idea found favor with the queen, she visited the Ukraine, passed through the steppes and discovered that it was desolate and uncultivated. She suggested to Rothschild to accompany her and visit the area and it was decided to establish Jewish colonies in that area. She promulgated an order to divide the area such that each family would receive a plot of land and that those families who settled there would not be enlisted in the army.
That is how they established seventeen settlements of one to two hundred families each. The largest colony was called Bakher3. Others were called Latent4, Engels, Myadler, Peness, Di Vilner, Kabilni, Gravskoy, these were on one side.On the other side there were, amongst them, Horkes, Nazrivka ( in Yiddish Azeritch where I was born), Priud, Kavalevsk, Haloshkas, Pervi (2) numer, Dritten (3) numer, Numer (4) Ferten numer, Hopalover. In between an area of sixty kilometers there were also Russian villages. Every family received forty kilometers of land, a two-family house and next to it for each family, a dunam of land to grow household needs. Two thousand dunams was left in reserve for family expansion.
The inspection tour of the new Jewish colonies made by Felix M. Warburg and his party came to a close today with a visit to the Julius Rosenwahl Colony.
Of the 136 new Jewish colonies, 27 were visited by, Mr Warburg, who was accompanied by James II. Becker, Dr. Bernard Kahn and Dr. Joseph A. Rosen, head of the Agro-joint in Russia. In addresses to the settlers, Mr. Warburg expressed his pleasure at the rate of development and at the energy and efficiency of the colonists and the management of the Agro-joint, the agency of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee responsible for the colonization work.
And these two had more brothers, one of them, called Max, was dealing i the same money and people trafficking business “niche”:
“Together with his brother Felix M. Warburg, who was a successful banker in the U.S., Max M. Warburg organized financial aid for Jews in Eastern Europe. As the war led to increasing antisemitism, Warburg started to ask officials to protect Jews against discrimination. During the war Warburg came to be one of the leading figures to advise German politicians, diplomats, and the military in financial matters. In October 1918 he was appointed a financial advisor to the chancellor (Reichskanzler) Prinz Max von Baden. In 1919, Warburg served the German delegates during the negotiations on the Versailles peace treaty as an economic specialist. Warburg preferred to keep a low profile. When Walther *Rathenau asked him in early 1922 to join the cabinet (Reichsregierung) as minister of finance he refused, saying that two Jewish ministers would be too much for Germany. After the assassination of Rathenau the murderers planned also to kill Warburg. In 1924 he was appointed a member of the board (Generalrat) of the Reichsbank. The Warburg Bank was still one of the most important banking companies in Germany. From the late 1920s on Warburg intensified his interest in Zionism.
From World War I on, his brothers Felix M. and Paul M. Warburg opened the doors to the leading financial circles in North America for their brother. This was – again – especially helpful, when Germany urgently needed fresh capital during the world economic crisis between 1930 and 1932. After the Nazis came to power in Germany, the Warburg Bank came under increasing pressure. Max M. Warburg focused on helping Jewish emigrants to get their money out of Germany via the Palaestina-Treuhand GmbH. After the Warburg Bank was closed by the National Socialists, Warburg himself immigrated in 1938 to New York, where he died.”
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
M.M. Warburg, Aus meinen Erinnerungen (1952, edited by Eric M. Warburg); E. Rosenbaum et al., Das Bankhaus M.M. Warburg & Co. 1798 bis 1938 (1976); R. Chernow, The Warburgs (1993).
On December 15, 1931, Chairman McFadden informed the House of a dispatch in the Public Ledger of Philadelphia, October 24, 1931, “GERMAN REVEALS HOOVER’S SECRET. The American President was in intimate negotiations with the German government regarding a year’s debt holiday as early as December, 1930.” McFadden continued,
“Behind the Hoover announcement there were many months of hurried and furtive preparations both in Germany and in Wall Street offices of German bankers. Germany, like a sponge, had to be saturated with American money. Mr. Hoover himself had to be elected, because this scheme began before he became President. If the German international bankers of Wall Street — that is Kuhn Loeb Company, J. & W. Seligman, Paul Warburg, J. Henry Schroder — and their satellites had not had this job waiting to be done, Herbert Hoover would never have been elected President of the United States.
The election of Mr. Hoover to the Presidency was through the influence of the Warburg Brothers, directors of the great bank of Kuhn Loeb Company, who carried the cost of his election. In exchange for this collaboration Mr. Hoover promised to impose the moratorium of German debts. Hoover sought to exempt Kreuger’s loan to Germany of $125 million from the operation of the Hoover Moratorium. The nature of Kreuger’s swindle was known here in January when he visited his friend, Mr. Hoover, in the White House.”
Eustace Mullins – Secrets of the Federal Reserve London Connection
From Wikipedia: Kuhn, Loeb & Co. was an American multinational investment bank founded in 1867 by Abraham Kuhn and his brother-in-law Solomon Loeb.[1] Under the leadership of Jacob H. Schiff, Loeb’s son-in-law, it grew to be one of the most influential investment banks in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, financing America’s expanding railways and growth companies, including Western Union and Westinghouse, and thereby becoming the principal rival of J.P. Morgan & Co.
In the years following Schiff’s death in 1920, the firm was led by Otto Kahn and Felix Warburg, men who had already solidified their roles as Schiff’s able successors. However, the firm’s fortunes began to fade following World War II, when it failed to keep pace with a rapidly changing investment banking industry, in which Kuhn, Loeb’s old-world, genteel ways, did not seem to fit; the days of the gentleman-banker had passed.
Kuhn, Loeb & Co. was an investment bank located in New York City. It was founded in 1867, by Abraham Kuhn and Solomon Loeb. Kuhn and Loeb had created a successful merchandising business in Cincinnati, Ohio, when they decided to move east, to New York, to take advantage of the country’s burgeoning economic expansion. Company records indicate that by the time Kuhn and Loeb established their partnership, they were able to capitalize it at $500,000 (equivalent of about $9.7 million in 2021). On January 1, 1875, Jacob Schiff (1847–1920), Solomon Loeb’s son-in-law, joined the firm. He eventually became its leader and grew the firm into the second most prestigious investment bank in the United States behind J. Pierpont Morgan’s J.P. Morgan & Co. ….
It also acted as the leading investment house for John D. Rockefeller, through the guidance of his investment adviser, Frederick T. Gates. Rockefeller invested in many syndicates with the bank, including major stakes in the prominent railroad companies, as well as contributing to its consolidation of the Chicago meatpackers, which resulted in the formation of a leading trust. Overseas ventures that Rockefeller also got involved with included the bank’s loans to the Chinese and Imperial Japanese governments.
The firm also joined a partnership with Rockefeller in 1911 to gain control of the Equitable Trust Company, which was later to merge and become the Chase Bank.[2]
In its early years, intermarriage among the German-Jewish elite was common. Consequently, the partners of Kuhn, Loeb were closely related by blood and marriage to the partners of J & W Seligman, Speyer & Co., Goldman, Sachs & Co., Lehman Brothers and other prominent German-Jewish firms. Prior to the Second World War, a particularly close relationship existed between the partners of Kuhn, Loeb and M. M. Warburg & Co. of Hamburg, Germany, through Paul and Felix, who were Kuhn, Loeb partners. Later on, following World War II, their cousin Sigmund Warburg would briefly continue this relationship as a partner and Executive Director of the firm…
Although the Kuhn, Loeb name is probably gone forever, the firm’s legacy is not. Former Kuhn, Loeb employees remain in senior positions throughout Wall Street, and until recently, at Lehman Brothers. Vestiges of the firm survived in the form of Lehman Brothers’ extensive fixed income capabilities, including many of their bond indices, such as the Government/Credit index. This index, originally created in 1973 by Kuhn, Loeb, as the Government/Corporate index, was among the first generation of bond index data to measure the fixed income market. It is still the preeminent benchmark in its class.
Then came Purim. Firstly we baked Homentashen, filled with poppy seed, with raisins, with plums. We went to Shule `to kill’ Haman. The children used their `Gregers'(# noisemakers) when they heard his `holy’name. In the morning we sent `Sholekh Mones’. On two trays were arranged all sorts of good things, covered with a white cloth. The children took firstly to Grandfather and Grandmother. Father and mother had sent `Sholokh Mones’. Grandmother took off the trays what the children had brought and put all sorts of her good things. And Grandfather gave a few koppecks. We felt so rich, like Rothschild. We went home happy.
THE MEMOIRS OF ROKHEL LUBAN Rokhel Luban was born in 1898 in the Jewish agricultural colony called Trudoliubovka (also known to the Jews as Engels) in the government of Yekaterinoslav in the southeastern Ukraine.
The latest population estimate for Ukraine is 42,800,000.
As of 1 January 2016, the core Jewish population of Ukrainians was estimated to be 56,000 (0.13% of the wider population) and the enlarged Jewish population was estimated at 140,000.
An estimated 200,000 Ukrainians qualify for Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return.
The largest Jewish population centres in Ukraine are Kiev, Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov and Odessa.
The paragraph below is from Introduction to the Study of the Jewish Agricultural Colonies in the Ukraine by Chaim Freedman, written in 2005. Since then, under the lead of Sylvia Walowitz, Jewish Gen has added a large digital database Courland-Kherson Jewish Relocation 1837-1840 (lists searchable in Latvia and Ukraine databases on Jewish Gen http://www.jewishgen.org).
“In the late 18th century large areas of territories in south-east Ukraine came under the control of the Russian Tsarist regime. At that time this area was known as Novorussia (New Russia) and was divided roughly into three Guberniyas (provinces): Kherson, Yekaterinoslav and Tavritch (the latter included the Crimean peninsula and part of the adjacent mainland). The Russian government was anxious to develop this region by settlement from the rest of the Russian Empire. At the same time the government sought a way to relieve itself of the so-called “Jewish Question”, particularly in what are now Lithuania, Latvia and Belarus. With the accession of Tsar Alexander the First, legislation was passed to define and partially relieve the situation of the Jews. One objective of this legislation was to encourage Jews to leave the crowded and economically poor centers in the north and establish new settlements in Novorussia. Those Jews who qualified to be included in this enterprise were promised financial support to set up agricultural colonies, with the added incentive of exemption from military service (the period of exemption changed at various times throughout the 19th century).”
Russian Jewish agricultural colonies became models for communal agricultural efforts worldwide. Karl Marx cited the kolonii as examples of workers taking control and lifting themselves up through hard work.Zionists in the early 20th century used Russian kolonii as models for Kibbutzim in Israel, particularly in the Second Aliyah after 1904. After the Russian Revolution of 1917, the Bolshevik government carried out collectivization efforts during 1920–1938, see Komzet and OZET. Many kolonii became kolkhozes during this period.
Mykolaiv has had a Jewish population since its founding, and Jewish laborers were involved in its construction. Aside from construction work, many merchants came to the city in order to build businesses selling to the Navy and its sailors. However, Jews were banned from Mykolaiv from 1829-1859, during the reign of the arch-conservative Emperor Nicholas I.
Mykolaiv’s most famous son is Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902-1994), probably the most important religious figure in 20th century Judaism. His family moved to Yekaterinoslav (Dnipro) in 1907 when his father became the city’s Rabbi. As an adult, he studied in Berlin before the Nazis took power, then went to Paris, where he stayed until the Nazis followed him there as well. The Rebbe escaped to New York on the very eve of the Nazi conquest of Paris. In 1950, he succeeded his father in law to become the seventh leader of Chabad-Lubavitch.
The Rebbe was most influential through his innovations in the field of Kiruv, or outreach. Chabad Houses are found all over the world, and their members are a frequent site handing out shabbat candles and helping men wrap tefilin. Their website is a fantastic resource for Jewish learning as well. Chabad emissaries were sent to Ukraine after the fall of the Soviet Union in order to rebuild Jewish life and most synagogues in the country are Chabad-affiliated. His enormous personal magnetism allowed him to build relationships both across the spectrum of Jewish observance and into the non-Jewish world.
Another famous Jew, though one with a more spotted reputation, who passed through Mykolaiv was Leon Trotsky. Trotsky moved to Mykolaiv as a young adult and began his career as a revolutionary organizing other workers here in 1896. He would later go on to lead the Bolshevik Red Army during the Civil War and was a favored candidate to succeed Lenin, but lost the power struggle to Joseph Stalin. He would then go into exile in Mexico before Stalin had him assassinated.
KHERSON
Located at the mouth of the Dnipro River, the most important trade and transport artery in Ukraine, Kherson was originally envisioned as the heart of the Russian Empire’s expansion on the Black Sea Coast. So much so that it is the final resting place of Grigory Potemkin, the Prince who oversaw the conquest and colonization of the region. However, the Dnipro estuary proved to be too shallow to be as useful of a port, so the city became eclipsed by neighboring Mykolaiv and Odessa.
The Map of Jewish Agricultural Colonies of Kherson Guberniya Ed. note: The colony Vol’naya is not specified on a map because of its isolated position. This colony was located north west of Odessa. SOURCE
Jews settled in Kherson as soon as the city was founded, and soon made up a large percentage of the city’s merchants. Lumber and grain export were the largest businesses. Outside of the city itself, Kherson region hosted several Jewish agricultural colonies.
The main synagogue of the city, located at Teatralna Street 27, was originally constructed in 1895, but was burned down during the Nazi occupation. After renovating the building, the Soviet authorities turned it into a dormitory for workers at the Petrovsky factory, then later a ward for treating alcoholics. It was handed back to the Jewish community after Ukrainian independence in 1991. It is now renovated and fully operational, with a school and several community organizations.
Kherson oblast is the second least densely populated in Ukraine, and is home to many sites for nature tourism. These include Oleshky Sands, the largest desert in Europe, Askania Nova Nature Preserve, Dzharylhak National Nature Park, and the Dead Sea-like salt pools surrounding Lake Syvash.
Melitopol is a moderately sized city in the south of Zaporizhia Oblast that has some of the oldest archaeological finds in Ukraine. The Kamyana Mohyla site, in the outlying village of Myrne, was a religious site from the Neolitic era up through the Medieval period. Before the Russian conquest, the city was a fortified town of the Nogai Turks called Kyzyl-Yar. As the Russian Empire took over the lands of the Crimean Khanate, it became a small village occupied by Cossack families.
In 1842, Melitopol was given its status as a city along with its name, which is Greek for Honey City. Melitopol is still famous for producing honey, as well as cherries. By the late 19th century, it was roughly 40% Jewish. While nearly all of Melitopol’s Jews were killed in the Holocaust and the city is now predominantly ethnic Ukrainian and Russian, they are proud of their diverse roots and are a participant in the Council of Europe’s Intercultural City Program.
Melitopol Synagogue is located on Interkulturna Street, in between Chernyshevs’koho and Mykhaila Hrushevskoho. There is also a memorial to Holocaust victims and the Righteous Among Nations. The statue is, in part dedicated to Vera and her Alla Zemtseva, who rescued Zhanna Tsyparska from the fascists.
Although a settlement existed on the site in ancient times, the history of the modern city began in the 14th century when the Tatarfortress of Khadzhibey was established there; it later passed to Lithuania-Poland and in 1480 to Turkey. The fortress was stormed by the Russians in 1789 and the territory ceded to Russia in 1792. A new fortress was built in 1792–93, and in 1794 a naval base and commercial quay were added. In 1795 the new port was named Odesa for the ancient Greek colony of Odessos, the site of which was believed to be in the vicinity.
Tatars are a Turkic nomadic population related to Khazars, and the two could’ve been easily mistaken one for another by ancient historians.
This stream of immigration carried Jews in large numbers into the city. Eventually this would give Odessa one of the largest concentrations of urban Jews to be found anywhere in the world. During the period from 1815 to 1861, the Jewish population rose from under four thousand to well over seventeen thousand individuals. In 1854, seven thousand Jews were citizens of Odessa, while six thousand other Jewish residents were officially considered to belong to other Russian towns. An English traveler observed: “The Jews form the largest portion of the foreign population. … A few are very rich and engage in the banking business; many make large purchases of imported goods from the foreign merchants and sell them retail in their own shops. … Not only did Odessa offer Jews unprecedented economic opportunities and freedom to pursue their own cultural interests, but its liberal atmosphere allowed them some participation in political affairs—a rare prerogative in tsarist Russia. In the 1850s, eleven Jews served in city offices. Both Vorontsov and his successor Stroganov insisted that Jews participate fully in all aspects of the city’s life. This steady influx linked the urban population through familial and other networks with the Jewish settlements in the hinterland. This laid the basis for still more massive immigration after 1861. ”
Patricia Herlihy, “Odessa: A History 1794-1914”. Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts
ODESSA ACCORDING TO Cultural Guide to European Jewry – JGuideEurope
Established in 1794, Odessa was captured by Admiral de Ribas from the Turks for Empress Catherine II of Russia. The city developed rapidly during the nineteenth century, largely due to the arrival of colonists from “New Russia”. It soon became a melting pot of Russians, French, Armenians, Poles, Greeks, Moldavians, and Jews. Forbidden to reside in Saint Petersburg, Moscow or Kiev, Jews poured into the southern Russian cities of Odessa and Nikolayev, eventually constituting a third of their population before the Second World War. Even today, Odessa still bears their mark.
A Jewish city
An Odessan was asked one day, -How many people live in Odessa? -One million. -And how many of them are Jews? -I just told you. One million. You see, in people’s minds, “Odessan” and “Jews” are often confused.
Jewish Odessa began at the Greek Square (“Gretsk, that’s what they call the street where the Jews do business”, Sholem Aleichem wrote), Alexandrovski Prospect, the old marketplace, and the streets named Evreiskya, Bazamaya, and Malaya-Arnautskaya. It continued on the other side of Preobrajenska Street, down Tiraspolskaya to Staroportofrankovskaya streets, and beyond that to the neighborhood by the train station. It covered the entire Moldavanka suburb, where the famous Privoz market is found, and ended at the Slobodka district, where the deportation convoys waited during the German-Romanian occupation. The Jewish quarter encompassed a tremendous area, in other words, stretching from downtown all the way to the western and northern suburbs. Before the war, 350000 Jews lived here. They number no more than 50000 today.
Odessa, between yesterday and today
Today, only 3% of Odessa’s population is Jewish, approximately 30000 people. However, the city is still seen as one of Europe’s Jewish capitals. When, in 1916, Isaac Babel, wrote about a “city built by Jews”, he didn’t only refer to the number of Jews, but also to the general atmosphere, tolerant toward minorities.
Recently, archaeologists unveiled Jewish tombs dating from 1770, thus proving that a Jewish community existed there before Odessa’s creation. Indeed, in the 18th century, Jews were salt dealers in this province, that was then known under the name Hadjibey. According to the records, before its conquest by Iossif Derbos, about 10 Jews lived in this region. A hundred year later, there were 138000. The first Jewish inhabitants of Odessa came from the Russian Empire’s shtetls, and from the well-known city of Brody in Galicia. A lots of Jews bore the name of the shtetl they originated from.
The first Jewish inhabitants of Odessa were attracted by the privileges offered by the Russian Empire to the volunteers willing to settle in South Russia. For the Jewish community, it meant escaping the oppression they suffered from in the rest of the Empire. In Odessa, Jews were almost equal to other citizens. Therefore, 100 years after its creation, one third of Odessa’s population was Jewish, and became known as “the star of exile”, as Babel described the zionist movement in the city. Let’s add that leaving the shtetl for Odessa meant -in general- an increased quality of life. For some, the possibility of emigrating to Palestine, from a dream, became a reality. The frequent pogroms also fostered the rise of zionism in Odessa. Still, in 1941, half of the population was Jewish.
Life in the different quarters of the city
To the difference of many cities in the Russian Empire, Odessa didn’t have a Jewish quarter. Although some locations such as Moldavanka, Yevreyskaya, Bazarnaya, and Malaya Arnautskaya were at the center of the everyday community life. Being from small communities, the Jewish population tended to reproduce in Odessa the structural system they knew in the shtetl. Everyday life evolved around the synagogue, the mikveh, the school, the kosher butchery and charitable organizations. The first community newspaper was published in 1795.
The community elite was personified by Brodsky’s Jews, seen as the most educated, wealthy and liberals. In general, the European aspiration of the Brodsky Jews, the fact that Odessa was geographically far away from the centers of Judaism, the diversity if nationalities and social classes composing the city : all those elements explain why Odessa’s community was unique.
At the beginning of the 20th century, Odessa became the biggest market for exchanges and buisinesses in South Russia. Jews managed 90% of the seed export business ; owned 50% of the factories ; produced the white stones that served to the city’s construction ; the Korelsky family managed the biggest tobacco factory of the Empire etc…On the other side, one third of the city’s Jews lived in poverty.
The “Gate to Zion”
Historian Steven Zipperstein notes that the history of Odessa’s Jewish community is closer to the one of San Francisco than the one of Kiev. In this port city, the Jews lived without the constraints and limitations of the Russian Empire. They were not isolated and were an active part of the city’s life. The language barrier didn’t apply as well. However, at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, the tolerant and multicultural Odessa was nicknamed “Gate to Zion”. Indeed, it became one of the centers of the zionist movement, and the city where thousands of Jews left to Palestine.
The center of the zionist activity was the “Palestine Committee”. This organization helped the relocation of farm workers and craftsmen in Palestine. The committee was initiated in the 1880s by Lev Pinsker, Ahad Haam, Bialik, Klauzner, or Ben Ami were also part of the board. The members also raised funds to buy lands in Palestine. The land were the Hebraic University of Jerusalem was built was purchased by the committee. This is why Lev Pinsker was displaced there in 1934.
One of the most active members of this committee, Meir Dizengoff, was the first mayor of Tel Aviv. This is merely a coincidence. In some respect, Tel Aviv was built in Odessa. Lilienblum, one the yishuv first journalist, wrote that in Odessa, Jews arrived to the shores of the black sea, built a city and developed a port. If they were able to to that in Odessa, they would achieve their goal on the shores of the Mediterranean as well.
Another center of the zionist activity was the Brodsky synagogue. Around 70 houses were built through fund raising executed by the synagogue. Those buildings were the first of the future city of Nes Ziona.
To properly prepare the future emigrants, an Hebrew-only school was opened in 1903. In the same time, the publishing house Moria published school books in Hebrew and sends them to Tel Aviv.
From 1919 to 1927, the boat Ruslan shipped a numerous part of the Odessa intelligentsia to Palestine. Among them, lots were about to become the leaders of the future Israel.
The State Archives of Odessa Region (SAOF) is one of the largest archives in Southern Ukraine. Document holdings include more than 13,100 fonds (record groups) consisting of more than 2,009,604 files. These documents date back to the end of the eighteenth century until the present and reflect the history of the City of Odessa, Odessa Region and Southern Ukraine (formerly Novorussia). A large number of these documents are concerned with Jewish history.
The State Archives of Odessa Region was founded in 1920 as the Odessa Historical Archives. Its main function was the collection of archival documents in the territory of Odessa and Odessa Guberniya (Province), control under departmental archives, responsibility for the safety of valuable materials and the researching and publication of documents. Many famous scientists, public leaders and officials took part in the establishment of the state archival system in Odessa Region.
SAOR began with 22 fonds and collections from various organizations, agencies, religious institutions that concluded their activities after the revolution.
The main fonds of the pre-revolutionary period were:
• Administration of Novorussia and Bessarabia Governor-General • Odessa City Chief • Odessa City Council • Guardianship Committee for Foreign Settlers in Southern Russia • Odessa Police Office • Commercial Court • Banks • Odessa Port Offices and Customs • Novorussijsky University, colleges and schools • Building organizations • Cultural Societies
Jewish materials were represented as separate parts of those finds (Jewish sections) or in common management records.
From the mid 1920s until 1940, the Odessa Archive received 33 fonds from Jewish institutions, including:
• Odessa Affiliate of the Committee of Society for the Spreading of Learning Among the Jews in Russia • Private Banks of Ashkenazi and Barbash • Odessa City Rabbi
• Talmud Torah • College for Artisans of Society “Trud” (Labor”), KOMZET, ORTVERBAND • Odessa Pedagogical Jewish College
These fonds were of great interest to researchers. During this time, there was open support and acceptance of various ethnic groups. In 1931, the Jewish section in the Odessa Archives was established; the Search Room opened in 1927 and scientists received extensive access to documents. The first Odessa historians working with Jewish records were:
• S. Borovoj (“Jewish Colonies in Novorussia, 1830-1840”) • L. Strizhak (“Economic state of the Jews in the Steppe Ukraine”) • A. Buzhevich (Jewish Commissions, 1882”) • D. Rishman (“History of Jews in Novorussia”) • A. Reminik (“Jewish Theatre”
The academician, M. Slabchenko, prepared the materials of Zhaporozje Sich Kosh for publication and located Jewish records among them; but the research and qualified description of them was made by the a young scientist, Saul Borovoj. In 1940, S., Borovoj defended a doctoral dissertation on the subject of “Studying the History of Jews in Ukraine, XVI-XVIII centuries.”
With the beginning of World War II and German-Romanian occupation of Odessa in 1941, a major portion of the documents were evacuated to Stalingrad and later to the town of Uralsk in the West Kazakhstan Region. In Odessa, the City Chief Alexianu ordered the liquidation of “all Soviet garbage” and to convert the archives into a horse stable. The Director of the Archives, G. Serbsky, did not obey and valuable documents were salvaged. Replacements and evacuations led to irrecoverable waste; more than one million files (50% were lost during the war. Jewish fonds also suffered very much. For example, documents destroyed included great portions of materials of:
• Odessa City Rabbi (320-819 files) • Odessa Affiliate of the Committee of Society of the Spread of Learning Amount the Jews in Russia (462-495 files) • Odessa House of Jewish • Culture (82-84 files, and others
In April 1944, SAOR renewed its work in Odessa. After the war, there were not significant incoming Jewish materials other than some private fonds. Since 1990, SAOR has begun the process of declassifying about 900 fonds of German-Romanian Occupying Administrative and other Institutions. These files contain information about the creation of 139 concentration camps and ghettos in”Transnistra,” names of the imprisoned Jews and the policy of genocide.
In 1992, SAOR included records of the former Archives of Odessa Regional Committee of the Communist Party of the USSR (more than 6,000 fonds), including Jewish fonds such as:
• Odessa Region and City Committees of Poalei-Zion • Odessa Region Committee of Jewish Communist Union of Youth • Editorial Office of the newspaper “Kommunistische Stimme” and others.
From 1945 until the early 1990s, scientists did not conduct special research on Jewish history. In spite of the fact that Jewish fonds were not secret, there was not any information about them in the Guide to Odessa Archives published in 1961.
Interest in this subject developed from the beginning of the 1990s. During the last 13 years, fifteen foreign researchers, representing scientific center in Germany, Israel, USA, Canada and Japan as well as Ukrainian historians and others have made great contributions to Jewish history using extensive archival sources.
The historical focus on national minorities in Novorussia is one of the main directions of activity in the Odessa Archives in recent years. Materials on Jewish history were presented at some exhibits at the Odessa Historical and Literary Museums. In 2000, the complete register of fonds and collections, including Jewish ones, for pre-revolution period was published, Also, some databases were created including:
• Name Indexes of the Odessa Jews on Materials of the First All-Russian Census in 1897 (not complete) • Odessa Board for Small Businesses, 1894-1918
The name and thematic catalogs of Jews were also brought up to date. SAOR participates in the international program “Documents on History and Culture of Jews in Archives of Ukraine” (Ukraine-Russia-USA).
One of the recent projects of the Odessa Archives is an archeographical edition of Jews of Odessa and Southern Ukraine: History in Documents (End of XVIII-Beginning of XX Century). The book was prepared with support from the Odessa department of the “Joint” and was published in 2003. The book includes:
1
Survey of 72 basic fonds of the Odessa Archives for pre-revolutionary and Soviet periods which contain documents on Jewish history (33 fonds of Jewish institutions, 24 fonds of administrative, court, statistics, customs and other institutions that were related to the subject and 15 private fonds). Description of every fond provides information about inclusive dates and quantity of files, varieties and contents of documents in general.
2
Documental Digest. 250 documents on pre-revolutionary history of Jews are represented on 12 thematical lines including:
• Legislation on Jews, State policy and the Jewish subject in the Russian Empire • Settlement in Novorussia, Jewish colonies, migration and emigration • Trade, industry, banks • Educational movements; science • Religious and moral life • Charity • Medical institutions and societies • Publishing business • Jewish pogroms • Army service • Participation in revolution movements • Criminal world
Document examples • Regulation for Jews (April 13, 1835) • Directions of Higher Authorities about the foundation of the Commission for Education of Jews (1842) • Abolition of kahals (1844) • Settlement of Jews on State lands (1847) • Prohibition of special Jewish clothes (1851) • Visits to police office on day off (1852) • Election order for Jews (1857) • Registration Rules for Jews – foreign subjects (1880) • Materials of the Commission on the Jewish Problem (1881) • Directions regarding admission of Jews to universities (1913) • Circular of the Ministry of Jewish Affairs regarding election to Jewish public boards (1818) • Information about resettling Jews from Podolia to Kherson Guberniyas and the number of Jewish colonies (1835-1839) • Project of some merchants from Kremenchug, Pavlograd and Uman to establish a model Jewish colony of Michailsdorf in Bessarabia (1840) • Report of the Governor-General M.S. Vorontsov regarding reformation of the Jews in Russia (1844) • Appointment of the Mennonite Quenzer to the post of Chief in the colony of Gromokleva (1857) • Conflict and fighting between the Jews and Gypsies in Rezina (Bessarabia) • Activities of the Odessa Society for Relief to Jews, Peasants and Artisans in Syria and Palestine (1888) • Jewish Colonization Society (1892) • Emigration from Odessa to Argentina (1895) • Inclusion of Jews to the Odessa merchants and petty bourgeois • Foundation of A. Rafalovich’s firm (1850) • Society for Bilateral Aid to Jewish counterman (manager) (1862) • Registration of owners of manufacturing enterprises in Odessa (1898) • Information about activities of the M. Ashkenazi firm (1898) • S. Barbash’s bank (1915) • Materials about the Foundation of the Jewish College for Boys in Odessa (1826) • Odessa Jewish Society “Beseda” (Converse”) (1863) • Society for Bilaterial Aid to the Jewish teachers in Novorussia (1866) • Activities of the Talmud Tora in Odessa (1877) • Statistical information about Jewish students in the Novorussijsky University (1881) • Establishing of S. Gurovich and R. Khari scholarships at Odessa Commercial College (1888, 1892) • Activities of the Society “Trud” (1895-1901) • Odessa Affiliate of the Committee of Society of the Spread of Learning among Jews in Russia (1897) • Cheders in Ekaterinoslav and Tavrich Provinces (1903) • Building of the Second Talmud Torah in Odessa (1904) • Activities of Societies of “Ivrija” (1907) • Lovers of Jewish Language (1907) • Club “The Jewish Public Meeting” (1908) • Odessa Jewish Public Nachman Byalik Library “Seifer” (1919) • The College “Yeshivot” (1915-1916) • Documents about the number of synagogues and houses of prayer in Odessa (1840) • Commendation to the Rabbi of the colonies of Novo-Vitebsk, Novo- Podolsk and Novo-Kovno – Rabbi Benjamin Knyazhik with gold medal for good service (1862) • Registration of 63 synagogues and houses of prayer in Odessa with dates of foundation and addresses (1890-1894) • Materials about parishioners of the Brodsky Synagogue (1892-1894) • Statute of the Odessa Society for Jews Converted to the (Russian) Orthodox Faith (1894 • Birth entry of David Oustrach (1908) • Information about the Jewish Hospital in Odessa (1832,1854) • Establishing of the Iosif Valtuch Orthopedic Institute (1888) • Klara Weinberg’s Medical Center for Vaccination against smallpox (1893) • Documents about prohibition of the merchant Aksenfeld to open a printing house in Odessa (1852) • Program of the first magazine for Jews in Russian “Rassvet” (*1860) • Information about edition of “Hamelitz (1867) • “Kadima” (1906) • “Unser Leben” (1912) • “Jewish Anecdotes” (1916 • Materials from the editorial collection of Sergey Stern • Materials about the establishment of:
• Odessa Jewish Charity Society (1866) • Kogan’s House (1873) • Jewish Hospice (1880)
• Benefections of A. Brodsky, R. Khari, OKhais, M. Morgulis, M. Rabinovich, Rafalovich, Katzen, Luisa Ashkenazi and others for Jewish orphans (1866-1898) • Activities of the Societies of “Druzhelyubije” [“Friendship”] (1898) • Central Jewish Registration Bureau • Reports and notes of the extraordinary Odessa Governor-General, gubernial authorities and Odessa City Chief about pogroms in Odessa and Novorussia in 1881, 1886, 1905 • Evidence from witnesses including Rosa Drutman’s statement about the murder of the Veitzman family in 1905. • Information about the liberation of Jewish students from military service (1844) • Drafting of Jewish peasants who were avoiding military service (1847) • Materials about legal proceedings charging E. Kenis with abetting Jews in avoiding military service (1885-1888). • Materials from the police court case of David Bronstein (Lev Trotsky) arrested for revolutionary activities in Nikolayev (1898) • Reports of police officers about participation of Jews in revolutionary developments, court materials accusing M. Bogomolny with having illegal Bund and Poalei-Zion literature (1904) • Activities of the Jewish Self-Defense guard in Moldavanka [Odessa] (1906) • Relationship of cadets (political party) to the “Jewish Problem” (1908) • Reports of Police and Customs authorities about the Jews engaged in contraband, forgery, prostitution (international), discreditable practices with securities, etc.
3
Genealogical Chapter, Fond 359: Odessa Board for Small Business, Jewish Section, 1894-1918 (alphabetical name index of 4,505 heads of Jewish families that had a status of Odessa Meshchanin (petty bourgeois) with address locations.
Page 179 from the above book with an alphabetical name index of 4,505 heads of Jewish families. Information includes name, address, date of birth, age and list number.
Genealogical research is a way to examine the facts through the history of families and to determine the place of an individual in society and his influence on the world. This is an important research focus in order to understand the historical period, its affect on individual families and our place in history.
For example, family history research for the Odessa petty bourgeois Krakhmalnikovs revealed an engrossing story of the development of confectionary production that began in 1892 as a factory and trade firm “The Krakhmalnikov Brothers” and continues to operate now as the Joint Stock Company “Odessa.” By the way, descendants of this family now live in the USA after emigrating from Odessa in 1906. Some family members continue in this occupational field including Bruce Kreig, a grandson of Abram Krakhmalnikov. While he is a professor of Archeology at Chicago University, at the same time he is a famous international expert in food and cooking. After searching the documentary materials in the Odessa Archives, he wrote “We are very happy to know that we are a part of the history of Odessa.”
The Public Archive of Odessa region Survey of funds and documents HISTORY OF THE JEWS OF ODESSA And SOUTH OF THE UKRAINE “the Jews of Odessa and south of the Ukraine: history in the documents “ (The first volume – end OF THE XVIII – THE XX centuries) SOURCE
ADMINISTRATIVE ESTABLISHMENTS Control of the Novorossisk and Bessarabian governor general Office of the Odessa mayor Trustee committee about the foreign settlers of the southern edge of Russia Odessa urban on the compulsory military service presence
ESTABLISHMENTS OF THE URBAN And CLASS SELF-GUIDANCE Odessa urban thought, the Odessa urban setting Odessa petty-bourgeois setting
POLICE, JUDICIAL, PROSECUTOR And NOTARIAL ESTABLISHMENTS Odessa municipal magistracy Office of the Odessa police chief Elder notary of the Odessa circuit court Odessa merchant’s court
FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS And THE JARS Banker house Of Ashkenazi in Odessa
ESTABLISHMENTS OF THE RELIGIOUS CULT Odessa municipal ravvinat
Cultural-educational SOCIETIES Committee of the Odessa department of the society of the propagation of education among the Jews
THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS Funds for the higher educational institutions of g.Odessy, general education secondary schools, schools and schools and oranov of their control Odessa Jewish School “Of Talmud- Thor” Odessa 6- Class School Of efrussi
FUNDS FOR THE SOVIET PERIOD Funds for the establishments of the period of the temporary German- Rumanian occupation
ADMINISTRATIVE ESTABLISHMENTS
Control of the Novorossisk and Bessarabian governor general f. 1, 1797-1874, 29624 matters
General- governor archive both by the volume and on the significance, is placed in the category of the separately valuable funds GAOO. Since 1803 Odessa was the administrative center of Novorossisk edge and the residence of governor general, who accomplished control of the enormous territory of the Kherson, Ekaterinoslav, Tavricheskeye provinces and Bessarabian region. In the archive of governor is concentrated the information on the history of Jews in the south of the Ukraine v on the different aspects.
Legislative acts are widely represented, the resolutions of imperious organs – emperor edicts about the rules of the settling of Jews in by Novorossisk edge, positions about Jews 1835, 1844, position about the box collection of 1839, rules about the production by the Jews of crafts only in the small cities, the settlements and the places (op.2ya8 (1847), d.eeeya). Was preserved the matter for particular office concerning the report of the governor general of the graph Of m.S.Vorontsova to emperor “relative to the assumed measures to the conversion of Jewish people in Russia” (1843, f.y, op.yshche, d.y28).
There are opinions and decisions of the chiefs of provinces, information about their fulfillment on the following questions: on the settling of Jews on the particular, landowner’s and fiscal earth (1847-1859 yr, op.2ya9, d.”‘; 1849, op.y92, d.e0; 1854, op.y9e, dd.88-89); on the moving out of Jews to 50 versts from the border of Austria and Prussia (1852, op.2yshch, d.ey); on the limitation of Jews in the trade – opinion of the chiefs of provinces about the equation in the rights of Jews with the Christians (1857, op.y9shch, d.shchya9); on the department of Jews into the special blocks (1856, op.20e, d.ya”); on the prohibition by them entrance into Moldavia (1861, op.y”e, d.2ya); on the order of the selections of Jews to the urban and public posts (1857, op.y9shch, d.”0″); on the subordination of Jews to general control and the destruction of kagalov (1844, op.yshchya, d.e”; 1845, op.y92, d.90); on the establishment of commissions for the formation of Jews (op.y92 (1842), of d.e9); on permission to buy to Jews the earth in the Crimea; on the assignment to the Jew- farmers of the 50- summer privilege of release from the rekrutskoy duty, about the isolation of loans to the acquisition of economy, about the establishment in the Ekaterinoslav province of the colonies of “Israeli Christians”, about the candle and box collections (pub. 248 (1858), dd.2yaye, 2415; op.2ya8 (1843), d.y0shch), the device of hospitals and almshouses (op.2ya8 (1843), of d.y09; op.y9e (1854), d.yy8; op.2ya8 (1854), d.2′”0; op.y”(1868), d.y2y). Was preserved the information about a quantity of kagalov, synagogues and Jewish schools in the edge (op.2yya (1834, d.e), about the collection of donations to the construction of synagogues and of houses of prayer (1842, op.2ya8, d.9’), about the establishment in Odessa of Jewish school (op.y90 (1826 g.) d.ya”) and handicraft classes in by Novorossisk edge (op.y9e (1853), d.98).
A number of documents they reflect the process of Jewish colonization. These are materials about land surveying of the earth for the device of colonies, application of the Jews of Podolskiy, Grodnenskoy and Vitebskoy of provinces about the migration into the Kherson province (1837, op.yya8, d.y; 1838, d.shch; 1840, d.ee, 2728); the information about the desire of merchants to found model Jewish colony in Bessarabia (1840, op.2yshch, d.y’). There are permissions of authorities to the delivery of passports for the entrance from abroad or of migration from other provinces of Russia, information about the state of Jewish colonies (1841, op.2ya8, d.2″Рё; 1843, op.2ya8, d.y08, 115), about the Jew- farmers (1859, op.y’, d.y0shch), about the measures for an improvement in control of the Jewish settlings (1843, op.2ya8, d.yy0), about the “disorders” in the colonies (1841, op.2ya8, d.89). Materials on the colonization are concentrated in the fund also on the separate inventory – “about the Jewish colonies of Novorossisk provinces” (inventory 2, 1837-1847, 101 matters). This of order and the reports of the central and local administrative bodies of control about the outlet of the earth in the Kherson and Ekaterinoslav provinces for the settling of Jews and device for them of agricultural colonies, the assignment of fiscal means for the building of the houses of colonists, the determination of the staff of officials and supervisors for control of the newly formed settlings. There are petitions of Jews of Podolskiy, Kurlyandskeye, Vitebsk, Mogilev, Grodnensk, Kovenskeye and Minsk provinces about the migration into Novorossiyu, and also applications of some colonists about the permission by it to return in the previous place of residence, about the delivery of passports and tickets for the departure to the earnings.
In the documents is contained valuable information about the development of Jewish colonies beaver Kut, greater and small Nagartav, Seydemenukha, Ingulets, Yefengar, Kamenka, tortuous (Khortitskiy district), Izrailevka (Bobrinetskiy district), new Berislav, L’vov, Romanovskoye, Novopoltavka (Kherson district) – statistical evidence, reports and the review of the officials of the department of the state asset and other officials about the development of agriculture and handicraft matter, wine ransom, about a quantity of inhabitants and the status of the health of population, the device of training and medical institutions, in particular, in Nagartave, the passage of some colonists from judaic to orthodox faith, applications of Jews about their reckoning in farmers, about their release from the rekrutskoy duty.
Office of the Odessa mayor f. 2, 1802-1837, 1848-1854, 1856-1917, 20890 matters
The materials of fund are systematized on 16 inventories, comprised in accordance with the structure of the office: tables capable, secret, economic, construction, certified, societies and meetings, 1 All-Russian population census. Inside each inventory the matters are systematized in the chronological order with some retreats. Materials on the history of Jews do not compose united collection, but they bear the separate nature and they are included in all structural parts.
Orders of mayor about the order of compilation of public sentences, about the order of conducting, to checking and zasvidetel’stvovanii of the Jewish metric books, about the establishment of handicraft classes with the fiscal Jewish schools, about the introduction of examination for the teachers of Jews, about the Odessa Jewish hospital.
Lists about a quantity of Jews in Odessa, kagalov, synagogues and houses of prayer, information about discovery and activity of synagogues and of houses of prayer, selections of their officials. Information about the Odessa rabbis, in such cases to shvabakhere, doctor of philosophy To krepse. Information about the commercial houses, the enterprises, the drugstores and the therapeutic establishments – Abraham rafalovich, the steamer offices Kossodo, Rappoport et al., particular hospitals Of gurovich, Polukhera, Meringa and the assertion of the regulations of the orthopedic institute of Joseph val’tukh in Odessa.
Orders relative to Jewish rites and customs – about the prohibition since 1851 to the Jews of the carrying of special Jewish clothing, about the prohibition to appear into the urban police during subbotniye and authorized days, to arrange wedding festivals on the streets of Odessa, to woman- jewesses to shave heads, to accomplish some religious rites not by rabbis.
Matters about the assignment of the right of trade in Russia to Jews -inostrannopoddannym only to the merchants of the 1st guild, about the enumeration of Jews into the agricultural title, about the permission to Jews to open printing houses, in particular, to merchant aksenfel’d. Permissions to the publication of newspapers and periodicals, in such cases. “dawn”, “gamelits”. Information about the collisions between the Jews and the Christians on the religious soil, about the activity of London missionaries for the rotation of Jews into Christianity.
Permissions about the erection of Jews into the honorable citizenship – I.Gorovitsa, M.Gurovicha, etc.
_ matter about permission found different society – mutual assistance Jewish salesman, “conversation, mutual assistance Jew, mutual assistance jewess, Jewish blagotvoritelСЃogo charity association, society for propagation education between Jew, society for propagation craft between Jewish woman, mutual assistance Jew, assistance farmer and craftsman in Syria and Palestine, society for assistance inverted in Christianity Jew, society care about poor and homeless Jewish child, society mutual aid merchant agent and different merchant- Jew, society sanitary colony for treatment and training weak health study indigent Jewish population Odessa, society assistance require toiler- Jew Odessa, society for benefit former pupil commercial school Fa1ga, society care about poor Jewish population on settlement -Romanovke, society assistance by the student of the commercial school Of gokhmana, society of working aid to the requiring themselves Jews of Odessa, society “friendliness” and other.
Materials about the charitable activities – about the donation A.Brodskim of house and 50 thousand rubles for the Jewish orphans and the device of barracks for 30 patients, about the establishment in the Jewish orphan house of allowance to im.Ashkinazi and of other nominal allowances, and also of allowance Of rafalovicha in the Jewish orphan house, the device of house for the aged Jews, the establishment by the Jews of almshouse, the donation Of l.Ashkinazi 76500 rub to the construction of operating building in the Odessa Jewish hospital.
Orders concerning the educational institutions, in particular, school “eshibot”, the commercial school of the name Of gurovicha, school “labor”, the musical classes Of plinera, “Talmud- tori”, the dancing classes Of khaimovicha and Krymershmoysa, musical is course Rafalovicha, bandmaster it is course Kauffmann, drawing is course Reynbol’da, to the professional school of the practical painting Of tovelevicha. Materials about the establishment into 1875 with the mayor of the post of scientific Jew and reports of scientific Jews (Genikesa and of others.)
On inventory 2: the matter for search and establishment of supervision after the persons, suspected of the criminal and political crimes, on the delivery of evidence about the loyalty. Lists of political prisoners, materials on the dispatch to the settling into Siberia and other province. Circular about the prohibition of voluntary offerings among the Jews by the name “collection to the Israeli earth”. Documents and the protocols of commission for Jewish problem. Matters about the transfer from Warsaw to Odessa of the monthly Jewish journal “gaboker-Or”, about the assertion of the program of weekly political- public and literary Jewish newspaper in the Russian language “love” edited by Yakov Prilukera.
On inventory 13: the matter of office about the Jewish pogroms in Odessa in 1905 (dd.e-shch).
Economic table (inventory 3, 1830-1916)
Permissions to the discovery of industrial and commercial enterprises, information about the state of factories and plants, commercial houses, application in questions of owner’s activity. Deal about the construction of Odessa Jewish hospital of 1860; on the sums of box and candle collections and the content of Jewish schools 1864 about the discovery of the enterprises: Gamsheyem by Wolf, By b.Rozenbergom – vodka distilleries, by Siegal, by Schechter, by Vaynberg – factories of water and lemonade, Rafalovichem – the plant of starch and of solodovareniya, Gurovichem – the factory of finishing it is pin and the preparation of vinegar, By perel’muterom – cosmetic institution, by Frenkel – the factory of the preparation of fraction, dynamic meter Gusevs, By roytblat, b. by goose, by Barban – cotton factories, Shorshteynom – sheet metal factory, Brodskim – sugar refinery, by Bronstein – the medovarennogo plant, etc; on the assertion of plan for the construction of Jewish cold synagogue.
Sudnyy table (inventory 4, 1828-1914 yr.)
Materials about sale of the immovable properties for the debts, selection of complaints and claims, spiritual wills and guardianships, penalty of duties, expulsion of an alien abroad on the charge in the criminal and political crimes, performance of judicial sentences, into t.ch.:ob abduction by foreign Jews abroad of the russkopoddannykh women for the completion in Konstantinopole of public houses (d.”, 2483); on the delivery to the Jews of metric evidence; “about the investigation of denunciation about the formed gang of Jews, which issues the false of passport to the departure abroad. 1882 g.”,” on the complaint of the parishioners of Odessa main synagogue of improper actions of the warden of the synagogue Of a.Kupervassera on the post “; the alphabets of prisoners; rule for the activity in Russia of joint-stock Jewish colonization company and information about its work 7670); “about the meetings of Zionist- Jews”.
Construction committee (inventory 5, 1812-1901 yr.)
Information about the construction of public buildings, the outlet of the urban earth to private individuals, the activity of urban architects, in particular, about the service in the post of the architect of the 5th part of Odessa not the class artist of Joseph kolovich (drafter Of brodskoy synagogue).
Certified table (inventory 6, 1808-1912 yr.)
Passport, tickets to the entrance into Russia or the departure beyond its limits for the years 1808-1898 (they were preserved not completely). Matters to the individual citizens on the reckoning in Odessa petty bourgeois merchants, on the drive to the oath and the delivery of evidence to those, who accepted Russian citizenship, to the delivery of foreign passports, in particular, to avstriyskopoddannomu rabbi gersh To dannemarku in the passage into S- Petersburg, Moscow and Kiev. Lists about the foreigners, who arrived from abroad.
Table of societies and meetings (inventory 7, 1906-1914 yr.)
There are permissions to the establishment, the regulations and the information about the activity of societies and meetings of g.Odessy. Are introduced the society of the mutual aid of those been of handicraft society “labor”, the society of assistance to Jew- farmers and craftsmen in Syria and Palestine, Odessa territorialistskoye emigratory society, the union of Jewish charity associations and establishments “central Jewish registration bureau”, the department of Vilenskiy of the charitable Jewish society Of “gmilus-Khesed”, the society of the amateurs of Jewish language, Jewish public meeting in Odessa, the Jewish society Of “ivriya”, and also different professional societies with the traditionally high percentage of the participation of Jewish population – particular agents, brokers, photographers, industrialists, etc.
First All-Russian population census of 1897 (inventory 8, 9, 10)
The sheets of census with 3 thousand addresses were preserved, in them were registered the surname, name and patronymic of inhabitant, his age and the place of generation, citizenship, class, formation, religion, social position, profession, sources of income. (in 1897 the number of Odessa residents, who showed by native language Jewish, was 124511 man. – 2-4 on the number national group after Russians).
Trustee committee about the foreign settlers of the southern edge of Russia f. 6, 1800-1873, 14815 matters
In the fund for 9 inventories, in the inventories в„–в„– 1a, 3 and 4 there are divisions on the Jewish table, in the rest the materials according to the Jews are not isolated as separate complexes.
In the fund were put off the materials on the colonization of Novorossisk edge, in such cases about the appearance and development of Jewish colonies in the Ekaterinoslav and Kherson provinces. These are reports and the list of the supervisors of Jewish colonies, circumferential orders and shul’tsev about the population, the welfare of colonies (statistical evidence since 1811), the penalty of taxes, the delivery of loans, the elections of officers, the development of agriculture, horticulture, trade; the application of the Jews of the western provinces of the Russian Empire about the migration into the newly formed colonies, about their reckoning in colonists and other classes, about the Jewish schools, about the fight with the vagabondage of Jew- colonists. Interest they can represent materials about the realization of government plan with respect to the involvement of Jews in productive zemledel’chestvo on the model of the well organized German farmer economies, the reciprocal effect of Jewish and mennonitskikh colonies – for example, about the building by mennonitami of houses for the arrived Jews in the colony To nechayevke, about the designation of wardens from mennonitov into the Jewish settlings, in particular, David Hertz into the colony to L’vov, about the migration of mennonitov in a constant place of residence into the Jewish colonies for the purpose of the development of there particular production, about the creation of the mixed settlings (Yudenplan in Khortitse), about the isolation by mariupol’skimi mennonitami of wheat for the sowing to Jew- colonists, about the orders by the Jews of agricultural instruments and seeds in molochanskikh mennonitov, etc.
Odessa urban on the compulsory military service presence f. 315, 1884-1920, 1022 matters
Materials according to the Jews are not isolated as separate complex.
Lists of reservists and their metric vypisi (beginning from 1884 of generation), the private affairs of draftees, correspondence on the postponements of military service.
ESTABLISHMENTS OF THE URBAN And CLASS SELF-GUIDANCE
The Duma and setting knew by economic, financial, construction and businesses. Jewish department:
f. 4, inventory 107 (1824-1872, 1034 matters) f. 4, inventory 108 (1884-1895, 120 matters) f. 16, inventory 109 (1896-1903, 76 matters) f. 16, inventory 110 (1904-1912, 183 matters) f. 16, inventory 124, part of 2, p. 399-423 (1870-1920 yr.)
Annual reports of Jewish department. Information about the start of the arrived in Odessa Jews in petty-bourgeois and merchant class, the transfer from the class into the class, the restoration in the class and the exception from the same. Family and personal lists of Odessa Jew- petty bourgeois, merchants and craftsmen. Lists of Jews musical spark gaps and shops.
Metric books and the lists of the borne and dead Jews (men), not registered in Odessa municipal ravvinate, in particular, by that belonging not to what konfessii. Correspondence on the certification of metric evidence about the generation, marriage, death and to the correction of errors in metric records. The decisions of setting about the establishment of the events of the generation of those, who do not be registered according to the metric books, and the alphabetical lists of such citizens. Correspondence on the delivery of passports, it is specific to the residence, evidence and other documents.
Tax lists of Odessa petty-bourgeois Jewish class. Correspondence and lists on the rekrutskim collections, on the apportionment of candle and box collections.
Lists of Jewish schools and materials about their content, in particular, the report of the member of the setting N.A. Of gantsa about the delivery in 1919 to the Jewish community of subsidy in the amount of 3806000 rub to the content of 28 elementary schools. Lists of Jews, which entered educational institutions.
Information about building and discovery of synagogues and houses of prayer. Lists of synagogues and houses of prayer and their terms. Information about the officials of Jewish society – rabbis To fil’shteyne, Stopchike, Polinkovskom, To shvabakhere, the wardens of synagogues Abraham -Xasime, To kupervassere, scientific Jew Solomon To guroviche, etc.
Materials about the donations, the content disabled, charitable actions, allocation of assets to the content of Jewish hospital, Jewish cemeteries, shelters. Lists of philanthropists and their spiritual wills (A.M.Brodskogo, etc.).
Besides the inventories on the Jewish department, funds for 4 and 16 contain additional those 144 comprised on the years of inventory – on the general office management, the construction and charitable departments, the public education and the bookkeeping, in which also there is an information on the history of Jewish community against the background of townspeople life. The significant interest present the yearly lists of merchants, who declared capital, to list about the collection of taxes, materials about the discovery of commodity-industry enterprises, the outlet of the sections of the urban earth under the individual building, the participation of citizens in the urban self-guidance. The comparative analysis of documents can give idea about the formation, the increase and the motion of the private capital, formation and development of Jewish commercial houses, economic state of both the Jewish community as a whole and its individual representatives. In the fund for setting was preserved “the periodical of the honorable citizens of Odessa. 1854-1897 “, into which were carried 304 surnames of distinguished and most authoritative in the Odessa society citizens, in such cases of 96 Jews and karaites with the members of their families.
Jewish department (1894-1918, 44 matters) is represented by the family lists of the Odessa petty bourgeois- Jews (list it contains the names of all members of family with the indication of their age or date of generation, relation to the military service, the addresses of stay at the moment of the composition of document over the signature of the head of family).
POLICE, JUDICIAL, PROSECUTOR And NOTARIAL ESTABLISHMENTS
Odessa municipal magistracy f. 17, 1795-1839, 162 matters
Magistracy knew by the administrative and judicial matters of Odessa petty bourgeoisie and merchants. In its office management were put off the most important and chronologically earliest materials of economic nature – the information about the delivery of commercial and estimated evidence, about the assertion of merchant women, zaprodazhnykh, borrowed letters, introductions into the estate, about the selection of commercial transactions, bankruptcies, complaints. There are also lists, lists and correspondence about a quantity of merchants and petty bourgeois, their properties and capital, organization it is shop particular applications about the reckoning into the Odessa merchants and the petty bourgeoisie, in particular, for the years 1808-1809. – M.Sh.Medyanika, Levi and Aron pibergod, Solomon and Abel Gershkovichey, Leyby of Krakow, tsesarskopoddannogo T.G.Kumana, etc. (op.e), Leyby Of balabana, Abraham bondoni, Gilelya Of manusovicha, Mordko Of moshkovicha, Mendel Doyberga, Yakuba Lando, Getselya Of fridentalya, Moshi Mangubi, etc. (op.shch), the information about the individual citizens, in such cases Jews, added into the Odessa petty bourgeoisie in 1811-1812.
Documents about the erection of Jews in the post or the suspension from it are of interest also. In the fund there is an “alphabet about the Jews” in 1811 (op.e, d.yayashch)
Office of the Odessa police chief f. 314, 1824-1917, 437 matters
Fund contains reports, reports, correspondence of the officials of the police about search and detention of the persons, suspected and accused in the criminal and political crimes; the lists of citizens, which consist under the supervision of the police, the political prisoners of Odessa prison, exiled to the hard labor works, the members of underground organizations, participants in the revolutionary movement, Jewish pogroms in Odessa. There is information about the participation of Jews in the revolutionary movement. The political matters can serve as an example: on the participation in the preparation of attempt on governor in 1902 of the members of the party of the terrorists, in number of whom of 30 pupils of school “labor”; on the creation in 1907 by young Jews headed by leftist Mochmanom – by the workers of the plant of gene – guard by the name “young will” in contrast the “union of Russian people” and their participation in the “expropriation” of private property; on the witnesses on business Of beylisa; on the establishment By i.A.Trivusom, Ya.Landesmanom, S.Rabinovichem and By i.B.Smirom of “Odessa Zionist club KADIMA”; on the activity of “Jewish territorialisticheskoy organization” and its theorist Israel To zangvile; on supervision after the sect of subbotniks and “zhidovstvuyushchikh” and others.
Fund is rich in the materials, which tell about the role of Jews in the criminal peace. From the criminal cases present interest materials about the activity in Odessa of the criminal groups of fal’shivomonetnogo and gambling business, sutenerstva, smuggling, and also of information about the well-known criminals – international pocket pilferer To moyshe To miroshnike-Irline (Bear- American), the international souteneurs Isaac Goldstein and the silverer, the cardsharper Zinof golender in the nickname “Pushkin” et al.
Elder notary of the Odessa circuit court f. 35, 1869-1920, 32404 matters
Funds contain the notarial reports about the buying and selling, the donation, the will of the immovable property and land sections, given to the estates, agreements about the transactions, concluded by the notaries of g.Odessy, the Odessa, Anan’evskogo and Tiraspol’ districts of Kherson province. There is, for example, information about the enterprises Of frola Of shpolyanskogo.
Odessa merchant’s court f. 18, 1808-1920, 5072 matters
Materials on the selection of commercial transactions, the delivery of estimated evidence, the collection of the commercial duties, matter for guardianship, commercial insolvency, registration of commercial institutions in the territory of Odessa mayorship. There are books of the registration of commercial establishments (1836-1843), of list about the property and capital of merchants (1826-1843), investigation and judicial matters for bankruptcies, promissory note actions, containing valuable information about activity and state of Jewish commercial houses.
FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS And THE JARS
Banker house Of Ashkenazi in Odessa f. 246, 1893-1918, 5 matters
Materials on establishment and activity of the joint-stock company of southeastern steam navigation “star” of the banker house Of ashkenazi. Balances and reports on the operation of steamship “eastern star” (1906-1916). Statements about the income, which is subject to taxation by the state income tax (1917-1918).
ESTABLISHMENTS OF THE RELIGIOUS CULT
Odessa municipal ravvinat f. 39, 1846, 1854, 1875-1920, 499 matters
The metric books about the generation, the marriage, divorce and death of the Jews Odessa and alphabets to them – base source for the genealogical studies (documents of ravvinata for the years 1835-1874 they perished in the years of 2-1 world war).
The funds for another konfessiy – Kherson spiritual consistory (f. 37), Evangelical- Lutheran and reform arrivals (ff. 630, 894) – contain information about the passage of Jews from judaic religion to Christian, about the marriages of israelites with the representatives of other religions, about the registration of Jews, who belong not to what faith.
Cultural-educational SOCIETIES
Committee of the Odessa department of the society of the propagation of education among the Jews f. 442, 1880-1881, 36 matters
Regulations of the Odessa department of society, correspondence on organizational questions also about its activity. Protocols of the general meetings of the members of society; the application of students about the rendering by them of material aid, the determination to the pedagogical work; correspondence with the Petersburg committee, particular Jewish and other educational institutions for questions of the organization of enlightenment work among the Jews, delivery of means to the content of educational institutions, job placement of teachers, method of donations. Lists of instructors, members of society; the information about the Jewish schools of g.Odessy, the libraries of department and their reports. Brief survey of the activity of Odessa department, estimate of libraries and museum. Information about the members of the society
THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
Funds for the higher educational institutions of g.Odessy, general education secondary schools, schools and schools and oranov of their control (about 40 funds)
Tyuey ppozvolyayut to investigate such questions as shaping of intellectual layer in the Jewish medium, level of the education of Jews, their contribution to the cultural and scientific life of city. Thus, in the materials Of rishel’evskogo face (f. 44, 1817-1865, 3262 matters) are considerable valuable information about trained in this Odessa’s first higher educational institution Jews.
Created on the base of face in 1865. Novorossisk university (f. 45, 1865-1920, 44688 matters), only in the south of the Ukraine, played large role in the making of a Jewish intelligentsia Of novorossii. In kon.KhyKh- of nach.KhKh of substances the Jews composed significant layer among the students of Odessa. The private affairs of students – remarkable historical source, which makes possible for researcher to personify epoch. The matter contains, as a rule, application about the method into the educational institution and the release at its end, copy of metric evidence about the generation, the secondary school graduation certificate, information about the behavior and progress, photograph of student. In kon.Kh.IKh – nach.KhKh of substances in by Novorossisk university were trained many representatives of well-known Jewish families.
In the fund for Odessa highest female it is course (f.eeya, 1906-1920, 11321 matters) numerous information about the jewess- girl students.
Odessa Jewish School “Of Talmud- Thor” f. 441, 1891-1906, 13 matters
Correspondence with the Odessa urban setting on organizational and economic questions. Circulars and the order of the inspector of people schools for training- organizational and financial-economic questions. Information about the composition of the trustee council of school, the rules of the internal regulation (d.y0); application about the delivery of benefits being required. List of students.
Odessa 6- Class School Of efrussi f. 125, 1898-1901, 714 matters
Minutes of the meeting of pedagogical council. General and examination lists about the successes, the behavior, the diligence and the abilities of students. Circular orders of the trustee of Odessa training region about the designation of teachers and their rewarding, about the grant-aided students. Lists of those entering, students and external students. Class, table and object periodicals. Curricula (op.y, d.ya’).
the Receipt- cashbox books of payment for the instruction and the income- expense books. Photographic cards of external students (op.y, d.’y; op.2, d.eya), information and the certification of external students (op.2, d.28). The private affairs of students (op.e, 607 matters).
FUNDS FOR THE SOVIET PERIOD
In the funds for administativnykh control elements 1930- X yr. (councils, their executive committees and the subordinate structures of all levels) – the information about the nationalization of property in well-off citizens, the dekulakization. The materials of the inspectorates of public education (ff. 150, 134, 1919-1930, 2201 matters) tell about the activity of Jewish sections, schools, libraries, the creation in Odessa of the unique museum of Jewish culture.
The documents of the independent funds for Jewish public organizations, educational institutions and political parties reflect many aspects of the state national policy of post-revolutionary period with respect to the poorest part of the Jewish population – creation of Jewish national regions, collective farms and agricultural comradeships, the organization of the system of the national educational institutions, cultural societies for the Jews, the activity of international organizations for rendering aid to the victims of pogroms in the period of Civil War in the Ukraine and starving, migration into Birobidzhan, departure of Jews into Palestine, activity of youth associations.
Funds for the establishments of the period of the temporary German- Rumanian occupation 887 funds, 1941-1944.
The materials of the organs of authority and control, created with German- Rumanian authorities in the temporarily occupied territory of Odessa and Odessa region give idea about the catastrophe of Jewish people in period 2- of world war. The documents of boards, pretur, prefectures, working communities, enterprises and establishments contain information about the creation of the network of concentration camps and ghetto in the newly formed governorship Of transnistrii and concentration in them of Jewish population, about rendering aid concluded Rumanian Jewish communities. There are numerous lists of those, who were being located in the ghetto. By the colleagues of archive is created the alphabetical nominal card index of victims and indicator about the presence of lists on 139 ghetto Of transnistrii (Mogilev, Bershad’, Berezovka, Kameneq- Podolskiy, Obodovka, Domanevka, etc.). Since 1990 archive gave out sv.yshch of thousand of information to citizens about the confirmation of their stay in the ghetto within the framework of the implementation of international programs on the compensation for the substituted to them damage. The demands of these citizens also can be examined as the significant historical source, since the detailed descriptions of tragic events, morale of the prisoners of ghetto, fates of concrete people are contained in many.
Sources for the Jewish Agricultural Colonies, adjacent towns and villages, located at various times in Southern Ukraine, Bessarabia, Podolia and the Crimea, are relatively hard to find. This site gathers data about the individual settlements, the points of origin of these settlers and recounts their stories.
…AND THEN USSR PUT THE AGRO-JOINT OUT. IS THIS WHAT zELENSKY AND PUTIN ARE WORKING TO REPAIR?
Is this what most Jews are promising to come back for, and some have even stayed to fight for?
On page 404 we find a mention for: “Warburg, Edward M. (1908–1992). AJJDC Chairman, 1941–1943, 1946–1965.”
Yeah, I know Russian Bolshevik / communist oligarchy was initially Jewish for the most part, I’ve already discussed it in earlier reports. But that changed over time, as the party became a humongous soviet monster, there simply weren’t enough Jews to provide for all regional leaderships and gentiles eventually established their own “nobility”, even though Jews maintained many top positions. A new hungry generation of commies is like a new wave of locusts. I saw the same process happening in my home-country, Romania.
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
Vice Governor [Vice Chair], Board of Governors, 1916–1918
Member, Board of Governors, 1914–1916
Born: August 10, 1868
Died: January 24, 1932
Paul M. Warburg was sworn in as a member of the first Federal Reserve Board on August 10, 1914. He was appointed vice chairman (called “vice governor” before 1935) on August 10, 1916. He resigned from the Board on August 9, 1918.
Warburg was born in Hamburg, Germany, in 1868. He graduated from high school in Hamburg in 1886 and began working for an exporting firm there. He then moved on to positions at shipping and banking companies in London and Paris. He returned to Hamburg in 1895 and became a partner in the banking firm M.M. Warburg and Company, founded by his great-grandfather.
Warburg was a partner in the family firm until 1907. However, in 1902, he moved to New York City and joined his father-in-law’s company as a partner overseeing international loans to several governments. In 1911, he became a naturalized US citizen.
Warburg was considered one of the top authorities on central banking both in Europe and the United States and was active in the monetary reform movement taking place in the United States in the early 1900s. He gave speeches, published several articles advocating the establishment of a US central bank, and was an unofficial advisor to the National Monetary Commission, which was established following the Panic of 1907 to study banking system reform. In 1910, Warburg was one of six men, including Sen. Nelson Aldrich, to participate in a secret meeting on Jekyll Island, Georgia, that resulted in a plan for a National Reserve Association. Although the “Aldrich plan” was rejected by Congress, it laid the foundation for the 1913 Federal Reserve Act, which created the Federal Reserve System. President Woodrow Wilson appointed Warburg to the new entity’s first Board in 1914.
Although Warburg left the Federal Reserve Board in 1918, he continued to serve the Federal Reserve as a member of the Federal Advisory Council (1921–26). He resumed his activities in business and philanthropic circles as well. For example, he founded and was the first chairman of the Executive Committee of the American Acceptance Council in 1919. In 1921, he organized the International Acceptance Bank to promote US government financing of reconstruction in Europe following the war.
Warburg was also a director of the Council on Foreign Relations (1921–32), a trustee of the Institute of Economics (1922–27), and a trustee of the Brookings Institution after it merged with the Institute of Economics in 1927. He also helped establish the Carl Schurz Memorial Foundation in 1930. He served at various times as a director of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, Union Pacific Railroad, and Western Union Telegraph Company. Warburg was also a director of the Julliard School of Music and a trustee of Tuskegee College.
Warburg continued to take an active interest in the nation’s monetary affairs and banking system. In March 1929, he warned that the wild stock speculation resulting from stock price increases and improper bank lending practices would have disastrous results if left unchecked. On October 29 of that year, the stock market crashed.
Throughout his career, Warburg was a prolific writer. Most notable among his published works was a two-volume set on the Federal Reserve System published in 1930. The Yale University Library (Manuscripts and Archives) is the repository for Warburg’s papers dating from 1904 to 1932. The collection includes 169 volumes on banking and finance.
Warburg died at his home in New York in 1932. At the time of his death, he was chairman of the Manhattan Company and a director of the Bank of Manhattan Trust Company, Farmers Loan and Trust Company of New York, and First National Bank of Boston.
A secret gathering at a secluded island off the coast of Georgia in 1910 laid the foundations for the Federal Reserve System.
The old clubhouse, Jekyll Island, Georgia. (Courtesy of Tyler E. Bagwell)
In November 1910, six men – Nelson Aldrich, A. Piatt Andrew, Henry Davison, Arthur Shelton, Frank Vanderlip and Paul Warburg – met at the Jekyll Island Club, off the coast of Georgia, to write a plan to reform the nation’s banking system. The meeting and its purpose were closely guarded secrets, and participants did not admit that the meeting occurred until the 1930s. But the plan written on Jekyll Island laid a foundation for what would eventually be the Federal Reserve System.
The Need for Reform
At the time, the men who met on Jekyll Island believed the banking system suffered from serious problems. The Jekyll Island participants’ views on this issue are well known, since before and after their conclave several spoke publicly and others published extensively on the topic. Collectively, they encapsulated their concerns in the plan they wrote on Jekyll Island and in the reports of the National Monetary Commission.
Like many Americans, these men were concerned with financial panics, which had disrupted economic activity in the United States periodically during the nineteenth century. Nationwide panics occurred on average every fifteen years. These panics forced financial institutions to suspend operations, triggering long and deep recessions. American banks held large required reserves of cash, but these reserves were scattered throughout the nation, held in the vaults of thousands of banks or as deposits in financial institutions in designated reserve and central reserve cities. During crises, they became frozen in place, preventing them from being used to alleviate the situation. During booms, banks’ excess reserves tended to flow toward big cities, especially New York, where bankers invested them in call loans, which were loans repayable on demand to brokers. The brokers in turn loaned the funds to investors speculating in equity markets, whose stock purchases served as collateral for the transactions. This American system made bank reserves immobile and equity markets volatile, a recipe for financial instability.
In Europe, in contrast, bankers invested much of their portfolio in short-term loans to merchants and manufacturers. This commercial paper directly financed commerce and industry while providing banks with assets that they could quickly convert to cash during a crisis. These loans remained liquid for several reasons. First, borrowers paid financial institutions – typically banks with which they had long-standing relationships – to guarantee repayment in case the borrowers could not meet their financial obligations. Second, the loans funded merchandise in the process of production and sale and that merchandise served as collateral should borrowers default. The Jekyll Island participants also worried about the inelastic supply of currency in the United States. The value of the dollar was linked to gold, and the quantity of currency available was linked to the supply of a special series of federal government bonds. The supply of currency neither expanded nor contracted with seasonal changes in demands for cash, such as the fall harvest or the holiday shopping season, causing interest rates to vary substantially from one month to the next. The inelastic supply of currency and limited supplies of gold also contributed to long and painful deflations.
Furthermore, Jekyll Island participants believed that an array of antiquated arrangements impeded America’s financial and economic progress. For example, American banks could not operate overseas. Thus, American merchants had to finance imports and exports through financial houses in Europe, principally London. American banks also struggled to collectively clear checks outside the boundaries of a single city. This increased costs of inter-city and interstate commerce and required risky and expensive remittances of cash over long distances.
In an article published in the New York Times in 1907, Paul Warburg, a successful, German-born financier who was a partner at the investment bank Kuhn, Loeb, and Co. and widely regarded as an expert on the banking systems in the United States and Europe, wrote that the United States’ financial system was “at about the same point that had been reached by Europe at the time of the Medicis, and by Asia, in all likelihood, at the time of Hammurabi” (Warburg 1907).
Just months after Warburg wrote those words, the country was struck by the Panic of 1907. The panic galvanized the US Congress, particularly Republican senator Nelson Aldrich, the chair of the Senate Finance Committee. In 1908, Aldrich sponsored a bill with Republican representative Edward Vreeland that, among other things, created the National Monetary Commission to study reforms to the financial system. Aldrich quickly hired several advisers to the commission, including Henry Davison, a partner at J.P. Morgan, and A. Piatt Andrew, an economics professor at Harvard University. Over the next two years, they studied banking and financial systems extensively and visited Europe to meet with bankers and central bankers.
The Duck Hunt
By the fall of 1910, Aldrich was persuaded of the necessity of a central bank for the United States. With Congress ready to begin meeting in just a few weeks, Aldrich — most likely at Davison’s suggestion — decided to convene a small group to help him synthesize all he had learned and write down a proposal to establish a central bank.
The group included Aldrich; his private secretary Arthur Shelton; Davison; Andrew (who by 1910 had been appointed assistant Treasury secretary); Frank Vanderlip, president of National City Bank and a former Treasury official; and Warburg.
A member of the exclusive Jekyll Island Club, most likely J.P. Morgan, arranged for the group to use the club’s facilities. Founded in 1886, the club’s membership boasted elites such as Morgan, Marshall Field, and William Kissam Vanderbilt I, whose mansion-sized “cottages” dotted the island. Munsey’s Magazine described it in 1904 as “the richest, the most exclusive, the most inaccessible” club in the world.
Train station in Brunswick, Georgia, near Jekyll Island. (Courtesy Tyler E. Bagwell)
Aldrich and Davison chose the attendees for their expertise, but Aldrich knew their ties to Wall Street could arouse suspicion about their motives and threaten the bill’s political passage. So he went to great lengths to keep the meeting secret, adopting the ruse of a duck hunting trip and instructing the men to come one at a time to a train terminal in New Jersey, where they could board his private train car. Once aboard, the men used only first names – Nelson, Harry, Frank, Paul, Piatt, and Arthur – to prevent the staff from learning their identities. For decades after, the group referred to themselves as the “First Name Club.”
An additional member of the First Name Club was Benjamin Strong, vice president of the Bankers Trust Company and the future founding chief executive officer (then called governor, now called president) of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. But it is unlikely Strong attended the meeting on Jekyll Island. In his autobiography, Vanderlip recalls him attending, but no other account indicates Strong’s presence. Most scholars and journalists who have written about the issue, including Bertie Charles (B.C.) Forbes — the founder of Forbes magazine and the journalist who first revealed the meetings in an article in 1916 — have concluded Strong did not attend (Forbes 1916). Strong had worked closely with the Jekyll Island attendees in other venues, however, and his ideas were certainly present at the meeting even if he was not there in person. After the meeting, as the First Name Club revised the plan and prepared it for publication, Strong was frequently consulted and according to Forbes, “joined the ‘First-Name Club’ as ‘Ben’” (Forbes 1922).
The Plan Takes Shape
Aldrich and his colleagues quickly realized that while they agreed on some broad principles — establishing an elastic currency supplied by a bank that held the reserves of all banks — they disagreed on details. Figuring out those details was a “desperately trying undertaking,” in Warburg’s words. Completely secluded, the men woke up early and worked late into the night for more than a week. “We had disappeared from the world onto a deserted island,” Vanderlip recalled in his autobiography. “We put in the most intense period of work that I have ever had.”
By the end of their time on Jekyll Island, Aldrich and his colleagues had developed a plan for a Reserve Association of America, a single central bank with fifteen branches across the country. Each branch would be governed by boards of directors elected by the member banks in each district, with larger banks getting more votes. The branches would be responsible for holding the reserves of their member banks; issuing currency; discounting commercial paper; transferring balances between branches; and check clearing and collection. The national body would set discount rates for the system as a whole and buy and sell securities.
Shortly after returning home, Aldrich became ill and was unable to write the group’s final report. So Vanderlip and Strong traveled to Washington to get the plan ready for Congress. Aldrich presented it to the National Monetary Commission in January 1911 without telling the commission members how the plan had been developed. A final report, along with legislative text, went to Congress a year later with a few minor changes, including naming the new institution the National Reserve Association.
In a letter accompanying the report, the Commission said it had created an institution “scientific in its method, and democratic in its control.” But many people, especially Democrats, objected to the version of democracy it presented, which could have allowed the largest banks to exert outsized influence on the central bank’s leadership. With a presidential election coming up, the Democrats made repudiating the Aldrich plan a part of their platform. When Woodrow Wilson won the presidency and the Democrats took control of both houses, Aldrich’s National Reserve Association appeared to be shelved.
Leaders of the Democratic Party, however, also were interested in reform, including President Wilson and the chairs of the House and Senate Committees on Banking and Currency, Carter Glass and Robert Owen, respectively. Glass and Owen both introduced proposals to form a central banking system based on draft legislation supported by Wilson. Glass, Owen, and their staffs directly consulted with Warburg, whose technical expertise was respected by Democratic and Republican politicians alike. Wilson’s chief political adviser, Col. E. M. House, met and corresponded with Warburg to discuss banking reform in general and the Glass and Owen plans in particular. So did William McAdoo and Henry Morgenthau, senior political and policy advisers to Wilson who served in his administration. Morgenthau assured Warburg “that he sent his copy of the [January 10, 1913] memorandum to President Wilson” (Warburg 1930, p. 90). Together, these ideas formed the basis of the final Federal Reserve Act, which Congress passed and the president signed in December 1913. The technical details of the final bill closely resembled those of the Aldrich Plan. The major differences were the political and decision-making structures, which was a compromise acceptable to both the progressive and populist wings of the Democratic Party.
Postscript
B.C. Forbes somehow learned about the Jekyll Island trip and wrote about it in 1916 in an article published in Leslie’s Weekly (October 19, 1916 p. 423), which was recapitulated a few months later in an article in the magazine Current Opinion. In 1917, Forbes again described the meeting in Men Who Are Making America, a collection of short biographies of prominent entrepreneurs, including Davison, Vanderlip, and Warburg. Not many people noticed the revelation, and those who did dismissed it as “a mere yarn,” according to Aldrich’s biographer.
The participants themselves denied the meeting had occurred for twenty years, until the publication of Aldrich’s biography in 1930. The impetus for coming clean was probably the publication in 1927 of Carter Glass’s memoir, An Adventure in Constructive Finance. In it, Glass, by now a senator, claimed credit for the key ideas in the Federal Reserve Act, which prompted the Jekyll Island participants to reveal their roles in creating the Federal Reserve.
Warburg was especially critical of Glass’s description of events. In 1930, he published a two-volume book describing the origins of the Fed, including a line-by-line comparison of the Aldrich bill and the Glass-Owen bill to prove their similarity. In the introduction, he wrote, “I had gone to California for a three months’ rest when the appearance of a series of articles written by Senator Glass…impelled me to lay down in black and white my recollections of certain events in the history of banking reform.” Warburg’s book does not mention Jekyll Island specifically, although he states that
“In November, 1910, I was invited to join a small group of men who, at Senator Aldrich’s request, were to take part in a several days’ conference with him, to discuss the form that the new banking bill should take. … when the conference closed … the rough draft of what later became the Aldrich Bill had been agreed upon … The results of the conference were entirely confidential. Even the fact that there had been a meeting was not permitted to become public. … Though eighteen years have gone by, I do not feel free to give a description of this most interesting conference concerning which Senator Aldrich pledged all participants to secrecy. I understand, however, a history of Senator Aldrich’s life … will contain an authorized account to of this episode” (Warburg 1930, pp. 58-60).
Disagreements over authorship of the Federal Reserve Act received widespread publicity in the late 1920s. Glass defended his claim for the lion’s share of the credit in speeches, in his book, and in submissions to prominent publications including the New York Evening Post and the New York Times. Critics responded in similar venues and academic journals. For example, Samuel Untermyer, former counsel to the House Committee on Banking and Currency, published a pamphlet titled “Who is Entitled to the Credit for the Federal Reserve Act? An Answer to Senator Carter Glass,” in which he asserted that Glass’s claims of primary authorship were “fiction,” “fable,” and a “work of imagination” (Untermyer 1927). In 1914, Edwin Seligman, a prominent professor at Columbia University, wrote that “in its fundamental features the Federal Reserve Act is the work of Mr. Warburg more than of any other man.” In 1927, Seligman and Glass debated this point in a series of letters published in the New York Times.
The Jekyll Island Club never bounced back from the Great Depression, when many of its members resigned, and it closed in 1942. Today, its former clubhouse and cottages are National Historic Landmarks. But the debates at and about the conference on Jekyll Island remain relevant today.
Bibliography
Forbes, B.C. Men Who Are Making America. New York: B.C. Forbes Publishing Co., Inc., 1917.
Forbes, B.C. “How the Federal Reserve Bank Was Evolved by Five Men on Jekyl Island.” Current Opinion vol. 61, no. 6 (December 1916): pp. 382-383.
Glass, Carter. An Adventure in Constructive Finance. New York: Doubleday, 1927.
Glass, Carter, “Mr. Warburg and the Bank: A Reply to Prof. Seligman on the Paternity of the Federal Reserve,” New York Times, February 15, 1927, p. 24.
Lamont, Thomas. Henry P. Davison: The Record of a Useful Life. New York and London: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1933.
Lowenstein, Roger. America’s Bank: The Epic Struggle to Create the Federal Reserve. New York: Penguin Press, 2015.
New York Times. “Untermyer Assails Glass on Bank Act: Calls His History of Federal Reserve Fiction and Its Author Credulous. Claims Glory for Owen. Wilson, McAdoo and Bryan also Entitled to Credit … ” June 20, 1927, p. 4.
Seligman, Edwin R. “Introduction: Essays on Banking Reform in the United States, by Paul M. Warburg.” Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science vol. 4, no. 4 (July 1914): pp. 3-6.
Seligman, Edwin R., “The Federal Reserve Act. Professor Seligman Takes Issue with a Statement by Senator Glass,” New York Times, February 1, 1927, p. 26.
Stephenson, Nathaniel Wright. Nelson W. Aldrich: A Leader in American Politics. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1930. Reissued in 1971 by Kennikat Press.
United States National Monetary Commission. Letter from Secretary of the National Monetary Commission, Transmitting, Pursuant to Law, the Report of the Commission. Washington: Government Printing Office, January 8, 1912. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/641, accessed on August 11, 2015.
Vanderlip, Frank, and Boyden Sparks. From Farm Boy to Financier. New York and London: D. Appleton-Century Company, 1935.
Warburg, Paul M., “The Defects and Needs of Our Banking System,” New York Times:Annual Financial Review, January 6, 1907, p. 14-15, 38-39.
Warburg, Paul M. The Federal Reserve System: Its Origins and Growth. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1930.
Wicker, Elmus. The Great Debate on Banking Reform. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press, 2005.
Recognition for the service and philanthropy of Felix M. Warburg, chairman of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, was expressed by one of the new Jewish settlements in the Ukraine, at solemn exercises held yesterday.
Djankoy, a settlement adjacent to the colonies Novy Put and Novaya Zarya, near Krivoy Rog, was renamed Felix Warburg.
Mr. Warburg laid the cornerstone for the first intermediate school in the Jewish colonies, established at Novy Put.
A report of the events during Mr. Felix M. Warburg’s visit to the Jewish colonies in the Ukraine, was made public yesterday by the National Headquarters of the United Jewish Campaign on the basis of a cable received yesterday from Moscow by David A. Brown, national chairman.
Mr. Warburg and James H. Becker, accompanied by Dr. Bernard A. Kahn and Dr. Joseph A. Rosen, on their arrival in the colonies of the Cherson district, where the new Jewish “autonomous region” was recently established, were given a tremendous ovation by the Jewish settlers whose entrance upon a new permanent livelihood as productive workers on the soil was made possible by the aid of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, of which Mr. Warburg is the chairman.
The travellers came from Moscow first to the Cherson settlements, and thence to the colonies of the Krivoy-Rog district, where they were received with equal enthusiasm. The inhabitants of Novy Put and Novaya Zaria, both recently established settlements in this section, expressed the desire to have their colonies renamed in honor of Mr. Warburg. In Novy Put the visitors officiated at the laying of a cornerstone for a high school, one of the significant first landmarks in the effort for the establishment of a modern educational system for the children of the twentieth century Jewish pioneers on the Russian steppes.
The establishment of schools and other facilities for an adequate community life goes hand in hand with the agricultural and economic aid provided by the Joint Distribution Committee, which operates in Russia under the name of Agro-Joint, with the official sanction and cooperation of the Russian government. The agricultural colonization program was begun a little over two and a half years ago when the great spontaneous “back to the soll” movement took start among the Jews of Russia, as an escape from the dwindling trading occupations of the city and the crushing political proscriptions leveled against this class under the new economic organization of the country. Its purpose was to give organized direction and support for expansion to what has been hailed by authoritative social students as an epochal new development offering revolutionizing potentialities for the future economic structure of Jewish life in Eastern Europe. More than 10,000 families have already taken up farmsteads in the Ukraine, White Russia and Crimea, on vast virgin tracts comprising over 700,000 acres whose prewar value is estimated at over $12,000,000. In addition to the free gift of the land, the government furnishes free transportation and free lumber for building, and tax and military service exemption for the first three years.
The aid provided by American subsidies through the Agro-Joint includes loans to settlers to enable them to make the transition from the cities to the interior and to build them homes, purchase of farm implements, seed and live-stock, well drilling and road building, organization of farm cooperatives, and the maintenance of agricultural experiment stations and a staff of field experts to supervise instruction of the colonists in their new vocation. The work of the Agro-Joint is under the direction of Dr. Joseph A. Rosen, a noted American agricultural scientist, who carried out the agricultural relief program of the American Relief Administration during the great famine in the Volga region in 1921-22. Dr. Rosen is accompanying Mr. Warburg and his party on their tour of the colonies.
With 100 new settlements already established, thousands of more families, according to Dr. Rosen have registered their desire to take up land and are anxiously waiting to be enabled to go-Further development of the work depends, however, on the amount of money which the Agro-Joint will have at its disposal. The J. D. C.’s appropriation for Russia calls for $2,000,000 for this year, of which $1,500,000 is for agricultural purposes.
Whether this sum will actually be forthcoming depends on the payment of pledges made to the $25,000,000 United Jewish Campaign, all other resources of the J. D. C. being now exhausted. With the spring season now at its height, when the ground must be prepared for sowing, it is particularly vital that the funds for carrying on the work should be assured, and the campaign leaders have been compelled to issue an emergency call urging local leaders throughout the country to borrow on funds pledged to the state and city drives, to make the minimum amounts urgently needed not only for Russia but for all of Eastern Europe available for the transmission to Europe at the earliest possible moment. – JTA, 1927
Felix M. Warburg, chairman of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, on the conclusion of his visit to the new Jewish colonies in Russia, sent a cable to David A. Brown, national chairman of the United Jewish Campaign, and James N. Rosenberg, vice-chairman of the Joint Distribution Committee, describing his impressions of his inspection.
Mr. Warburg expressed himself as profoundly impressed with the permanent foundations of a new Jewish agricultural class being laid through the work of the Agro-Joint.
“Later I hope to persuade American Jewry to invest further in this practical and humanitarian work,” Mr. Warburg said in his message. His visit covered more than forty colonies in the three districts of the Ukraine, White Russia, and the Crimea, in which the Agro Joint is working. There are 135 colonies in all, in which more than 10,000 families of former impoverished traders and city dwellers have established themselves. All these colonies have been founded within the last three years.
A second cable was received at the same time from James H. Becker of Chicago, who is traveling with Mr. Warburg.
Mr. Warburg’s cable, as made public by Mr. Brown, reads:
“After delightful inspection our main three districts, am both satisfied proud of permanent foundation bringing these colonists only happiness only self-re-spected healthy life possible here, probably within near future. With unemployment more seriods, number anxious to become self-supporting independent farmers steadily increasing. First three years have gone according to schedule entirely satisfactory, and seeing them in their homes secure, contented, with hopes revived, working farms, starting repayments, is joy as well as vindication of Rosen’s plan. government encouraging, aiding our successful effort. Later I hope to persuade Jewry to invest further in this practical and humanitarian work. Meantime you and few who have given, worked, and seen for themselves realize that least American Jews can do is pay pledges without delay, for our obligations here must be met according to schedule. Nature’s seasons and desirable land wont wait.”
Mr. Becker’s cable read:
“Although have followed closely all oral, written reports, from our representatives who have seen colonization undertaking, I had no adequate picture of its magnitude of spirit. Have inspected work in all three districts. Visited and passed through more than forty out of hundred thirty-five our colonies. By October will have hundred eighty. Saw settlements in all stages of development, some formed this spring, to those completing third year. Have fine efficient business and technical organization, which receives inexperienced city dwellers, teaches them farming, helps them build houses, plant vineyards, prepared fields, sow crops, establish creameries, cooperative farm banks, etc., and remains in contact with them until they are independent farmers. This is great historic opportunity to acquire more land and continue turning declassed occupationless discouraged people into independent farmers. Although this sounds strong statement, nevertheless absolutely accurate. At present number persons we can help depends only upon money available. Can’t stress too much absolute necessity assuring funds enabling us carry out program and obligations already assumed. – JTA, 1927
PURCHASE, N. Y., Aug. 30, 1975 —The marriage of Mrs. Barbara Warburg of New York and Vineyard Haven, Mass., widow of Paul Felix Warburg, the financier and philanthropist, to Leonardo Mercall of East Hampton, L. 1,, and Athens, took place here today at the home of John L. Loeb, the investment banker, and Mrs. Loeb. State Supreme Court Justice John C. Marbach performed the ceremony in the presence of members of the couple’s immediate families.
The bride, the former Barbara Tapper of Chicago, was the widow of Baron D’Almeida when she was married to Mr. Warburg in London in 1949.
The bridegroom, who graduated in 1923 from Oxford University, prefers in this country not to use the title of Count, to which he is entitled. He was previously married to the former Lily Stathatos of Athens.
The couple will divide their time between New York and Europe. – New York Times
WARBURG – THE NEXT GENERATION
James Warburg before the Subcommittee on Revision of the United Nations Charter
Revision of the United Nations Charter: Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations (1950) United States Senate
REVISION OF THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate 81st Congress, 2d Session on Resolutions relative to the United Nations charter, Atlantic Union, World Federation, etc. Feb. 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 13, 15, 17, and 20, 1950 Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, 1950: 64429 PP. 494-508
Subcommittee on Revision of the United Nations Charter Elbert D. Thomas, Utah, Chairman Theodor Francis Green, Rhode Island Alexander Wiley, Wisconsin H. Alexander Smith, New Jersey February 17, 1950Washington, D. C.
STATEMENT OF JAMES P. WARBURG OF GREENWICH, CONN.
I am James P. Warburg, of Greenwich, Conn., and am appearing as an individual.
I am aware, Mr. Chairman, of the exigencies of your crowded schedule and of the need to be brief, so as not to transgress upon your courtesy in granting me a hearing.
The past 15 years of my life have been devoted almost exclusively to studying the problem of world peace and, especially, the relation of the United States to these problems. These studies led me, 10 years ago, to the conclusion that the great question of our time is not whether or not one world can be achieved, but whether or not one world can be achieved by peaceful means.
We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest.
(our emphasis added)
Today we are faced with a divided world—its two halves glowering at each other across the iron curtain. The world’s two superpowers—Russia and the United States—are entangled in the vicious circle of an arms race, which more and more preempts energies and resources sorely needed to lay the foundations of enduring peace. We are now on the road to eventual war—a war in which the conqueror will emerge well nigh indistinguishable from the vanquished.
The United States does not want this war, and most authorities agree that Russia does not want it. Indeed, why should Russia prefer the unpredictable hazards of war to a continuation of here present profitable fishing in the troubled waters of an uneasy armistice? Yet both the United States and Russia are drifting—and, with them, the entire world—toward the abyss of atomic conflict.
SUPPORT OF SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 56
Mr. Chairman, I am here to testify in favor of Senate Resolution 56, which, if concurrently enacted with the House, would make the peaceful transformation of the United Nations into a world federation the avowed aim of United States policy. The passage of this resolution seems to me the first prerequisite toward the development of an affirmative American policy which would lead us out of the valley of death and despair.
I am fully aware that the mere passage of this resolution will not solve the complex problems with which we are confronted. Our recognition of the inadequacy of the present United Nations structure, and our declared determination to strengthen that structure by Charter amendment, will not alone overcome the Russian obstacle. But it will, at long last, chart our own goal and enable us to steer a straight course toward a clearly seen objective. Moreover, it will unite us in purpose with the vast majority of the peoples of the non-Soviet world.
Until we have established this goal, we shall continue to befog and befuddle our own vision by clinging to the illusion that the present structure of the United Nations would work, if only the Russians would let it work. That has been our position to date.
Until we establish this goal, we shall continue to ask other peoples to unite with us only in the negative purpose of stopping Russia. Fear-inspired negative action makes poor cement for unity.
Once we shall have declared a positive purpose—once we shall have cemented the united will of the free peoples in a common aspiration— we shall be in a far stronger position to deal with the obstacles presented to the realization of that purpose.
Mr. Chairman, I prefer Senate Resolution 56 to other resolutions now before you for two major reasons:
UNIVERSAL FEDERATION REQUIRED
First: Senate Resolution 56 goes to the root of the evil in the present state of international anarchy. It recognizes that there is no cure for this evil short of making the United Nations into a universal organization capable of enacting, interpreting, and enforcing world law to the degree necessary to outlaw force, or the threat of force, as an instrument of foreign policy. It states the objective in unequivocal terms.
Second: Senate Resolution 56 does not commit the United States to any specific next steps to be taken toward the attainment of that objective. In the present-state of world affairs, it would seem to me unwise to commit ourselves to any fixed plan of action, without first exploring all the possibilities. In contrast to Senate Resolution 56, other proposals before you seem to me either to set a goal short of what is needed to ensure peace, or to foreclose the ultimate attainment of a universal organization by an over-eager acceptance of half measures, on the theory that half a loaf is better than none.
Limitations of time prevent my going into detail, but I should like to state specifically the conviction that any exclusive partial federation, such as the Atlantic Union, would not only serve to harden the existing cleavages in a divided world, but would create new and dangerous cleavages within our half of the divided world.
I should like to make it clear, Mr. Chairman, that I do not minimize the many and complicated problems which will remain to be solved, once Senate Resolution 56 is enacted. Mr. Hickerson of the Department of State listed them most carefully. In due course we shall have to define more closely what we mean by world government and by what steps we propose to get there. I have given considerable study to these problems. I believe them to be soluble—but not by the adoption of any hastily conceived formulas, and, above all, not without exploring patiently and carefully what is in the minds of other peoples, who, while friendly to us, do not share our historical background nor our particular political or economic prejudices and predilections.
If we seek peace under law by common consent, we cannot expect to impose our imprint upon the world. We must be prepared to accept some sort of a composite pattern, in which we may preserve for ourselves the things we cherish, but in which others may be equally free to do the same. We may or may not be able to find a common pattern with the present rulers of Russia. We most certainly can, and must, find a common pattern not only with the peoples of western Europe but with the peoples of Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America. Perhaps a shorthand device for stating the point would be to say that we must find a common pattern with Nehru, before we can even think of trying to find a common pattern with Stalin.
AFFIRMATIVE POLICY REQUIRED
The virtue of Senate Concurrent Resolution 56 is precisely that it does not commit us to the narrow pattern which the State Department dreads. It is a broad declaration of purpose and nothing more.
Secretary Acheson said the other day that the only agreements which can usefully be made with the Kremlin are those which rest upon established fact. I think this is true, and not only with respect to Russia. But, as to Russia, the trouble has been that we have been letting the Kremlin create the existing facts.
One of your colleagues made a speech the other day, which seemed to me to leap straight for the jugular vein in our present foreign policy. Senator McMahon proposed that we create some facts of our own.
One of these facts, which your colleague specifically proposed to create, would, in my judgment, be far more powerful than our recent decisions to develop and manufacture hydrogen bombs. Senator McMahon proposed that we present the Kremlin with the fact of our determination to dedicate our strength to a world-wide, cooperative crusade, waged through the United Nations, against hunger, poverty, disease, and ignorance. This is the sort of bold affirmative action in the economic field which could, if pursued, create the climate for the attainment of our political objective—namely, the establishment of a world community living at peace under law.
Without detracting from the imaginative courage of Senator McMahon’s proposal, I regret that, in his first presentation, he has attached it to a self-negating proviso. His plan, so right in itself, would become operative only if a disarmament agreement were first reached with the Kremlin under which the United States could save $10,000,000,000 a year out of its military budget. This is extremely unlikely.
Moreover, even if the Russians were to accept a modified Baruch plan, this would not suffice, because, at best, such a plan would outlaw only one type of weapon and one method of waging war. It would, in effect, establish world government in the limited field of atomic energy, but it would leave the use of all other types of weapons to the discretion of nation-states dwelling in a state of international anarchy.
At a conference in New York last week, I ventured to put forward an alternative, in which Senator McMahon’s world-wide Marshall plan would not be conditioned upon anything the Kremlin might or might not be willing to do. Under this alternative, we should not wait for Russia. The benefits of the McMahon plan would become immediately available to those countries which made known their will to accept supranational authority—not only in the field of atomic energy, but in the whole field of international relations—to the extent necessary in order to establish peace under law.
Obviously, the proposed alternative condition—agreement to outlaw all weapons and war itself—is one which we cannot impose until we ourselves have accepted it. But, once we have accepted it, by adopting the concurrent resolution now before you, we shall be in a position to proceed with Senator McMahon’s cooperative plan, hand in hand with the majority of the world’s peoples.
Thus we should present the Kremlin with two vital new facts not of its own making:
First. The united determination of the majority of the world’s peoples to establish a rule of law and thus eventually to free themselves from the burden of armaments and from the overhanging fear of annihilation; and
Second. The steady progress of the massed forces of humanity embattled in a common crusade against hunger, poverty, disease, and ignorance.
The first of these new facts would, for a time, be static. The avowed aim could not be realized without Russian cooperation. The second of these new facts would be dynamic. It would demonstrate how peoples devoting their energies and resources to cooperative effort outstrip those peoples whose governments subsist on force and pursue only the goal of widening the orbit of their own arbitrary power.
Taken together, these two facts would exert a mounting pressure toward cooperation upon the Kremlin. It is true that a regime, which maintains itself by force at home, cannot readily renounce force as an instrument of foreign policy. Yet even such a regime can, in the long run, be brought to accept new facts which alter the conception of its own self-interest and self-preservation.
The creation of one such new fact has been boldly proposed by a member of your committee. The creation of the other lies in your hands today.
In order not to trespass upon your time, Mr. Chairman, I have left a number of gaps in the presentation of the suggested modification of the McMahon proposal. To fill in these gaps, I ask leave to have included in the record of my testimony, the paper already referred to, which was delivered last week at a conference of the Postwar World Council in New York.
Senator THOMAS. Without objection, it will be included.
(The paper referred to is as follows:)
SENATOR MCMAHON’S PEACE BOMB-WORKABLE PLAN OR DESPERATE HOPE?
[The Current Affairs Press, New York 17, N. Y.](By James P. Warburg)
I. IS IT A PLAN OR JUST A HOPE?
The speech delivered in the United States Senate on February 2, 1950, by the Honorable Brien McMahon, may well go down in history as the turning point in postwar United States policy. On the other hand, it is also quite possible that its echoes will die away within a few weeks or months, if the flame of hope which it kindled is allowed to flicker and die out.
For the first time since the cold war began, one of the major architects of United States foreign policy stood up and denounced the sterility of the present negative approach to peace—denounced as hopelessly outworn the ancient motto: “He who wants peace had better prepare for war.” This was the beginning of hope.
But Senator McMahon did more than merely repudiate the idea that security can be attained through maintaining the greatest arsenal of destructive weapons. He put forward a constructive proposal for an affirmative approach to peace. Was this proposal a workable plan for peace? Or was it merely the expression of a desperate anxiety that a workable plan for peace should be developed?
Briefly stated, Senator McMahon proposed that, if the Soviet Union would accept effective international control of atomic energy, the United States should declare itself willing to cut its military expenditures from 15 to 5 billion dollars a year, and to contribute the $100,000,000,000 so saved to a world-wide economic recovery program, channeled through the United Nations. The Senator envisaged a cooperative program, to which other nations would likewise contribute—a program lasting perhaps 5 years and calling for a total contribution of $50,000,000,000 from the United States. The present European recovery program, the point 4 program, atomic energy development and, presumably, all other programs of economic rehabilitation and development would be combined in this single over-all plan. Under it, all nations, including the Soviet Union, would be eligible for assistance.
This proposal falls into two parts: the proposal itself, and the conditions upon which it was put forward. Let us consider each separately.
II. THE CONCRETE PROPOSAL
The plan itself recognizes and squarely meets several major defects in our present foreign-aid policies.
By implication, it recognizes the futility of all military aid as opposed to economic assistance. Explicitly, as to economic assistance itself, Senator McMahon’s proposal corrects three major errors in our present procedures:
1. We have so far been attempting to deal with isolated parts of the world economy without an over-all concept or plan. For example, we are trying desperately to “integrate” western Europe by one major effort, while making another wholly separate effort to raise the living standards of the so-called underdeveloped areas of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. We have so far -overlooked the fact that parts of western Europe are actually much more closely “integrated” with parts of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East than they are with each other.
Senator McMahons’ plan recognizes the need for a single, coordinated, worldwide effort, applied at whatever may be the points of maximum leverage on the world’s economy.
2. We embarked, in 1947, upon a wholly negative concept of extending economic and military aid wherever needed to contain Soviet-communism. We then tried to switch to a positive approach, when Secretary Marshall, in launching his well-known project, declared: “Our policy is not directed against any country or doctrine, but against hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos.” Our attempt to make this switch was frustrated by Molotov’s famous walk-out, which doomed the Marshall plan to become primarily an instrument in the negative cold war. (It is beside the point of this discussion to speculate upon which would have happened, if Russia had accepted Secretary Marshall’s invitation.) In January, 1949, President Truman made a second start toward an affirmative policy, when he enunciated the point 4 principle. This declaration of principle remains as yet unimplemented and the legislation now before Congress would, if enacted, constitute only a very small first step in its execution.
Senator McMahon’s proposal carries the affirmative emphasis over into the whole of our foreign economic assistance effort. It restores the original Marshall plan concept.
3. We have been operating, in our foreign-aid programs, almost wholly outside the United Nations. The basic tenet of our policy has been to strengthen the United Nations; nevertheless, we have acted unilaterally in western Europe, in Greece and Turkey, and in China. President Truman’s point 4 program will apparently attempt to channel at least some of the proposed technical aid through the United Nations, but most, if not all, of the needed capital investments are expected to flow unilaterally from the United States to the participating countries, in accordance with bilateral bargains made outside of the United Nations. Senator McMahon’s proposal recognizes the need for channeling the whole program through the United Nations.
These are three major contributions to the making of an American policy that might lead to enduring peace. There is a fourth contribution implicit in the Senator’s proposal.
Because we have committed so large a part of our resources to military preparations and to European aid, we have arrived at the crisis in Asia feeling impoverished. Our budget is heavily out of balance. Taxes are already burdensome. Therefore, whatever we do in Asia must, we think, be done without spending any substantial funds from our Treasury. This led President Truman to speak of “our vast imponderable resources” and to think in terms of technical advice rather than financial assistance. Since then, however, it has become clear that technical advice without substantial help in carrying it into effect would be of no great usefulness, and so we have built a point 4 program on the hypothesis that private investors can be induced to provide the necessary capital. To a very great extent, I believe this hypothesis to be an illusion, especially in the initial stages of the program.
Senator McMahon’s proposal would make aid to the underdeveloped areas an integral part of an over-all program financed largely by Government contributions channeled through the United Nations. This would in no way preclude private investment. It would, on the contrary, create the only conditions in which private capital might be willing and able to make an important contribution.
We see, then, that the McMahon proposal might, if reduced to a practicable plan, cure precisely those defects from which our past efforts have suffered and from which the point 4 program will suffer, if we pursue our present course.
III. THE SELF-NEGATING PROVISO
Let us now consider the conditions upon which this extremely interesting proposal has been put forward.
The whole plan rests upon the assumption that the United States can save $10,000,000,000 a year (two-thirds of its present military budget). This assumption, in turn, rests upon Russian acceptance of a modified Baruch plan for the international control of atomic energy.
Various commentators have pointed out that this point of departure negates the whole proposal and makes it merely a clever propaganda maneuver. They have pointed out that, if Russia would not accept the Baruch plan when we had an atomic monopoly, she would certainly not accept it now; in other words, that the Baruch plan is out of date.
This criticism seems to me wide of the mark. It is true that the Baruch plan is out of date. But I can find no conclusive evidence in the Senator’s speech to suggest that he would object to modifying it, so long as it remained an enforceable plan fortified by the right of inspection. The real difficulty lies elsewhere.
The Acheson-Lilienthal report, from which the Baruch plan derived, was a revolutionary document. It said, in so many words, that there was no way to prevent the construction and probable use of atomic weapons, short of establishing a world authority capable of enacting, administering, and enforcing law. The Baruch plan was, in effect, a plan for the establishment of world government in the field of atomic energy.
Now the amazing thing was this: We, the United States, were willing to put forward this far-seeing proposal and to abide by it, but without recognizing the revolutionary nature of our own proposition. It never occurred to us that the principle, which we recognized as valid with respect to atomic weapons, was equally valid with regard to all weapons. We talked about government under law with respect to A-bombs, but went on talking about international anarchy with respect to TNT-bombs. This is something like a community which decides to outlaw murder by the use of firearms, enacts a law to that effect, and hires a policeman to enforce it, but leaves murder by knives, hatchets, and poison to the discretion of individuals. For what, pray, is any attempt to control so-called conventional armaments by treaty between sovereign nation states, other than leaving the use of such armaments to the discretion of the individual governments?
The trouble with the Baruch plan-even if brought up to date-is that it deals only with one type of weapon. It outlaws one method of waging war. What we need to do is to outlaw all weapons of aggression. What we need to do is to outlaw war itself.
The puzzling thing about Senator McMahon’s proposal is that he did not make this the condition-if there was to be a condition-for the adoption by the United States of an affirmative policy toward peace. It would be less puzzling if Senator McMahon had not himself sponsored a resolution, now before both Houses of Congress, which would make the development of the United Nations into a world federation the avowed aim of American policy. In signing his name to this resolution, Senator McMahon recognized that there can be no peace without a world organization capable of enacting, administering, and enforcing world law, in such a way as to prevent aggression by any nation against another with any weapons of force-from hatchets to H-bombs.
Why not, then, combine two bravely taken positions of wise statesmanship into one? It seems to me that, were he to do this, Senator McMahon would have a theoretically impeccable plan.
It is true that the proposals thus modified would still not be a practicable plan, because the Russians would hardly accept world government with regard to all weapons any more readily than they would accept the enforcement of law with regard to one type of weapon. This brings me to the final observation I should like to make concerning the Senator’s proposal.
IV. THE PLAN MADE REALISTIC
If the policy suggested by Senator McMahon is a wise policy for the United States to pursue, why must it be made conditional upon any Russian action? The obvious answer is that we cannot afford to cut our military expenditures by $10,000,000,000 a year unless there is an effective agreement to disarm; and that, unless we can save the $10,000,000,000 out of our military budget, we cannot afford to spend them on economic reconstruction.
The first half of this answer must be accepted as correct. Disarmament by example will get us nowhere.
The second half of the answer seems to me open to question. Suppose we take for granted that no effective disarmament agreement is possible at the present time, and that we cannot, therefore, count on any substantial saving in our military budget. Is it so certain that we cannot afford to go ahead nevertheless with the constructive program put forward by Senator McMahon?
To begin with, we should not be talking about a ‘net increase of $10,000,000,000, a year in our expenditure. The money we are now spending in western Europe and in other parts of the world for purely economic aid—excluding military assistance—comes to at least $4,000,000,000 a year. If these existing programs were integrated, as proposed, in the new over-all plan, we should be adding only six billions to our annual expenditure. Thus, the 5-year program would cost us 30—not 50 billions. Furthermore, it seems reasonably certain that, with or without the over-all McMahon plan, we shall have to spend considerable sums in Asia and the Middle East during the next 5 years if we intend to hold our own in a continuing cold war. It is, therefore, fair to say that the adoption of the McMahon plan without any conditions whatever would probably not add more than four or five billion dollars a year to our expenditures.
Can we afford such an increase?
I should like to put the question to you In reverse: Can we afford not to undertake such a plan? The last war cost us over $1,000,000,000,000. It cost us very early as much per week as this program would cost us per year. No one knows what the next war would cost.
Clearly we can afford it, if the program can reasonably be expected to get us off the greased slide that leads to atomic war and on to the long and arduous road that leads to peace.
I, for one, believe that Senator McMahon has outlined a plan that can reasonably be expected to lessen the existing tensions, to strengthen the United Nations, to put the United States into an unassailable moral position and to improve the lot of mankind. I believe that the United States should embark upon such a plan without making its decision subject to whatever the Kremlin may or may not be willing to do at the present time.
Secretary of State Acheson has said that the only agreements that can be made with the Kremlin are agreements which rest upon existing facts. Let us, then, present, the Kremlin with a fact far more powerful than our decision to develop and manufacture ever more horrible weapons of destruction. Let us present the Kremlin With the fact that the United States is determined, in spite of its military burdens, to commit an act of faith-to dedicate its great strength to constructive cooperation with all the world’s peoples in a world-wide crusade against hunger, poverty disease, and ignorance. Let us present the Kremlin with the fact of a challenge not only to its military power but to its purposes, which are the ultimate roots of its power.
V. SHOULD WE LET RUSSIA PARTICIPATE IN THE NEW OVER-ALL PLAN?
The condition I would attach to Senator McMahon’s proposal is one that we shall not be able to impose until we, ourselves, have accepted it. That condition is that only those nations shall be eligible to participate in the plan whose peoples have made known their will to accept the rule of law—not merely in the field of atomic weapons but in the whole field of international relations—to the degree necessary in order to outlaw force, or the threat of force, as a method of settling disputes.
Once we declare our own willingness to transform the United Nations into an organization capable of enforcing peace under law, we shall find ourselves in company with the entire non-Soviet world. We shall then be in a position to proceed with our over-all cooperative plan hand in hand with the majority of the world’s peoples.
When the rulers of the Russian people decide that they, too, wish to participate on these terms, then, at long last, the arms race can come to an end, and all the world’s peoples can be released from the burden which lies so heavily upon them, and from the overhanging threat of annihilation which beclouds their lives with fear.
It would, I think, be foolish to think that this can happen in the immediate future as the result of any sort of negotiations. A regime which maintains itself at home by the use of force cannot readily renounce force as an instrument of foreign policy. In the long run, however, even such a regime can be brought to realize—by “demonstration of fact”—that those peoples, who devote their energies to peaceful cooperation, will outstrip the peoples whose governments pursue only the sterile aim of widening the orbit of their own arbitrary power. The alternatives with which we are faced today are not whether we should or should not “talk to the Russians.” The alternatives we face are whether or not to do—in spite of the Russians—what needs to be done and what. in our hearts, we know we should do.
Freed from its self-defeating proviso, Senator McMahon’s proposal can become a mighty weapon for peace.
Freed from its own myopic, penny-pinching fears, our Government can use this proposal to end the long nightmare in which we have been living.
QUESTIONS
Senator THOMAS. Senator Smith?
Senator SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Warburg, I am interested in your program here. I gather from your statement that you are not prepared to go as far as the so-called Hutchins plan, which is a proposed set-up for a world federation—you are not prepared to go that far?
Mr. WARBURG. No, sir.
Senator SMITH of New Jersey. I also gather that you are not in accord with the proposals of the Atlantic Union group which contemplates a preponderance of power at this time in order to give us a strong bargaining position with Russia?
Mr. WARBURG. No, sir; I am not in favor of that, as I stated in my testimony.
Senator SMITH of New Jersey. And you think the proposals we have had to move step by step are not adequate?
Mr. WARBURG. That is right.
WORLD “FEDERATION” OR “ORDER”?
Senator SMITH of New Jersey. Now there is one difficulty that has been raised in these hearings, in regard to a particular resolution, and that is to the use of the word “federation,” and that is on the theory that it prejudges the kind of world set-up to exist. In other words, it is sort of copying after our own state or Swiss state. Some think that it goes too far and some think that unless we can see the thing through and blueprint it as to what it means, we should not use it. I have been asked as to those things, and as to the substitution of the word “order” for the word “federation” so that you won’t have the implication of some kind of federated. states, if that might not be better in this resolution, if adopted.
Mr. WARBURG. I would hesitate to express an unconsidered opinion as to this, Senator. It seems to me that “federation” is as broad as “order,” and a little more specific in the sense that it is more limited if you like, because it means that you delegate power to a federal government, whereas “order” might be unitary government, and if I were afraid of having this too broad, I would prefer the word “federation” because it does imply a limited delegation of power.
Senator SMITH of New Jersey. You feel it presupposes that we might commit ourselves to something like the Swiss Federation, or our own federation, or any other existing federation at the approach. I am wondering whether you are prepared to go that far, where you say in your statement that you are not trying to outline the details, you mean you are not prepared to say yet what kind of over-all federal legislature should be set up to enact the kind of laws you contemplate?
Mr. WARBURG. No; because I don’t think we alone are capable of thinking that out. I think that is a cooperative matter that calls for cooperative effort.
Senator SMITH of New Jersey. I just wondered whether you wanted the United States to commit itself to that approach, and to the implication of the word “federation” at this time.
Mr. WARBURG. I think the essential thing we should undertake is that we declare our willingness to participate in some sort of world organization capable of enacting, administering, interpreting, and, enforcing world law, whether you call it a federation, a government, or world order, I don’t think that matters. I don’t share in Mr. Hickerson’s anxiety that this limits us to a narrow approach. I think this is a broad approach, and I like it for that reason; whereas some of the other proposals are not, and I think they would be a misstep at the present time.
Senator SMITH of New Jersey. Would you be willing, irrespective of whether this is passed or not, to support the Thomas-Douglas proposal, or the so-called Ferguson Resolution, if you know what they are?
Mr. WARBURG. I don’t know the Ferguson Resolution.
Senator SMITH of New Jersey. The Ferguson Resolution is simply an approach through the United Nations, recognizing the United Nations, and presupposes that it has in it a possibility of expansion and proposes that that area of expansion should be explored under the United Nations as it is today, a trial-and-error approach, rather than contemplating a blueprint for the future.
Mr. WARBURG. I couldn’t support that because it doesn’t seem to go to the root of the matter, which is simply that the United Nations in its present form is a league of sovereign states, and the root of the evil is that it is not a league of sovereign people. Unless you cure that, I don’t think you can attack the root of the evil. I don’t think our present resolutions go far enough, I may be incorrect, but in my understanding, the resolution won’t go far enough to change the United Nations from a league of nations to a league of people.
Senator THOMAS of Utah. It would not change the structure of the United Nations at all.
Senator SMITH of New Jersey. That is all I had in mind, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to bring out, if I could, Mr. Warburg’s position on these things, and the relation to other proposals. We are dealing with lots of proposals and we will have to meet in executive session when the hearings are over, and think through the positions taken by the different witnesses.
I feel grateful to you for your splendid presentation, Mr. Warburg. Your point of view is very valuable.
Mr. WARBURG. If I might sum it up, I think Senate Resolution 56 does the minimum required to undertake the job we have to undertake without going any further than is necessary, to accomplish that minimum, at the present time.
Senator SMITH of New Jersey. You don’t claim Senate Resolution 56 would meet any of the immediate present crises before us?
Mr. WARBRG. No, but I think it would get us on a course with a charted goal toward which we could steer, which would enable us to meet the crises, and without such a goal, I don’t see how we can, because we will go on zigzagging.
DISARMAMENT PROPOSAL
Senator SMITH of New Jersey. Would you care to comment on Senator Tydings’ suggestion that the President call a disarmament conference to deal with that as the immediate problem before us, before we get to Senator McMahon’s proposal?
Mr. WARBURG. With all due respect to Senator Tydings, I have never seen any hope in disarmament or limitation of armaments by agreement between sovereign nations or states, because all of the treaties between the sovereign nations or states are such that anyone can break them at their convenience, and the result is that you give a head start to the aggressor.
Senator SMITH of New Jersey. I ought to say, in behalf of Senator Tydings’ proposal that he wouldn’t think of going into it unless there were some practical plan for international inspection.
Mr. WARBURG. I would find it difficult to imagine any practical plan which did not involve some form of world government.
Senator SMITH of New Jersey. That is one of the difficulties we have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
IMPLEMENTATION OF SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 56
Senator WILEY. Mr. Chairman, Senate Resolution 56 merely expresses the sense of the Congress. Do you think, Mr. Warburg, that it should be a fundamental objective of the foreign policy of the United States to support and strengthen the United Nations and seek its development into a world federation open to all nations with defined and limited power?
Where do you go from there?
Mr. WARBURG. I don’t think one needs to answer that question at the present time, sir. I can tell you where I think, or where I would try to go. As far as I can see today, the next thing I would do would be to explore with the other nations, and as I said in my statement, particularly with a nation like India, what the common ground is on which we could reasonably hope to build a pattern on which they could live and we could live, each keeping the things we cherish. If we could do that, find the common pattern or the common meeting ground for the non-Soviet world, and I believe it can be done, then one begins this trial-and-error business, finding out how the details would work out in terms of a constitution, and so forth.
Senator WILEY. I want to thank you for that explanation, because I agree fully with you that all the resolution does is to express the sense of the Congress the hope and wish that through man’s ingenuity and vision he can evolve something that may do this job.
Mr. WARBURG. I should say, if I might, sir, it is more than a wish. I think it is a determination. I think if the Congress enacts this concurrent resolution, it is requesting the President to declare this as an avowed aim of the American policy, and aims of American policy have a habit of being more than wishes.
Senator WILEY. I won’t quibble with you about the meaning of words. What I have in mind is that it is not a mandate because under the Constitution this is a question of foreign policy. It virtually says to the President, “Now, get busy and see if you can do something about this terrible situation that we are in.” The State Department says that they have been busy. They have been trying in every way, through the United Nations, through their ambassadors, to try to reach some workable arrangement with Joe Stalin. The only reason I am interjecting this angle is because, as you have heard today, two Congressmen have intimated that the passage of one of these resolutions would be unconstitutional. When those very suggestions get to the public, and they connect them with the daily news, a bad psychological condition is created. I think it is well to have it clear that all we are doing here is exploring these suggestions. If any resolution is passed, all it does is to suggest to the President who, under the Constitution, has responsibility for our foreign relations, that we want him to keep on exploring to see if we can do something to antidote the Russian influence.
EFFECT OF RESOLUTION ON PEOPLE OF THE WORLD
Now, I want to ask another question: Assume now that pursuant to this resolution the President is requested to head in a certain direction in foreign relations to take steps to support and strengthen the United Nations in such a way that there will be developed a world federation open to other nations.
Assume that we are successful in getting this resolution through. Suppose we get India and Pakistan and their 500,000,000 people to enter our organization. We could make a lot of other assumptions.
All right, how are we going to, by having this mechanism, change the ideological approach of these people? I am interested, vitally interested, because I think that is the crux of the thing-how are we going to win the battles of the mind?
Mr. WARBURG. What I attempted to suggest, and let me restate it because I think it is the nub of the problem. I don’t think that by our avowed intention to transform the United Nations into a world federation, that we change an existing crisis with Russia, and the whole Communist orbit.
Senator WILEY. That should be set out—
Mr. WARBURG. It may, hitch together, because that is only half of what I want to say.
I don’t think we can meet that crisis in any other way except by embarking on this road, and then doing some other things as well. I don’t think then, even if you attained world government, you would necessarily have a guaranty of peace-I don’t think you can have peace without world government, I think we need to proceed on two parallel lines, one political, and one economic. I think the political line is that we must declare our intention to do the one thing that can preserve the peace in the world, and oddly enough, the United States and the Soviet Union are the only two great powers that are on record as opposing the transformation of the United Nations, That is the only thing we agree with Uncle Joe on. Most of the other nations in the world are about ready to do something about it. That is the political approach.
But, parallel, to that, that is why I brought in Senator McMahon’s proposal, I think we can do a great deal to create the limits within which the world community can grow and become possible, and I think the Senator hit the nail on the head with his proposal, except as I say he hitched it to another proviso.
I think we should go ahead and do precisely what he says, and not wait for Russia. We should get together with the other nations, which are willing to share our purpose to create the rule of law in the world.
Senator WILEY. Have you ever heard of the statement that a treaty is but a scrap of paper?
Mr. WARBURG. Yes.
Senator WILEY. Have you seen any indication in the last 30 years that the nations have changed their approach on that?
Mr. WARBURG. If your question means, do I believe that we can make a treaty with the Russians, I will say precisely the opposite. I am saying we should proceed, irrespective of a treaty with the Russians.
Senator WILEY. I am talking about whether or not the question of the validity of a treaty is just as strong as the intent of the parties to maintain it and keep it.
Mr. WARBURG. That is correct.
Senator WILEY. And, when you talk about creating a world government, you mean, I presume, that not simply the mechanism, but that the parties to that will live and die with the instrument; that they are ready to live and ready to sacrifice and ready to carry it through. But we have seen how in the economic front, the doctrine of the British, that a contract is a valid thing between two parties, has fared, and you have seen in the nations of the earth, the old British doctrine go out the window and the idea is now, “Get as much as you can, and forget the contract.”
Mr. WARBURG. Senator, I think you have put your finger on the primary reason why this resolution is necessary. As long as you have a world organization which is in effect nothing more than a multilateral agreement between sovereign states, you have precisely the situation you describe. The minute you have government and law, and law enforcement, there is no longer a question of whether you are willing to stick to a contract, you have to, or the policeman will come and take you in to jail.
Senator WILEY. You are assuming law and law enforcement. That means that Uncle Sam would become the world policeman.
Mr. WARBURG. No, no. I am not assuming that we will run the world government. I am not assuming that this world federation is a device for extending our own power.
Senator WILEY. You are not assuming that all the other folks on the earth are going to run us, are you?
Mr. WARBURG. I am assuming that a government will be run as our own Government is run, by the development of a fair process of representation which has to take in all the factors that apply to that, not only population, but productivity and education and all those things.
Senator WILEY. That is a consummation devoutly to be wished for, but are you not really assuming that we have won the battle of ideas in the minds of men, so that-we all see alike? Until you do that, you will have your internal conflict.
Mr. WARBURG. I don’t think we have won the battle for the minds of men, I think we are in the process of losing it, sir.
Senator WILEY. I think we have lost it. I want to win it back, if there is a way to do it. If yours is the way to do it, you will have to demonstrate it, and you will have to demonstrate that if we join up with all the groups of the earth, that we won’t be taken for a ride. We have been so naive in our world dealings, as you know, with the Soviet Union particularly and with others, and my whole thought in questioning you is to see or make sure that the thing we want, in other words, people sitting down, nations sitting down together, keeping faith with one another, things that we want to be–that our wishes do not lead us up other blind alleys that we would regret.
Mr. WARBURG. I subscribe to that, but I do very strongly feel that what we are doing today is following a policy which is made largely in Moscow, a fear-dictated negative policy designed to stop the Russians from whatever they want to do. I think the only way we will ever stop the Russians is to. develop a positive policy of our own, and I think the two parts of a pattern go together. You can’t have law without government, and you can’t have peace without law, that is part A; and, part B, the fact that you have to conduct a really serious world-wide war on hunger, disease, ignorance, and poverty if you want to have the people of the world on our side. I don’t mean to be Santa Claus. I mean, there should be a cooperative endeavor, such as Senator McMahon was talking about, in which everybody chips in.
Senator WILEY. We have to have that recognition. If we have it, can we get all the other folks to have that recognition, and then keep faith?
Mr. WARBURG. I think the first problem we should meet is in ourselves. One of the things I think we have been doing too much, is that we have stopped ourselves from getting started in the right direction because we then say, conveniently, “Oh, well, the other fellow won’t do it anyway, so what’s the use.”
If we said, “This is something we have to do,” and did it, we would find an awful lot of other people coming along who, once something was started, might be persuaded to join us.
Senator WILEY. You understand, of course, that we have a great deal of disagreement here between great minds in relation to the appropriateness of the mechanism. You are in favor of this, others are in favor of the North Atlantic Union, so, great minds differ on the mechanism, but they all seem to think that their mechanism will do the job.
Now, the thing I am trying to bring out in my questions is, that no mechanism will do the job unless there is a willingness and intent on the part of the peoples to carry it through.
Mr. WARBURG. Including our own.
Senator WILEY. Yes, that is the thing, and there is always the danger that because men of high standing, like yourself, get up here and talk about a mechanism, that some people believe it is going to give us the thing right off the bat, ipso facto, so to speak—it is going to be self-operating. That is a very dangerous condition for us to get into. We must make sure that whatever we do, it does not go out to the public that at long last we have found the magic something that is going to bring peace on earth. Peace is a question of conflict within the minds of men, and between nations. Conflict in the minds of men has been generated through centuries of hate and competition between people for material wealth and political domination. That basic conflict is not eliminated by merely passing a resolution or creating a mechanism. It has to be something finer, a rebirth within the minds of men. Do you agree with that?
Mr. WARBURG. Yes, but nothing I ever said, or that I have ever written indicated that I think that by passing a resolution we will have the millennium, nor are we talking about a mechanism. I think we are talking about an aim to find a mechanism; something different. We are not saying this is the mechanism by which you do it, we are saying you have to find it. We have to find the mechanism which will enable us to substitute the rule of law for the rule of anarchy in the world.
Senator WILEY. You have no mechanism, you are searching for one. Others say they have the mechanism.
Mr. WARBURG. I think that is all this resolution commits us to, to search for a mechanism to create the rule of law.
1921-1929 Vice President, International Acceptance Bank
1929-1931 President, International Manhattan Company
1931-1932 President, International Acceptance Bank
1932-1935 Vice Chairman of the Board, Bank of Manhattan Company
1932-1934 Financial Advisor to President Roosevelt and London Economic Conference
1933 Financial Advisor, World Economic Conference, London
1934-1936 Work in opposition to certain New Deal Policies
1939-1941 Work against isolationism in American foreign policy
1941-1942 Special Assistant to the Coordinator of Information
1942-1944 Deputy Director, Overseas Branch, Office of War Information
1944 Advisor and speech writer, Political Action Committee of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO-PAC)
1945-1969 Touring, speaking, and writing efforts on behalf of “a more creative foreign policy”
1969 Died June 3, Greenwich, Connecticut
And this is just history as written by its winners. We will keep digging deeper to find out what they forgot to tell us and what they made up.
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
I know monkey-pox is the thing right now, not surprised since it’s on GAVI’s list of emerging viruses , next to Marburg and Nipah. However, let me break this down for you…
Rich white son of emerald mine owner who grew up in apartheid South Africa is the real victim in our society #ThoughtsAndPrayers
A FUCKING ROTHSCHILD IS TWEETING AT MUSK ABOUT PRIVILEGE. LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO https://t.co/bBTeZXdsn5
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
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
Not everything is a theory or a matter of opinion. You don’t have to trust us or historians, you can verify it yourself, I’m just showing you some shortcuts.
We’ll use Geni.com
The connection is not apparent because it’s made through another family, the Cohens from The Netherlands.
One of Shlomo’s grand-daughters married in the Marx family, becoming Karl’s mother, while one niece married into the Rothschild family and became the wife of Nathan Mayer Rothschild. Basically, the Marx and the Rothschilds became cousin families
I hope this little demonstration helps ending the claims that these historical facts actually belong in the realm of theory, of any sort.
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
I’ve just unearthed a series of videos that show an unpublicized side of the World Economic Forum and its leader Klaus Schwab.
These videos are extra bonuses to a 2019 German Documentary titled “Das Forum” (The Forum), which seems part of Klaus Schwab’s idea of imprinting his personal image in history for the 50th WEF anniversary.
In 2018, Schwab decided to allow a carefully selected outsider in his kitchen, in a mutually complicit attempt at positive publicity and fame. There are precedents in history. What followed was quite a disaster, in my personal opinion, because Klaus doesn’t have the subtlety needed to do this and it all derailed in a blatant bad-taste cult of personality. All under the disguise of investigative journalism, of course.
I have previously published some of these extras, but now I have the full package and we’re going to weed out the propaganda looking for real truth gems.
From this first video we find out about the so called “Young Global Leaders”, which are pretty clearly World Economic Forum’s youth elite organization. I don’t have yet a quality translation of the part in German, but the English dialogue in the beginning is quite telling.
This second video reveals shocking former Young Global Learders names, and possible new candidates (as of 2018)
Class of 2011
Justin Trudeau has been among the first to let us know he’s aligned and awaiting instructions, even before he came out in the news claiming “The Great Reset” is a conspiracy. He’s been mentioning “Build Back Better” since February-March 2020, before Biden ever heard this oxymoron put together for the first time.
“Kyle Kemper is not a nobody. Not only is he Justin Trudeau’s half-brother, and the son of Margaret Trudeau, but he has a business portfolio: a founder and the Chief Executive Officer of Swiss Key, and previously an Executive Director and Strategic advisor at the Chamber of Digital Commerce Canada. He finished his BCOMM, marketing business, from Dalhousie University.” – En-volve
In the video above, Putin confirms Blair is one of his “good friends”. Recorded 10 years ago, when they were fresh YGL alumni.
In this third “resurrected” video, we watch them openly discussing regime change in countries unaligned with WEF’s “democratic liberalism” and the Fourth Industrial Revolution
VIDEO DELETED BY YOUTUBE, COULDN’T RECOVER IT YET, BUT I WILL…
No one’s younger than the king and his heirs, right?
Young Global Leaders
The Young Global Leaders, or Forum of Young Global Leaders, is an independent non-profit organization managed from Geneva, Switzerland, under the supervision of the Swiss government.
History
Launched by Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum in 2004, the Young Global Leaders are governed by a board of twelve world and industry leaders, ranging from Queen Rania of Jordan to Marissa Mayer of Yahoo! and Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales. Schwab created the group with $1 million won from the Dan David Prize, and the inaugural 2005 class comprised 237 young leaders. Young Global Leaders participate in the Annual Meeting of the New Champions, established in 2007 and known informally as “Summer Davos“, alongside Global Growth Companies and other delegations to the World Economic Forum.
Papa Schwab welcomes his “Young Global Leaders” at their Inaugural Summit in 2005
In this shape and form, YGL exists since 2004, but it’s actually an older structure bearing different names over time, such as Global Leaders for Tomorrow. Thus, the archives intertwin and overlap, and named get lost. But the agenda stayed the same. I just dug out a very interesting little gem from the belly of the Internets, which brings us to:
“The World Economic Forum, which is an independent international organization that defines its goal as improving the state of the world, started the Global Leaders for Tomorrow Program began in 1993. The program’s aim is “to provide an informal, efficient framework for an ongoing exchange of opinions on strategic issues of concern to this younger generation of decision-makers,” the forum describes.
“The GLT Community represents the new generation of global leaders, nearly 500 individuals from business, politics, public interest groups, the media, the arts and the sciences, who have demonstrated responsible leadership vis-a-vis society, business developments, the environment and socially responsible initiatives,” the Geneva-based forum said.
The criteria for making the list include being under 37 years old, proving a commitment to public affairs, and demonstrating leadership in addressing issues beyond their immediate professional interest.
Once selected, GLTs are invited for three consecutive years to a special GLT program at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum, and for five years to a yearly GLT Summit and to regional activities of the World Economic Forum.”
The current narrative, as per Wikipedia: “Representing over 70 different nations, Young Global Leaders are nominated by alumni to serve six-year terms and are subject to veto during the selection process. Candidates must be younger than 38 years old at the time of acceptance (meaning active YGLs are 44 and younger), and highly accomplished in their fields. Over the years, there have been hundreds of honorees, including several popular celebrities, alongside recognized high achievers and innovators in politics, business, academia, media, and the arts.”
Reception
BusinessWeek‘s Bruce Nussbaum describes the Young Global Leaders as “the most exclusive private social network in the world”, while the organization itself describes the selected leaders as representing “the voice for the future and the hopes of the next generation”.
Members and alumni
Notable members and alumni of Young Global Leaders include:
Young Global Leader David Rothschild, fresh off the YGL boat, preaching the WEF gospel on TV
The World Economic Forum out of Davos just announced its new 2008 list of YGLs—Young Global Leaders. In a growing universe of private social networks, the YGL network has got to be one of—if not THE—most exclusive sn around. A few weeks ago, I predicted that Cameron Sinclair, who founded Architecture for Humanity would become a YGL—and he did.
YGLers can find out who fellow members of the social network are in any particular city around the world by clicking on the map site (can’t do it here, sorry). Works for regions too. Want to chat with a fellow YGLer if you’re visiting Silicon Valley, call up Marc Benioff, Shai Agassi, Sergey Brin (Google founder), Gavin Newson (San Fran mayor), Jerry Yang or John Battelle. If you’re in New York City, Business News TV star Maria Bartiromo is a YGLer.
Princeton University Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment
Singapore Economic Development Board
University of Oxford Saïd Business School
University of Cape Town Graduate School of Business
Willis Towers Watson
Endowment Supporters (gifts from YGL members of 50,000+ CHF)
The YGL Endowment Fund was created by the community’s members to support the long-term ambitions of the Forum of Young Global Leaders. Its proceeds are intended to support the community programming and to ensure participation is accessible to all members.
Andrew Cohen
Ellana Lee
Georges Kern
Henrik Naujoks
Jill Otto
Katherine Garrett-Cox
M Arsjad Rasjid Mangkuningrat
Peter Lacy
Richard Stromback
Ron Cao
Sandro Salsano
Thor Björgolfsson
Veronica Colondam
Yana Peel
Zhang Yi-Chen
About us
Our growing membership of more than 1,400 members and alumni of 120 nationalities includes civic and business innovators, entrepreneurs, technology pioneers, educators, activists, artists, journalists, and more.
Aligned with the World Economic Forum’s mission, we seek to drive public-private co-operation in the global public interest. We are united by the belief that today’s pressing problems present an opportunity to build a better future across sectors and boundaries.
History
Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum, created the Forum of Young Global Leaders in 2004 to help the world meet increasingly complex and interdependent problems. His vision was to create a proactive multistakeholder community of the world’s next-generation leaders to inform and influence decision-making and mobilize transformation.
Through the Forum of Young Global Leaders, Klaus Schwab envisioned facilitating earnest dialogue and friendships across cultures to bridge divides, fostering fresh thinking and dynamic new ways of collaboration to shape a more positive, peaceful and prosperous society.
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 
