All the prominent peers in Scotland, Ireland, England, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, and Spain have been Jewish for many centuries

Although I do relish my role as a truthteller, I am more ambivalent about my reputation online as anti-Jewish. To be honest, I still wince everytime I have to write the word “crypto-Jew”, although it is the appropriate word whenever I use it. I wince because I grew up in a liberal household, one where it would not have been considered appropriate to attack anyone—no matter what villainy they were up to—but especially not Jews, women, or blacks. In the circles I grew up in, exposing fraud was not seen as virtuous, it was seen as antisocial. Of course, as I look back, I can now see that was part of the long project: to educate nice people that part of being nice was looking away on cue. Only in the movies do good people face down evil: in real life good people go on quietly with their lives and don’t make trouble.

This affects me personally because—in as much as I still have “a people”—these are still my people. Of course my family is still what it always was: they haven’t changed. And the people I tend to meet and socialize with locally are also liberals. They tend to be Obama or Bernie voters, and a fair number are Jewish. I mentioned recently my trivia gang, and at least two on my team of six are Jewish. I have no evidence linking them to the hijinx I am exposing, so I treat them just like I treat anyone else. They aren’t rich or connected—as far as I know—so why blame them. I sometimes wonder if, despite not being a part of the big con, they know about it. I don’t bother confronting them with the major stuff, of course—that would only be asking for a fight I don’t want any more than they do. But I sometimes mention minor things, such as that Elvis was Jewish, to test their reactions. They do having a knowing look in their eyes, as if they have already received that memo.

I have my fans online, but for the most part I simply can’t talk about what I know to the locals. Most wouldn’t be interested, and the rest would be offended. So in real life, I am known more as the guy who rides a bike, plays volleyball, and gives away kittens in the summer. In other words, I get no respect. Largely, my accomplishments and opinions aren’t known, since that would require these people reading what I have written. They don’t have time for that, which is probably just as well. But there is some local scuttlebutt, and I get wind of it occasionally. I have a reputation as being a bit scary,

and some amount of ostracizing goes on. I am avoided. I am not asked to parties. No one has yet confronted me, but I may have that to look forward to.

But what I am getting at is that discovering these things must create some inner tension. I used to wince whenever someone started going off about the Jews, and now I am—to some extent—that guy. I don’t rant, either in real life or in print, but I do tend to hit pretty hard on the subject. . . maybe harder than anyone else in the world. Twenty years ago I would have read my first paragraph in this paper and probably stopped reading. I wouldn’t have wanted to hear it. So the question becomes, do I really want to be that guy? Is it worth it? Is the truth worth being ostracized and maybe hated? My father is a bit of a fighter, but even he tried to teach me that “a wise man leaves the world pretty much as he found it”. I looked that up, but couldn’t find it as a famous quote. I guess he just got it from his father. The thing is, that quote always raised my hackles. I didn’t argue with my father, but I couldn’t see the world that way. In my eyes, a weak man leaves the world pretty much as he found it, not a wise one. Of course my father is not a weak man, and what he had meant to teach me was that one person can’t change the world. In trying to you will just be setting yourself up for a lot of heartache, to no avail. I knew that is what he meant, but even so I couldn’t agree. I always believed just the opposite: all change begins with one man or woman. Things do change, and they have to start somewhere. Why not with me?

Besides, I always knew I was built for this. Most people can’t bear being ostracized or hated, but I shrug it off pretty well. I was never social to begin with, so if I am not invited to parties, so what? If they don’t want to hear my serious conversation, I also do not want to hear their light conversation. As they are amazed that I can sit here writing about these things for hours, I am amazed that they can rattle on and on about nothing for hours, listening to eachother’s petty problems. So I guess we all end up where we want to be, and should be.

The Supremes

by Miles Mathis

When Elena Kagan was confirmed as the third admitted Jewish Supreme Court Justice in 2010, Pat Buchanan complained that 2% of the population now owned 33% of the highest court. But that was more misdirection, since—as it turns out—all the Justices are Jewish. . . and so is Buchanan. And what is more, they always have been. The difference is, in the past most of the Justices were required to be crypto-Jews, hiding behind Gentile-seeming names. Now they don’t have to hide anymore, and in a few years they will all be named Cohen or Kaufman or Levy or something. For first-time readers, I know that will sound rash—maybe even crazy—but keep reading. I prove it below.

I already did Buchanan’s partial genealogy in a previous paper, and he is related to the Kennedys as well as to many other lines in the British peerage. Here is what I found there, getting my data from mainstream genealogy sites:

Pat Buchanan is a Schott and a Schoeppner on his mother’s side, in the direct maternal line. That’s Jewish. Also a Noll, which should be Knoll, also Jewish. On his father’s side he is a Kennedy. Also a Baldwin, a Gates, a Weber, a Schweitzer, a Clark, a Glover, a Daniel, a Sachs and a Stein. Many more Jewish names there. His genealogy is posted to 12 generations.

Remember, there is currently a Kennedy on the Court. We will look at him in a moment. We have since seen that MLK was a Daniel. But first I want to hit Chief Justice John Glover Roberts. Well, well, well, we just saw the Glovers in Buchanan’s genealogy, too. What a coincidence, right? Also strange that they feel the need to scrub Roberts’ ancestry. At Geni.com his maternal line is completely scrubbed, with his mother listed as <private>. Really? How can the Chief Justice be allowed to hide his ancestry like this? Shouldn’t this be public knowledge? However, we do discover his mother’s maiden name is Podrasky. Already sounds Jewish. According to Wiki, Podrasky is supposed to be Czech, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t Jewish. We will look more closely at it below. His paternal grandmother is Rebecca Bowser, but she is otherwise scrubbed. His great-grandmother is the Glover, and her mother is a Linskey. This Linskey is scrubbed, but my guess would be it is a fudge of Lindsay. One of Roberts’ great-uncles was Edward Delano Roberts, which links us to that prominet surname, as

well as to the Roosevelts. We have already discovered the Roosevelts are Jewish. Roberts’ 3g- grandfather was Edmund Manly Glover, and we have seen the name Manly many times as well in these families. These Glovers were from Bedford, Lancashire. Curiously, Geni isn’t giving us the married names of women in this ancestry, which is the norm. Instead we have to click on them individually. But if we do, we find Roberts is also linked to the Taylors, the Leishers, the Kirkpatricks, the Boyles, the Dwanes, and the O’Connors (think Sandra Day O’Connor). The Kirkpatricks link us in a tight circle back to the Kennedys, so it already looks like Roberts is related to his fellow Justice Kennedy. They are probably cousins. It also links Roberts to Jeane Kirkpatrick. How do I know? Because her middle name is Duane. Obviously a family name, and Duane=Dwane. Since Kirkpatrick is her husband’s name, this indicates she married a cousin. This Evron Kirkpatrick’s uncle married a Fleming, which tells us we have the right Kirkpatricks. These are the Kirkpatricks, Baronets Closeburn, related to the Stewarts, Dunbars, Hamiltons, and Douglases. Those are the top names in the Scottish nobility, yielding not only Dukes but Kings.

But let’s back up slowly. First, let’s find out more about these Glovers of Bedford. In around 1800, they married the Campbells, Earls of Argyll—the other top name from the Scottish peerage. We find an Elizabeth Lindsay Glover in the late 1800s in Washington, DC, and she is listed in the peerage. This tends to confirm my guess above about Linskey. We find that her daughter married a Baron Millar, so maybe that will help us later. We also find a Frances Glover marrying an Edward Temple Booth in 1792. That confirms once again we are in the right place, since the Booths are another Jewish family linked to all the ones we are looking at here, including John Wilkes Booth.

Although there are 190 Glovers in the peerage, it is quite difficult to tell where they came from. None of them link back to actual peers, and most are scrubbed, being given no parents. We do find a James Glover marrying a Freeman in the late 1700s, so this is a clue. That is a Jewish name. However, these Freemans are soon scrubbed as well. But we can trace them back to Ballindale Castle in about 1700. A search on this takes us to a Googlebook called Glover Memorials, where we find John Glover, a relation of Robert Glover the famous genealogist. John married a Mills, and their son married a Quinn. Freeman’s grandfather-in-law was a Mullens, descended from Lord Vantry. The son of Glover and Freeman, Stirling Freeman Glover, became a Lt. Col. and married the daughter of Henry Somerset, Duke of Beaufort. Wow. So these Freeman-Glovers had some major peerage mojo going on at the time, although we aren’t told what it was. Best guess is this Freeman of Ballindale Castle was a fabulously wealthy Jew, with money from the East India Company or something. Those are the only non-titled people who marry the daughters of Dukes. As for how the Glovers pushed their way into this enclave, we must assume they were business associates of the Freemans, and therefore also Jewish. We have some evidence of exactly that, since Sir Ernest Glover of the peerage in the 1800s is listed as being President of the Chamber of Shipping and Chairman of the Baltic Exchange. This is an important clue, since according to Wiki

Its international community of over 600 member companies encompasses the majority of world shipping interests and commits to a code of business conduct overseen by the Baltic. Baltic Exchange members are responsible for a large proportion of all dry cargo and tanker fxtures as well as the sale and purchase of merchant vessels.

Concerning Ballindale Castle, it isn’t listed by Irish Castles, but it must still exist since it just bought a prize cow in 2009.

Anyway, the Dukes of Beaufort were Welsh, the first one made duke by Charles II. They resided in Raglan Castle, in the far southeast of Wales. By the time of the 2nd Duke, they had removed to

Badminton House, not far away in Gloustershire, just across the Bristol Channel. I take the time to pause on the Somersets, because they happen to descend in direct line from John of Gaunt. My regular readers will know I have already done his genealogy, linking him to very old Jewish lines going back to the Crusades. This means that through the Glovers we can tie Chief Justice John Roberts to Jewish lines going back to the Komnenes in Armenia in the 11th century. You may ask how I can claim that so fast, and it is because I had done most of the research before I got here. I had 9 of 10 of the links already done before I ever looked at John Roberts.

Now let’s return to Bedford, Lancashire. Of course that is also a clue: finding the Glovers coming from there at that time. The Russells were the Dukes of Bedford then, and they were also the Marquesses of Tavistock. Since the Russells and Glovers were both prominent in the peerage at the time, we may assume they were also related or linked. In fact, we can link them through the Nevilles, since William Glover married Elizabeth Neville in the 1600s. These were the Nevilles, Earls of Westmorland, also related to the Bacons, Howards, and Stanleys, as well as the Russells.

It is also worth remembering that an Anne Glover was allegedly hanged for witchcraft in Boston before the Salem trials. This ties her to that hoax and those people, including Cotton Mather. We should also remember Boyer Glover, a clockmaker in London in the late 1700s. We will find clockmakers again below. He is alleged to have been a prominent Muggletonian, which not only links us forward to Rowling’s Muggles in Potter, but which leads us into more hijinx at the time. Muggletonians were supposedly a small Protestant sect started in 1671 when two London tailors began claiming they were the prophets of the Book of Revelation. Muggles later became notorious for cursing those who mocked them, and one of the most famous of their cursees was novelist Sir Walter Scott (Ivanhoe, etc.). In 1979 all their papers were left to the British Library, which for some reason took them. You should already see we are in the maw of yet another hoax, but I will continue on for a laugh. One of the tailors was John Reeve, that surname of course being another from the peerage. Think Christopher Reeve, Keanu Reeves, and so on. They admit John Reeve’s father was a gentleman, though they say he had fallen on hard times. Right. It is also admitted Reeve did little or no actual work as a tailor:

Mercurius Politicus (1653) says of John Reeve and Lodowicke Muggleton “only one works and that is Muggleton; the other (they say) writes Prophecies.”

Mercurius wasn’t a person but a newspaper. It had a monopoly on news publication at the time, being owned by Marchmont Nedham, “a highly productive propagandist” according to Wikipedia. Nedham came out of Oxford and the Merchant Taylors School, which is already enough to peg him. The Merchant Taylors were Jews. Which is why we see this Muggles project coming from tailors in London: tailors were also Jews. Taylor=tailor. We can also link Nedham to the Nevilles, creating another tight circle here. Nedham was both publisher and writer, and he worked closely with—and socialized with— Henry Neville, Algernon Sidney, Thomas Chaloner, and John Milton. All peers. Anyway, to make a long story short, the Muggles were an early Jewish project against Christianity, created to make it look foolish.

Which brings us back to Boyer Glover. Of course Boyer is another Jewish name, a variation of Bayer, Beyer, etc. Since Glover was part of the Muggles project in the 1770s, you can see how long-running this absurd project was. We see it was still being publicized in 1979, which is extraordinary. You should find it curious to see the British Library accepting these manuscripts, since they are nothing but the manufactured rantings of hired agents—hired to appear insane. But then again, you could say that about a lot of the literature published in the past few hundred years, so I guess the British Library is a good place for it.

In 1873, we find an Elizabeth Glover marrying Frederick Penny. His mother was a Bowyer, which not only links us to Boyer just above but also probably links us to the Bowser above in John Roberts’ genealogy. I suspect Bowser is a fudge of Bowyer. Penny and Glover’s son became the 1st Viscount Marchwood in 1937. He had been the head of Fraser &Co, government exchange brokers in Singapore. He was involved in oil and sugar (from Trinidad). He was a trade representative for the Dutch East India Company. Elizabeth Glover was from Liverpool, near Bedford.

In 1938 Captain Philip Foster Glover married Nancy Lyle, whose father was 1st Baron Lyle and whose mother was Edith Levy. Levy is Jewish, but she is otherwise scrubbed.

Most recently, Charles Rice, the Baron Monteagle, married a Glover, but she is given no parents in the peerage. The Rices do link us to the FitzGeralds, the Scotts, the Husseys, and the Perys (see above, since we already saw that name).

OK, that is enough on the Glovers for the present. Now let us go back to the name Podrasky, John Roberts’ mother’s name. The first thing we find is Podraskys in the Holocaust records. The next thing we find is Roberts’ genealogy scrubbed at Ethnicelebs. There is a Google listing for it, but it is no longer on the current page. However, the cached page is still there. I suppose it is scrubbed because it links to a Wargs.com page. Wargs has also been scrubbed, as we have seen, since it contained some good information on these prominent genealogies. The link to Wargs from the cached page is broken. The links to FamilySearch are also broken. The page for Wargs on the Wayback Machine tells us nothing we don’t already know. We do get another name to search, though, since his maternal grandmother is given as Josephine Gmuca, daughter of Maria Tokarova. Since all this is at Geni, we have to wonder why the link was broken to this info on Roberts’ own page at Geni. Probably because Gmuca is also Jewish. Namespedia tells us most Gmucas are from the US, indicating the name was changed from something else when these people came over from Slovakia. It looks like the name was originally Gmucza. Maybe one of my readers can tell me how this connects to the Vasas or Jagiellons, since I bet it does.

I also suspect the name Podrasky is a slur of the name Podstatski from the peerage, including Count Podstatski and the Podstatsky-Lichensteins. This links us immediately to the Osterreichs and Bourbons, including the Kings of Spain and France.

Anyway, let’s move on to Tokarova. This name appears to have been misspelled, and it should be Tokareva. The surname would then be Tokarev, which takes us here, Hadassah Magazine, where we find the Jewish musician Villi Tokarev. We are told he is a Kuban Cossack, but considering what he does that is absurd. Don’t believe me? Well, go here to Jewishdata.com, where we find a listing for Yefim Tokarev. He wouldn’t be listed there if he weren’t Jewish. Also see the JewishEncyclopedia, where we find two prominent Tokarev/Tokareva, from Moscow and St. Petersburg. This confirms what I expected from the start: the name is Russian, not Slovakian. I wouldn’t be surprised if it linked us to Lenin. However that may turn out, we can link the name Tokarev to Putin, since Russian oligarch Nikolay Tokarev is the current head of Russian state-owned Transneft, a gas pipeline company. He is a friend and advisor to Putin. Both he and Putin were KGB officers in East Germany at the same time. Which brings us to young pianist Nikolai Tokarev, who I assume is also Jewish. This is neither confirmed nor denied online.

So, I now think we know why they scrubbed the name Tokarev from John Roberts’ genealogy. It links him to this Russian oligarch and through him to Putin. Some online are saying Putin is Jewish, and I

would say that is a good assumption. But I will have to do him another time. For myself, I suspect he is another Jewish actor, paid to front the big con in Russia just as Trump does here, Hitler did in Germany, Mussolini did in Italy, and so on.

Now let us look at Justice Anthony McLeod Kennedy. Amazing that no one ever thinks to link him to the Kennedys, right? Kennedy’s pages at Geni are spotty, with most of the women scrubbed as we would expect. Nonetheless, we can link him there to the McLeods, Hoveys, Seavers, Coolidges, Jones, Garfields, Eddys, Bates, Goldstones, Fishes, Fullers, Burroughs, Gibsons, and Webbs. The Eddys and Fullers take us back to Salem, of course. Hovey links us to my paper on Johnny Hovey. We also see two Presidents’ names, linking Kennedy directly to that research. I have already shown many of the Presidents were Jewish.

That was just his mother’s side. On his father’s side, Kennedy is a Gorevin, which I assume is a fudge of Gore. The Gores are closely related to the Presidential Kennedys. Anthony’s Kennedys end at his grandfather, which is pretty extraordinary, considering that we are given some lines on Kennedy’s mother’s side back to the 1400s. They are clearly trying to prevent us from linking Kennedy to the more famous Kennedys. However, all the names we already found have done that, since the Presidential Kennedys and peerage Kennedys are related to the same families as Kennedy’s mother. Beyond the name Gore, we know President Kennedy is related to the Garfields and Coolidges, since the mainstream admits all the Presidents are related. But he is also related to the Eddys, Fullers, and all the rest. In fact, the Kennedys and McLeods are both from the peerage and they have been marrying for centuries. See Richard Lea Kennedy who married in 1902 Jane Jeffrey McLeod. He was head of Kennedy-Van Sant law firm, St. Paul. Also see the firm Kennedy-Mcleod-MacArthur, later The Emporium, of St. Paul. It was founded by James T. Kennedy, closely related to Richard Lea Kennedy. Also Roger Kennedy on the same page, likewise of these St. Paul Kennedys from Ireland. He founded Kennedy Brothers Arms Company. All these wealthy Kennedys are linked through the peerage. They succeeded in the States because they came from these peerage families to start with, who already had money. There are a lot of Kennedys, and not all of them are closely related. But the rich and famous Kennedys ARE all related.

So what does this say for Kennedy being Jewish. Well, to start with, note the names Goldstone and Fish, which are obviously Jewish. And we have seen the rest of those names are crypto-Jewish, including the name Kennedy. As just the most obvious clue, remember that Gore Vidal outed Jacqueline Bouvier’s mother Janet Lee as a Levy. But that is just the tip of the iceberg, since Gore was also Jewish. In short, I have already proven that all the prominent peers in Scotland, Ireland, England, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, and Spain have been Jewish for many centuries. The mainstream is starting to admit it with books like When Scotland was Jewish, written by Jewish authors. Which is why I am not going to spend any more time on Kennedy: I had already exposed the Kennedys before I got here.

Which brings us to Neil Gorsuch, the most recently appointed Justice. That last name is already pretty much a giveaway, isn’t it? He claims to be a Catholic, but that is just the usual story. In fact, the current story is rather strange in itself, since we now allegedly have six Catholics on the court. They forgot to manufacture a better cross-section there, I would say. Having six Catholics on the court—if it were true—which it isn’t—would be almost as strange as having nine Jews. Only about 23% of the US is Catholic, and most of those are of Hispanic, Italian, or Irish heritage. The US is predominantly Protestant, so seeing a Supreme Court with zero Protestants on it should throw up a huge red flag. It shows how much our governors really care about diversity or representation. They claim to be very careful to represent minorities, but here they forgot to represent the majority. A majority that isn’t

represented at all isn’t really a viable majority, is it? It is simply a slave population.

Gorsuch’s mother is a McGill, and we have already tied them to the families. McGill University in Montreal was named for James McGill, billionaire fur trader. His company was originally named Todd and McGill, since McGill’s partner was Isaac Todd. That is a Jewish name, of course. McGill was married to a Foucault, so we may assume philosopher Michel Foucault is also Jewish. He has always looked and acted Jewish, so we are not surprised. It would explain his canned debates with Noam Chomsky. I ran across some evidence Jean-Paul Sartre was also Jewish, but I will have to hit it another time. It never occurred to me until now, but again, it isn’t the least bit shocking. It fits like a hand in a glove.

The second mayor of Montreal was another McGill, Peter. He was a wealthy banker, being the President of the Bank of Montreal for twenty years.

But back to Gorsuch’s mother. She was the head of EPA under Reagan. Her mother was an O’Grady, which links us back to the Kennedy clan. The O’Gradys are the Viscounts Guillamore in Limerick, and although they and the Kennedys of the peerage didn’t marry, they both married the Fitzgeralds many times, linking them that way. The O’Grady’s also married the Pagets, the Beresfords, the Balls, the Taylors, the Richies, the Shepherds, the de Courcys, the Quinns, the Deanes, the Houghtons, the Greys, the Fitzgeralds, the Fishers, the Nashes, the Moncktons, the Goulds, the Chichesters, the Bennetts, the Fitzgibbons, and the Fox-Strangeways, all of the peerage.

Last year, someone did some of my research for me, discovering a Plantagenet descendant named Anne Lovelace Gorsuch who is related to Neil. That page is called, “The Noble Family Tree of Neil Gorsuch”. Anne Gorsuch’s father was the knight William Lovelace. This links us to the Murrays, Drummonds, Gordons, Cromwells, Sandys, and Morgans, taking us to the top of the peerage in the 1600s. At the time, the Murray was Mungo Murray of Scotland, 1st Baronet. The Sandys were also Baronets. The Drummonds and Gordons were Dukes, taking us to the top of the peerage. According to Wikitree, the Gorsuchs were previously Scarisbricks, although that doesn’t sound right.

On his father’s side, Gorsuch is a Munz, a Schleicher, a Mueller, a Volck, and an Eberhard. If we switch to Geni, we find that Gorsuch is a Tiehen, a Koelzer, and a Wink. One of his great-aunts was a Conrad. Most or all of those are Jewish. Munz means “mint”, and of course the most prominent Jews were bankers. So this name is sort of like the name Gold, Gould, Golding, Goldman, etc. Mueller is another common Jewish name from the families, and we have seen it many times. Think Max Muller. It is often anglicized to Miller. Same for Eberhard. See George-Emile Eberhard, Swiss industrialist and watchmaker. These wealthy Swiss watchmaking families are generally Jewish, and they have since all intermarried, including the Ditisheims, the Vogels, and the Blums. Schleicher is also Jewish.

There are only nine Gorsuchs listed in the peerage, but a recent one catches our eyes. Diarmud Roberts Gorsuch, b. 1941; his mother is Cecelia Hoare. The Chief Justice is also a Roberts. Coincidence? I doubt it. The Hoares were Baronets related to the Burtons, Bennetts and Grants. They were bankers and merchants, and a Hoare from British Intelligence bankrolled Mussolini in the 1930s. They now admit that in the mainstream bios. We also find a Terence Gorsuch, b. 1947, who married a Peacock, daughter of Arthur Stanley Peacock. The Peacocks were also Baronets, and they married the Baronets Myddleton, the Baronets Affleck, the Carters, the Baronets Lubbock, the Barons Trollope, and the Baronets Sheffield.

Who’s up next? Sonia Maria Sotomayor, sold to us as the first Latina on the court. Well, this one is easy, since her mother is a Baez. Think Joan Baez. Joan wasn’t paired with Bob Dylan for no reason. I assume they were chosen as co-beards because they were both Jewish and both gay.

Baez was originally Bayez, and we may assume that before that it was Bayer. It was simply Spanishized when these families moved from Germany to Spain centuries ago. Which obviously provides us with the direct link between Sotomayor and her other Justices.

Sotomayor is also a Bautista. Her 2great-grandfather was Juan Bautista Torres, linking her to. . . Fulgencio Batista, ruler of Cuba before Castro. Batista and Castro were related, and they were both Marranos. Castro admitted he was Jewish, though no one was listening. It didn’t fit the prepared script, but sometimes these dopey actors go off the script, as we know. As for Batista, his father was named Belisario Batista Palermo. Palermo isn’t in Spain, it is in Sicily, and it has been famous for its Jewish populations for centuries. Batista’s mother was a Zaldivar, and the Zaldivars/Saldivars are also Jewish. See for example Gilberto Bosques Saldivar, who was a consul in Marseilles in WWII, where he was famous for rescuing thousands of Jews from deportation by the Vichy government. Of course the whole story is manufactured, but its form is a clue as to who Saldivar really was. Also see here, where some nice Jewish person has done my research for me. He shows how the Zaldivars, Durans, and Oteros descend from Halevis.

On her father’s side, Sotomayor is a Cortes, probably linking her to the conquistador Cortes. You will say that is a longshot, but we previously were able to prove Eva Peron was directly descended from Ponce de Leon, using only Geni pages, so it is not as big a longshot as you think. The famous explorers were also Marranos. Sotomayor is also a Correa, possibly linking her to Chick Corea.

For another big clue, see this article at Jpost.com in 2009, which tells us that although the Jewish lobbies weren’t supposed to lobby for Sotomayour, they did in fact lobby for her.

Packed into the room along with Sotomayor’s family, friends and colleagues were representatives of Jewish groups that have consulted with the White House about prospective replacements for David Souter.

This is a clever way of admitting Souter was also Jewish, and that these Jewish groups were doing more than consulting. They were anointing. Haaretz ran an article at the same time calling Sotomayor the poster child for Jewish-Hispanic relations. Why would they call her that? I don’t see the Jewish link there, unless Sotomayor is Jewish.

For other Jewish Sotomayors, see the Modernist painter Carlos Sotomayor; the traditional painter Fernando Sotomayor y Zaragoza; and Mikel Sotomayor of the Spanish boyband Nash. Note the name of the band, which is a curious one for four Spanish boys not named Nash. If you don’t know what I mean, see this paper on John Forbes Nash. One of Mikel’s bandmates is named Esteban Pinero Camacho. Pinero is a variation of. . . Peron. In fact, the Perons and Sotomayors are related, and I would guess Sonia is related to Eva Peron.

That leaves us Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, but they are both scrubbed. Thomas is a complete ghost, without even a middle name. Ethicelebs has a genealogy page for him, but it is empty. Not even parent are listed. No page at Geni, Geneanet, Ancestry, or anywhere else. Wiki tells us his mother is a Williams, but nothing else. For Alito we are given parents and a couple of grandparents, but nothing beyond that. Less is available for him online than for me, which is highly curious. His mother is given

as a Fradusco, but that looks finessed. Forebears.io tells us only about 300 people worldwide have that name, which is unlikely for a real surname. It has either been manufactured or misspelled. As for Alito, it may be an Italianization of Alton or some other name. Wikipedia lists no other people by the name of Alito. It does however list a Baron Alton, a crossbencher in the House of Lords from Liverpool. We also find director John Alton, who was born Johan Jacob Altmann. This tells us Alito may be a variant of Altmann, which would perfectly fit everything else we have discovered here. Another possibility is Elton. Alito would be a fairly logical Italianization of Elton. There are 375 Eltons in the peerage, including Baronets and Barons. The 1st Baron Elton married a Hartmann in 1921, giving us a possible clue. That’s a German name, and may be Jewish. Elton was a writer, so we are not sure why he was made a Baron. Writers are not usually made Barons. It could be his work with the Rhodes Trust. His son married a Carnegie and became Minister of State for the Home Office. His daughter married an Attlee. The 11th Baronet Elton married a Heller. The Baronets are also related to the Gibbs, the Vaughans, the Willises, and the Stewarts. The first Eltons in the peerage are named Isaac and Abraham.

Regardless, it is a clue in itself to find so little info on Alito and Thomas. You have to try pretty hard to scrub bios to this extent. So I will assume they are both Jewish until proven otherwise. You will say Thomas, being black, can’t be related to these other people or be Jewish, but that isn’t what we found with Harry Belafonte, Danny Glover, Bill Cosby, Martin Luther King, Coretta Scott King, Tiger Woods, and others. They are all related to the families, they go back to the peerage like the rest, and are therefore probably Jewish. This was their foot in the door, no matter what they were trying to do.

Many of my readers have liked my personal asides, so I will finish with another of those.

Although I do relish my role as a truthteller, I am more ambivalent about my reputation online as anti-Jewish. To be honest, I still wince everytime I have to write the word “crypto-Jew”, although it is the appropriate word whenever I use it. I wince because I grew up in a liberal household, one where it would not have been considered appropriate to attack anyone—no matter what villainy they were up to—but especially not Jews, women, or blacks. In the circles I grew up in, exposing fraud was not seen as virtuous, it was seen as antisocial. Of course, as I look back, I can now see that was part of the long project: to educate nice people that part of being nice was looking away on cue. Only in the movies do good people face down evil: in real life good people go on quietly with their lives and don’t make trouble.

This affects me personally because—in as much as I still have “a people”—these are still my people. Of course my family is still what it always was: they haven’t changed. And the people I tend to meet and socialize with locally are also liberals. They tend to be Obama or Bernie voters, and a fair number are Jewish. I mentioned recently my trivia gang, and at least two on my team of six are Jewish. I have no evidence linking them to the hijinx I am exposing, so I treat them just like I treat anyone else. They aren’t rich or connected—as far as I know—so why blame them. I sometimes wonder if, despite not being a part of the big con, they know about it. I don’t bother confronting them with the major stuff, of course—that would only be asking for a fight I don’t want any more than they do. But I sometimes mention minor things, such as that Elvis was Jewish, to test their reactions. They do having a knowing look in their eyes, as if they have already received that memo.

I have my fans online, but for the most part I simply can’t talk about what I know to the locals. Most wouldn’t be interested, and the rest would be offended. So in real life, I am known more as the guy who rides a bike, plays volleyball, and gives away kittens in the summer. In other words, I get no respect. Largely, my accomplishments and opinions aren’t known, since that would require these people reading what I have written. They don’t have time for that, which is probably just as well. But there is some local scuttlebutt, and I get wind of it occasionally. I have a reputation as being a bit scary,

and some amount of ostracizing goes on. I am avoided. I am not asked to parties. No one has yet confronted me, but I may have that to look forward to.

But what I am getting at is that discovering these things must create some inner tension. I used to wince whenever someone started going off about the Jews, and now I am—to some extent—that guy. I don’t rant, either in real life or in print, but I do tend to hit pretty hard on the subject. . . maybe harder than anyone else in the world. Twenty years ago I would have read my first paragraph in this paper and probably stopped reading. I wouldn’t have wanted to hear it. So the question becomes, do I really want to be that guy? Is it worth it? Is the truth worth being ostracized and maybe hated? My father is a bit of a fighter, but even he tried to teach me that “a wise man leaves the world pretty much as he found it”. I looked that up, but couldn’t find it as a famous quote. I guess he just got it from his father. The thing is, that quote always raised my hackles. I didn’t argue with my father, but I couldn’t see the world that way. In my eyes, a weak man leaves the world pretty much as he found it, not a wise one. Of course my father is not a weak man, and what he had meant to teach me was that one person can’t change the world. In trying to you will just be setting yourself up for a lot of heartache, to no avail. I knew that is what he meant, but even so I couldn’t agree. I always believed just the opposite: all change begins with one man or woman. Things do change, and they have to start somewhere. Why not with me?

Besides, I always knew I was built for this. Most people can’t bear being ostracized or hated, but I shrug it off pretty well. I was never social to begin with, so if I am not invited to parties, so what? If they don’t want to hear my serious conversation, I also do not want to hear their light conversation. As they are amazed that I can sit here writing about these things for hours, I am amazed that they can rattle on and on about nothing for hours, listening to eachother’s petty problems. So I guess we all end up where we want to be, and should be.

The picture?  I apologise, Miles, but why not use a format so we can copy and paste pictures as well as text?  Go to Miles Mathis to get the picture of the members of The Supreme Court.

http://mileswmathis.com/supreme.pdf

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.