by Miles Mathis
First published October 11, 2016
As usual, this is just my opinion, arrived at by personal research.
That is a drawing by Joseph Wright, done from life. He lived until 1797, so he was a contemporary of Washington.
Let's go straight to the genealogy on this one. George's maternal grandmother is given as Mary Montague, but the line stops there. This is a huge red flag, almost as big as the red flags around Lenin's genealogy. Washington was from wealthy and prominent Virginia familes, so the idea we wouldn't know who his great grandparents were in his mother's line is preposterous. Do you really think George's mother didn't know who her own grandmother was? As you will see below, Martha Washington's genealogy goes back to the time of Joan of Arc (1400s). So how could George's stop at this grandmother? Also preposterous is the misdirection surrounding this Mary Montague. At Geni, her dates are 1665-1743, born in Christchurch, VA. Her death is given as April 12. Her husband is given as Col. Joseph Ball and her daughter is Mary Washington. No ancestors are given. At Wikipedia, she is not listed at all. Her place is a blank. ButatWikiTree, although she has exactly the same dates and place of birth as at Geni, she is given as the wife of William Johnson and Thomas Payne. There she is the mother of Joseph Ball, Elisabeth Johnson, Francis Payne, Thomas Payne, and Philemon Payne. But how can she be the mother of Joseph Ball if she never married anyone named Ball? Beyond that, the lines at Wikitree are poorly scrubbed. On the page for Mary Montague, we are told Peter Montague, Sr.'s wife is unknown, but if we click on him, we find the wife name is known— Cicely Parker. We even know her previous husband, Thomas Bailey, Jr. This is three generations before Mary Montague. She was also apparently married to a Farrar and a Jordan, unless those were middle names.
Let's look at Joseph Ball, to see if we can shed any light on this mystery. He was supposed to be the son of Col. William Ball, and the father by Mary Bennett of Joseph Ball, Hannah, Esther, Elisabeth, and Anne. By his second wife Mary Johnson he was the father of Mary Ball, who became Mary Washington.
So it looks to me like Mary Montague, although a real person, was moved up a generation so that they could jettison Mary Bennett from the genealogy at most prominent sites. Even the link above (which claims to be following Genealogy.com) tries to make you think it wasn't Montague but Johnson who was the mother of Mary Washington. This puts an even bigger red flag by Mary Bennett, and makes us wonder why they are scrubbing her.
Well, since we have seen the Bennetts in recent papers, we already know. Thomas Pynchon's mother was a Bennett, and we found that she was also very well scrubbed. I suggested she was descended from the English peerage, and I suggest the same thing with George Washington. It is even more important with Washington, because they don't want to admit he was from English nobility. That would be too big a clue. Especially when we discover which lines of nobility.
I am also reminded that there are many Bennetts now who admit they are Jewish. See Naftali Bennett, who has led the far-right Jewish Hom Party in Israel since 2012. Also Michael Bennet, Senator from Colorado, whose mother is Jewish. We are told his father isn't, but that may be more misdirection. His mother is a Benedict, which is curious seeing that Bennett and Benedict come from the same family and are just variant spellings.* His paternal grandmother is scrubbed. And then there is Tony Bennett, who is sold as Italian, of course, but who has a Jewish daughter.
So let's pin down this Mary Bennett. Since Mary Washington was born in 1708, we can ditch the birthdate of 1665 for Mary Bennett. It is very doubtful she was 43 when she gave birth to Mary. In fact, the link above gives her date of death as 1720, different from Mary Montague. We are told she was born in West Chester, England, no date. That helps, because Chester is in Cheshire. We also drop a “t” from her name, making her Mary Bennet. We assume she was born about 1670. So who could she be related to in Chester, England? The very first possibility that comes up in a search at Wikipedia is Henry Bennet, 1st Earl of Arlington. But since it appears he was from Middlesex, we are fooled and move on. His brother John, 1st Earl Ossulston, has links to nearby York through his first wife Elisabeth, widow of the Vice-Admiral of Yorkshire. His second wife Bridget Howe had links to Nottinghamshire, which is also near Cheshire. However, this is also a stretch, so we look for better.
Henry Bennet's daughter Isabella was married at the age of 4 to Henry FitzRoy, later 1st Duke of Grafton. Aha! Grafton is in Cheshire. In fact, it is just five miles south of Chester. This Henry Fitzroy was illegitimate son of King Charles II, his mother being Barbara Villiers, Countess of Castlemaine. So our links are all the way to the top here.
Of course, Mary Bennet can't be the daughter of Isabella—since the dates are wrong—but she may be the sister. When was Henry Bennet born? We are told 1618, which at first seems too old to be the father of Mary Bennet. However, he didn't marry until 1667. He married Elisabeth Nassau- Beverweert, b. December 28, 1633. So our Mary Bennet could have been her daughter. Isabella was born around 1668, so this is the perfect place to fit in Mary Bennet.
As indication we have found the missing key, we find Elisabeth of Nassau was Dutch. Notice the Beverweert, which is Dutch. Elisabeth's grandfather was the Prince of Orange. Remember, just a few years later a Prince of Orange would become the King of England, William III. So, again, the links go all the way up. But why is this indication we have found the right line for George Washington?
Because if we go back to Washington's genealogy, we find Dutch ancestors at this very same place. Mary Montague's mother is given as Maritje Meijnderts [Minor], the daughter of Meijndert Doedes and Marritje Gerrits. What does this tell us? Only that Doedes and Gerrits are not surnames. Neither is Meijnderts, which just means “minor”. So Washington's genealogy is being scrubbed again. The only thing that may help us is Marritje Gerrits, who in a search happens to be the mother of Gerrit Jansz de Heer(e), a famous Dutch East India merchant in those years (around 1690). He was governor of Ceylon. He married the daughter of Abraham van Riebeeck, the Governor-General of the Dutch East Indies from 1709-1713. His father was Jan van Riebeeck, also of the East India Company and founder of Cape Town. Abraham's daughter was Elisabeth van Riebeeck, who married Dirk de Haas. His first wife was Aletta Zegermans, formerly Aletta Nobel. She was an ancestor of the Nobels of the Nobel Prize.
Gerrit de Heere married, but we aren't told who his children were. But we do find Tromps in the line of de Heere. That may interest some of you. Maybe Drumph is a deadend, and Donald Trump was really a Tromp, related to George Washington in this way.
De Heere's wife Johanna was later married to Jan van Hoorn, who was also Governor of the East Indies, and to Cornelis van Waveren, Governor of the West India Company. Van Waveren was also the Commissioner of the Bank of Amsterdam, and was one of the wealthiest men in Holland.
This East India Company clue is what links us to the Princes of Orange, since, remember, it was the bankers and other rich guys—mostly Jewish—who funded the Princes. But it looks like Washington was related to both the Princes and the bankers. The two lines apparently married and then seeded America.
But we have a second link to the Bennets in George Washington's line. It is a bit hidden, but you can find it at Geni. Just go to the Atherold line and then follow it to the page for Thomas Atherold III. There, you find he was the half-brother of Alice Beard. She was the daughter of Mary Hannah Vessey. Alice married Thomas Bennett, Jr. of Somerset. His brother was Governor of Virginia. His grandmother is given as Florence Cromlan, but my guess is that has been changed from Cromwell. If you search on the name Cromlan, you get nothing but misdirection. For instance, you are taken to this page at Geni for Richard Thomson, husband of Florence Cromlan. Notice the manager of the page is given as Erica “the Disconnectrix” Howton. Did you get it? She is disconnecting by scrubbing links. Intel is toying with us, as usual.
In support of the Cromwell change, a quick glance of Oliver Cromwell's genealogy shows him with a mother Elizabeth Stewart and maternal grandmother Catherine Payne. Remember Payne Stewart in my paper on Tiger Woods? More to the point here, remember the Paynes in George Washington's genealogy? See the first paragraph of this paper. Beyond that, Oliver's sister Catherine married Col. John Jones, MP, one of the ones who allegedly killed King Charles I. Moreover, this John Jones was from Wales. See below, where I show Martha Washington was descended from Welsh knights named Jones, linking her to famous architect Inigo Jones—also said to be from Wales. Cromwell was also related to the Shakespeares, the Hinckleys, and the Turners on his mother's side. On his father's side, Cromwell was related to the Warrens, Tudors, Williams, Dennises, and Mervins, the last three from Wales. [C. S. Lewis was also a Warren, his great grandfather being Baronet Warren.]
And if we move forward from Oliver Cromwell, we find his family marrying into the Russell and Rich families. See Frances Cromwell, 1638 who married both John Russell and Robert Rich. We will see below that Martha Washington was related to the Rich family through the Knollys family. Also see Elizabeth Cromwell Russell, 1777. Also, Oliver Cromwell III, 1742, who married Mary Morse. This links them to my paper on Lizzie Borden, where we saw Lizzie's mother was a Morse. In the same paper, we saw the Russells many times, including as the Governor of Massachusetts and as close relatives of the Bordens.
But let us return to the Bennets. If we keep going back from Thomas Bennett, we come to Sir Thomas Bennet, Lord Mayor of London in 1603 and father of Sir Simon Bennet, 1st Baronet of Bechampton. [We find many Elizabeth Bennets in this family, which was of course the name of the lead character in Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice.] But were these Bennets related to the Bennets above? Yes. Henry Bennet, Lord Arlington, was son of Sir John Bennet, MP, who was the grandson of Richard Bennet of Clapcote. And he was the brother of our Lord Mayor of London, Sir Thomas Bennet. So we have now linked the Washingtons to the English peerage twice with this one family.
We aren't done, however. Lord Bennet's brother was Baron Ossulton, remember? His son was the Earl of Tankerville, who married Mary Grey. That is an important name in the peerage, as you may know, since it goes back to the Marquesses of Dorset, who produced Lady Jane Grey. Thomas Grey, 2 nd Marquess of Dorset and Duke of Suffolk, was the grandson of Elizabeth Woodville, King Edward IV's queen. His daughter Lady Jane Grey was Queen for nine days in 1553 before being executed. She was the granddaughter of King Henry VII, but that didn't help her when the Privy Council turned against her husband and his father, the Duke of Northumberland.
This Duke was descended from the Suttons, who were also in the line of the Bennets. The Baronet Bennet's daughter Grace married Sir Francis Mauldin, who was the son of Katherine Sutton. She was in a direct line of the Suttons, Barons of Dudley. They married the Berkeleys and ruled over large parts of England and Ireland in the 1400s and early 1500s. Although we are told the Duke of Northumberland was ousted due to the superior politics of those behind Elizabeth I, the story doesn't really wash. The whole history of Lady Jane Grey doesn't make any sense. I suspect Northumberland and his group were ousted because they weren't Jew-friendly enough. Despite going along with the Protestant bent of the time, Northumberland was probably resisting the Jewish push from the Privy Council, which had been heavily infiltrated. He paid for that with his life, and with the life of his son and daughter-in-law (assuming he wasn't just relocated, like they do now). Also, remember that Northumberland was known for his peace policy. The bankers have never liked that, have they, since peace doesn't pay. That's the same reason they got rid of Nixon: too many peace accords. But they didn't execute Nixon, did they? They just sent him off to San Clemente.
While we are in the Wiki bio of Northumberland, it is worth pausing on Thomas Gresham, 1519-1579. Gresham founded the Royal Exchange in 1565 in the City of London. He was a top merchant and financier. So was his father Richard, who was a Merchant Adventurer and later Lord Mayor of London. He got his start supplying arras, velvets and satins to King Henry VIII. We are told they were an old Norfolk family, but there is no evidence of that. More likely they were Jews. Supplying velvets to Kings and Princes was a primary line of the Jews. Also, it is admitted that Thomas had been living in Antwerp, where he was Royal Agent for both Edward VI and Queen Mary. So the Gresham family probably came from Holland, or farther east. All the prominent Greshams, including Thomas' uncle John, were top members of the Worshipful Company of Mercers, which lists first in the order of precedence of the Livery Companies (guilds) of the City of London. Mercers were importers of silks and velvets from the East, and were historically Jewish. The Jews had been relegated to this profession centuries earlier, and not only had made a fortune at it but had made a monopoly of it. You couldn't become a top mercer unless you were Jewish.
What was a Merchant Adventurer? This was a guild of overseas merchants, a precursor to the later East India Company. It was basically the same thing, run by the same families—mostly very rich Jewish merchants. At first, the guild specialized in cloth, which is more indication of what I just told you. The top cloth merchants were Jews, and this is admitted and always has been.
What is the Royal Exchange? Read the Wikipedia page on it and you won't find out. It is total misdirection, telling you everything except what the Exchange was. You are left thinking it was a place to buy alcohol. It was based on the Dutch Bourse, which was like a stock exchange/retail mall, except that it didn't deal in stocks. It dealt in the objects and securities of the times. It was basically the building in which the wealthy Jews and Aristocrats could come together, the Jews finding ways to finance the projects of the Aristocrats. Other lesser exchanges took place in the more forward rooms, we may assume, but in the large back rooms, the major deals went down.
Well, we have seen the name Gresham before, haven't we? Do you remember where? It was in my previous paper, on C. S. Lewis. His wife was the Jewish Joy Davidman, and her first husband was William Gresham. His ancestry is scrubbed, but I suggested he was probably Jewish. This just tends to confirm that. My guess is he is in a pretty direct line from these Greshams, which explains his fame.
But back to the Washingtons. We also find a Lucy Fox as a great-great-grandmother of George Washington. Could she have been related to George Fox, founder of the Quakers? I recently outed Fox as a crypto-Jew and the Quakers as an Intel front. We should also remember Richard Fox(e), whom I mentioned in my paper on Friedrich Engels. In around 1500, Foxe was a Bishop, Lord Privy Seal, and founder of Corpus Christi College, Oxford. Like the Riches below, he came out of nowhere, with nothing known of his ancestry or his life up to age 35! He was discovered by Henry VII, and promoted on his authority. Like the later George Fox, Richard Fox looks to me like a crypto-Jew. In this line, it is also worth knowing that the name Fox may have come from the German Fuchs. The founder of 20th Century Fox, William Fox, was an admittedly Jewish man originally named Fuchs. These Foxes in early England may have also been Fuchs.
OK, that was very fruitful, so let's do Martha Washington. Forbes admits George Washington was one of the richest men in US history, although they don't teach you that in school. We are told that his wife Martha is supposed to be where George got most of his money, though we have already seen that isn't true. Well, Martha is also from the peerage in the matrilineal line. Her 2g-grandmother was Lady Cicely Shirley, Baroness de la Warre (Delaware). Cicely's great aunt was Anne Perrot, which reminds us of H. Ross Perot. Lady Shirley was married to Baron Thomas West, whose grandmother was Catherine Carey, daughter of Mary Boleyn. Yes, that is the Mary Boleyn who was mistress of King Henry VIII. Her sister was Anne Boleyn, who got her head lopped. See the film Anne of the Thousand Days, with Richard Burton as Henry VIII.
But Mary Boleyn wasn't just a mistress, she was also an aunt of Queen Elizabeth I. This made our Catherine Carey first cousin to Elizabeth. She may have even been a child of Henry, and therefore a half-sister to Queen Elizabeth. Catherine was Chief Lady of the Bedchamber to Elizabeth, as well as Maid of Honour to two other Queens, Anne of Cleves and Catherine Howard. So, again, the Washington relations go straight to the top.
One of Catherine's nephews was William Knollys (later Knowles), 1st Earl of Banbury, and another was Rear Admiral Sir Francis Knollys. One niece was Lettice Knollys, the Countess of Essex and Leicester, and another was the Baroness Offaley.
Lettice Knollys (above) was extremely powerful, being the mother of Robert Devereux, 2 nd Earl of Essex, and Lady Penelope Rich (we will look at the Riches below). Knollys married Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, who was the favorite of Queen Elizabeth. Dudley's father was the Duke of Northumberland, who fell from prominence when he tried to put Lady Jane Grey on the throne, as we saw above. Dudley was condemned to death with his father but skated in mysterious circumstances. Just a few years later he was Privy Councillor and Lord Steward.
Earl Robert Devereux was a General and another favorite of Queen Elizabeth I. His father-in-law was Elizabeth's Secretary of State Walsingham.
We can also make another link to the Fitzgeralds in this paper. They have come up in several recent papers, including my last one on C. S. Lewis. The Baroness Offaley was a daughter of Catherine Knollys and Gerald Fitzgerald, of the Earls of Kildare (Ireland). She married Sir Robert Digby, whose brother was the Earl of Bristol. His nephew was the Bishop of Dromore (County Down). And his son was Baron Digby. This son married Sarah Boyle, daughter of the Earl of Cork, which again links us to C. S. Lewis. Lewis was related to the Fitzgeralds, and had ancestors in the Cork peerage.
But back to Martha Washington. We find her sister married a Durden, which family hails from Carteret, NC, and before that Edenfield, Lancashire. Hold on. Carteret makes an appearance below. Philip Carteret Webb of Milford House, Surrey. Martha was also related to the Webbs, as we are about to find out. So Carteret must have been named for this Philip Carteret Webb, or his family. He was a close friend of John Ball, which links us to George Washington's genealogy. More on that below. And I hope you noted the name Durden. Think of Tyler Durden in Fight Club. That is another movie from the spooks (although a pretty good one), and they were probably referencing this old family.
Also, notice that the Durden pages at Geni are managed by a woman named Shoshana Stubin. That is a clue as well, since that is very Jewish. Think of Captain Stubing of The Love Boat, played by Gavin MacCleod. MacLeod is now pretending to be a Christian on the 700 Club, but I always assumed he was Jewish, and still do.
That leads us into another can of worms, which I will just touch upon. Pat Robertson is the most famous 700 Club guru, and his father was Absalom Robertson. Did you get the clue yet? It isn't subtle. These people are so in-your-face it defies belief. Absalom's maternal grandfather was Absalom Graves Willis, son of Mary Gordon Churchill. His grandmother was Anne Garnett. There is also a previous Absalom Robertson of 60 years earlier, whose mother is Hannah Hamilton. See my previous paper on C. S. Lewis for more on the Hamiltons. They are part of the same clan we are looking at here. So are the Churchills, who keep coming up in my recent papers. The earlier Absalom Robertson was related to the Downings, whom we have also seen in previous papers. In fact, they link us to the Churchills again, since 10 Downing St. was named for the Downings, and the Prime Minister lives here. The Garnetts are related to the Jones, who just happen to come up in the genealogy of Martha Washington. You will say there are hordes of Jones, but these Jones aren't from the hordes, they are from the central clan, as I will show you. Absalom Graves Willis' 2g-grandmother was Elizabeth Jones. She is in direct line with Sir William Jones of Caernarfon, Wales, b. 1520. You will see why that is important in just a moment. They soon married into the Rhys family (later Rice and Royce) of Wales and Buckinghamshire. They were also related to the Griffiths, first Baronets of Burton Agnes.
I bet you don't think I can link Pat Robertson to Martha Washington, since he seems to have just dropped into this paper from left field. And I admit he did. I myself don't understand how he appeared here. I went from the woman managing the Geni page of Durden, to Captain Stubing of Love Boat, to Gavin MacLeod, to 700 Club, and here we are. But here we go. Martha Washington's grandmother was Martha Jones. She is in direct line with Roland Jones, b. around 1580, England but location unknown. I suggest he was related to Inigo Jones, the famous architect. Why? For one reason, Inigo Jones is another ghost. He has no ancestry at all. He falls from the sky at age 30 in 1603 and begins designing palaces for the King of Denmark. Another clue is that Jones is said to be from Wales. Well, we just saw Sir William Jones in the line of Pat Robertson, from Wales, at the same time Inigo is said to be coming from there. Coincidence? Unlikely. Another even stronger clue is that Inigo Jones was the uncle of John Webb. This John Webb, despite being an architect, also acted as a spy for Charles I. No, really, I didn't make it up, the mainstream admits it.
Which brings us to the Webbs in Martha Washington's genealogy. Her 3g-grandmother is listed as Elizabeth Webb, b. about 1560. This is strange for a number of reasons. One, we just saw Inigo Jones' niece marrying John Webb, and there are both Webbs and Jones in the line of Martha Washington. Two, the times match, since Elizabeth Webb was born in 1560 and Inigo Jones was born in 1573. Three, there is also an Elizabeth Webb in the line of her husband George Washington. You will remember that his grandfather was Joseph Ball, whose family was from Wiltshire. Well, we find a John Ball marrying an Elizabeth Webb, b. 1553, in Wiltshire. This means Martha and George were related.
So we have linked Inigo Jones to the line of Martha Washington through the Webbs. We have likely linked him to the line of Pat Robertson through the knights of Wales.
Another reason this is strange is that we have seen mysterious Webbs in my other recent papers. A Frances Webb is listed as an ancestor of Queen Elizabeth II, in the 1800s. Nothing is known of this Frances Webb, although some have said she was the daughter of Francis Webb and Mary Garritt.
But wait. We have seen that, too. Above. You will scan above and say, “No we haven't”. But look closer. The mother of Gerrit van Heere was Marritje Gerrits. Marritje just means “little Mary” in Dutch. Her given name wouldn't have been Marritje, it would have been Mary. So we have Mary Gerrits. Mary Garritt. I am not saying it was the same woman, since they aren't in the same century, but something is going on. You will say it is just a coincidence, but I will show you it isn't.
We also saw Webbs in my paper on Jim Morrison and Val Kilmer. Kilmer's ancestor Elizabeth Morrison married Armistead Webb. We also found that British Field Marshal George Pollack married Frances Webb Barclay. He was a Baronet and his mother was a Parsons. That marriage was in 1810, so it was around the same time as Frances Webb, ancestor of Queen Elizabeth.
Note the “Webb Barclay”. This means the Webbs were closely related to the Barclays: think Barclays Bank. Barclays Bank traces its origin to Goldsmith banking in 1690 in the City of London. This means it was founded by Jews. The top Goldsmiths were all Jews. We also link back to my paper on the Quakers, since Barclays was founded by Quaker John Freame and Thomas Gould. Barclay was the son-in-law of Freame. Gould is a variant spelling of Gold, and was one of the names the Goldsmiths adopted.
So who are these Webbs, and why are they so scrubbed? Well, Wikipedia gives us some easy information on the page for writer Francis Webb, b. 1735. His mother Mary Sweet was a rich heiress from Taunton. He studied theology under Philip Doddridge. That is curious, since Doddridge is a variant of Dandridge. Some of the Dandridges in Martha Washington's line spelled their name Doddridge. These Doddridges were related to Judge John Doddridge, b. 1555. He was the son of a wealthy wool merchant. He and his brother Pentecost Doddridge were both Members of Parliament from Barnstaple. They were contemporaries of Francis Bacon. Pentecost's son was also named John Dodderidge. He was prevented from sitting in Parliament by Cromwell. A clue may be found by this Dodderidge's third wife, Judith Gurdon, probably Jewish. Not only do we have the first name Judith, but we find that after Dodderidge died, she married John Gould, a Levant Merchant. A Levant Merchant was somewhat like an East India Merchant, except that they traded in the Middle East rather than the Far East. Most of them were Jewish, and Gould is a common Jewish name, then as now. Again, it comes from Gold—many of the wealthiest Jews were Goldsmiths at this time, remember?
They are now Goldmans or Goldwyns or Goldsteins or still Goulds. See Elliott Gould, for instance. He was originally a Goldstein, but I guess he thought Gould sounded less Jewish.
We can also look at Sidney and Beatrice Webb, two of the founders of the London School of Economics and the Fabian Society. Both huge red flags. I hit the LSE in my paper on Naomi Klein/Naomi Wolf, where I reminded you that another founder, George Bernard Shaw, wasn't an economist and didn't even go to college. The LSE was just a spook construct. Ditto for the Fabian Society. Anyway, Beatrice Potter married Sidney Webb, 1st Baron Passfield, and so she became a Baroness. He died October 13, 1947, at age 88. Spook markers galore. Sidney Webb was President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for the Colonies. He founded the New Statesman in 1913, a huge spook rag. His genealogy is completely scrubbed, which is again a HUGE red flag. We are told he was made a Baron in 1929, but this is unlikely. Plus, if we check for Passfield, we find nothing in England but a small hamlet in Hampshire. It sounds like a joke. More likely is that Webb was from a line of peers, and became a Baron when one of his family died. But this family is completely in the black.
This makes us question the bio of Catherine Webb, so-called Woman with a Basket, leader of the Co- operative Women's Guild in England in the early 1900s. She was likely a plant, seeing that her death is listed as 1947. Also in support of that is that Webb's mentor, Margaret Llewelyn Davies, was the daugther of a Fellow at Trinity College, Cambridge, spook central. I can't say what the project was with this Women's Guild, and will have to look at it later.
For another twist here, you may wish to remind yourself that Jason Bourne's real name was David Webb. Bourne is the character in all the Bourne films, played by Matt Damon.
Also curious is Sam Webb, head of the American Communist Party from 2000-2014, succeeding Gus Hall. We already know that the ACP is a spook construct. Also see my papers on John Reed and Eugene Debs.
Finally, I found another Webb from before 1800. Robert Webb, b. 1719, again from Taunton. See Francis Webb, above, and the Doddridges, who were also from Taunton, a very small town. He was an MP and very wealthy merchant, dealing in sugar. He owned large plantations on Montserrat. Oho, we have seen sugar merchants coming up over and over. John Reed's grandfather was a sugar merchant. Charlie Bluhdorn, the man who financed the film Reds, was a sugar merchant. Samuel Parris, leader of the Salem hoax, owned sugar plantations in Barbados. Napoleon's wife, the Empress Josephine, was also from a family that owned extensive sugar plantations, on Martinique. Montserrat is a Leeward Island. In my last paper on C. S. Lewis, we found he was related to Alexander Hamilton, born on the Leeward Islands. This indicates to me the Webbs may have been crypto-Jews, which is why their genealogies tend to be in the black.
Also of interest may be British Admiral Richard Webb, 1870-1950, President of the Royal Naval College. He was a comrade of Admiral David Beatty, 1st Earl Beatty. This Admiral Beatty received the surrender of the German Fleet in 1918. See my paper on the Beer Hall Putsch for indication that surrender was managed. I mention him so that you can connect him to Warren Beatty. We are told Warren was born a Beaty to middle-class parents, but that was always suspect. His genealogy is slender, partially scrubbed, and not really credible. I suggest he is related to this admiral.
Then we find Philip Barker-Webb, b. 1793, who—we are told—was born into a wealthy aristocratic family. Really, what family is that? Wiki doesn't tell us, so we go to Googlebooks, DNB, p. 105, where we learn he was the great grandson of Philip Carteret Webb, Milford House, Surrey [whom I already mentioned above]. In the same bio, we learn that Philip Barker-Webb was a friend of John Ball. That links us back to George Washington again, who was the grandson of Joseph Ball. This indicates a close relationship of the Balls and Webbs well into the time of Washington. Previously, we had only found a link more than a century earlier. Also of interest is this:
In December, 1756, Philip Carteret Webb was made joint-solicitor to the treasury, and held that post until June 1765; he was consequently a leading offcial in the proceedings against John Wilkes, and for these acts was dubbed by Horace Walpole 'a most villainous tool and agent in any iniquity”.
I trust you noticed the John Wilkes. Wilkes was one of the few Members of Parliament to support the American Revolutionaries. Which means he was a spook. His father was Israel Wilkes. Note the first name. He went to university in Holland. We are told Wilkes had a strong sympathy for non-conformist Protestants. Of course he did. John Wilkes Booth was named for John Wilkes, and was related to him. Was John Wilkes really cross-eyed?
Either he was or the artist was.
Seeing Philip Webb lead proceedings against John Wilkes indicates to me the whole thing was another hoax. They were both probably crypto-Jews running another misdirection project. We will see more evidence for that when I unwind the American Revolution more fully.
For now, let us continue with the Webbs. We find a General John Webb, b. 1667 in Wiltshire, whose father Colonel Edmund Richmond Webb “had a position” in the household of Prince George of Denmark, the husband of Queen Anne. Both Webbs were cousins of Henry St. John, 1st Viscount Bolingbroke. Henry's grandfather was Admiral Robert Rich, the 2nd Earl of Warwick. We saw this Rich family in my paper on Friedrich Engels. It was founded by Richard Rich, who came out of nowhere in 1533. He has no genealogy and no bio before age 20. He became solicitor general in 1533, and became the lesser hammer under Thomas Cromwell, as they destroyed the monastic system in England. He appears to be one of the first Jews to penetrate the upper levels in England.
Robert Rich's sister Isabella married Sir John Smythe, whose father was the first governor of the East India Company. Even better, another sister Lady Lettice Rich was named after her maternal grandmother the Countess Lettice Knollys. We saw her above in the line of Martha Washington. That means Martha Washington was closely related to these Riches.
Another sister of Robert Rich married Gervase Clifton. In 1611 he was the third Baronet ever created. We looked at these Baronets in my previous paper on C. S. Lewis. Another wife of this Clifton was Jane Eyre. That is where Charlotte Bronte got that name for her famous novel.
Robert Rich's third wife was Eleanor Wortley. When Rich died, she married Robert Montagu, 2nd Earl of Manchester. Do you remember why this is interesting? Go back to the first paragraph of this paper, where we found Mary Montague was the 2g-grandmother of George Washington. Also remember that Wikipedia scrubs her completely, having her slot blank. Geni.com lists her name, but gives no parents for her. The Montague line ends mysteriously. I am showing you what they are hiding. Washington was descended from the Montagus, including the 1st Earl who was Lord High Treasurer and Star Chamber judge under King Charles I. Also the 2nd Earl, commander of the revolutionary forces against
Charles I, and for a time the superior of Oliver Cromwell. The 2 nd Earl's wife was Catherine Spencer, of the famous Spencers, formerly Earls of Winchester and Gloucester. Winston Churchill was a Spencer, his full name being Spencer-Churchill. Diana, wife of Prince Charles, is a Spencer. So Diana is related to George Washington. And so, through marriage, is Prince Charles.
I will pause to point out something else which requires further study. We just found the 1st Earl of Manchester a favorite of Charles I, and his son a comrade of Cromwell. Does that make sense to you? It could be indication the whole Revolution was another fake, manufactured for some purpose. That shouldn't surprise you, since I have already shown the French Revolution and Russian Revolution were managed, and largely faked. Given that, you should be surprised if either the English Revolution or the American Revolution were as we have been told. Like the French Revolution, the English Revolution was very short-lived. In the former, a Louis Bourbon was back on the throne within 20 years. In the latter, a Charles Stuart was back within 11 years. And we have already found a lot of indication above that the American Revolution was a front for something, since I have shown George Washington was from English royalty and crypto-Jewish families. His lineage (and that of his wife) goes right to the top of both the English peerage and the East India Company. So it is very unlikely George was fighting against either one.
But I will save most of that for a future paper. Now, if we go back to the dissolution of the monasteries under Thomas Cromwell and Richard Rich, we find that one of the monasteries seized was sold to Lawrence Washington, ancestor of George and a prominent wool merchant. George's great grandfather John Washington had near relations that lived at this Sulgrave Manor. The Manor was later bought by Lawrence's grandson, Lawrence Makepeace. This means that George Washington is related to William Makepeace Thackeray, author of The Luck of Barry Lyndon. We just saw Thackeray and Barry Lyndon in my previous paper on C. S. Lewis. To go with that tidbit, here is something strange from Thackeray's Wiki page:
Notice anything? It looks fake to me. See the larger image at Wiki, which is curious for many reasons, not the least of which is that hand pointing up. No, I am not talking about any Masonic or occult meaning, I am talking about how poorly painted it is. That hand has one large grey shadow, with no definition. The whole image looks to me like a later copy of the period style, but not a good copy. The baby's face isn't bad, but the woman's face is awful. It is probably based on a Thomas Lawrence or Joshua Reynolds composition, but it fails in most ways to capture the period feel. It also has no damage. My guess is it is a modern creation.
Finding this link to Thackeray encourages us to return to George Washington's genealogy for a last look before we retire. Let's start with the John Washington I just mentioned, son of Lawrence. John's mother is listed as Anne Pope. Anne's mother is scrubbed. But her father is Colonel Nathaniel Pope of Gloucester, England. Was he related to the poet Alexander Pope (the Rape of the Lock, etc.)? Undoubtedly, since Alexander Pope's father was a wealthy linen merchant. We know what that means. We are told Pope's family had to move from London in 1700, due to persecution of Catholics. This is unlikely. More likely is that they moved due to rising anti-Jewish sentiment in the city. Since William was still King, the Jews were still held in favor by the government in 1700, and their numbers had been rising steadily since the 1650s—when Cromwell had explicitly let them in. By 1700, London was feeling some backlash from these rising numbers, and some wealthy Jews fled the city. My guess is the Popes were among that number, since they removed themselves to Binfield, next door to Windsor Castle. That would have been a strange place for Catholics to hide out, seeing that the King hated Catholics. But it was the perfect place for a prominent Jewish family to hide out.
But back to John Washington. Turns out his grandmother was Anne Dickens. Related to Charles Dickens? I would assume so. Her mother was a Thornton and her mother was a Spencer. We have already seen the Spencers, who include Princess Diana and Edmund Spenser (the Faerie Queene). In support of this, we find one of Charles Dickens' great grandfathers named Samuel Goldsworth. Probably Jewish. We find his wife Sarah with no last name. Since this is the matrilineal line, that is important. We also find Barrows in Dickens' line, ancestry scrubbed. This reminds us of Isaac Barrow, a teacher of Isaac Newton. This Barrow was the son of a wealthy linen merchant. Oi vay, was everyone in England a linen merchant? No, just many of the rich and famous, and now you know why. I suggest to you Dickens came from this line, and that is why they are scrubbing it.
Guess who Charles Dickens' grandmother was? Elizabeth Ball. That pretty much decides it, since Washington's grandfather was also a Ball. Still don't believe me? Anne Dickens is actually in both genealogies! This Anne Dickens, b. 1555, daughter of Henry Thornton, is in the genealogies of both Washington and Dickens. At Geni, start with the page of William Dickens, grandfather of Charles. For the Washington link, start with the page of Amphyllis Washington Twigdon, granddaughter of William Dickens. So we have found Charles Dickens is definitely related to George Washington, and thereby probably related to both Edmund Spenser and Alexander Pope. Wow, this is not admitted and doesn't come up on a search. You will say everyone is related to everyone else, but Dickens' relationship to Washington is not distant. Yes, Anne Dickens is back in around 1600, but both men were grandsons of a Ball, which means the families had remained in close contact for centuries.
In fact, there is huge misdirection on the relationship between Dickens and Washington online. There is a new site (2014) called Kindred Britain, which is curiously posted out of Stanford edu. Stanford is not in Britain, last time I checked. But if you take that last link you can see their proposed route between Dickens and Washington. It takes twenty-three moves, going through the Barnes, Clerks, Grants, Dandridges, Custises, Laws, Wedderburns, Colvilles, Stracheys, Shakespears, Bonds and Shucksburghs. I have just shown you can get there in about five moves through a single family, the Balls. Kindred Britain is sold as interactive, but it is almost impossible to navigate, and once you do penetrate their system you find these highly misleading routes that indicate the relationships are much more distant than they really are.
However, the Kindred Britain route does allow us to add some more links to Washington, including the Stracheys, the Clerks, the Shakespears, and the Barnes. We have seen the last two in recent papers. Dorothy Shakespear was the wife of top spook Ezra Pound. They were not related to Will Shakespeare, but just made up the name about a century earlier. The Barnes family came up in my papers on F. Scott Fitzgerald and the O. K. Corral. The Clerk link takes us to James Clerk Maxwell, a physicist I have critiqued many times on my science site. The Strachey link takes us to Lytton Strachey, a disgusting gay member of the Bloomsbury Group, and son of a Lt. General (3-star). Lytton's mother was a Grant, which is how they are related to Washington. The Stracheys come from the Strachey Baronets, created in 1801 by George III. Lytton went to Trinity College, of course. If you want to know why I called him disgusting, here is one example:
The Apostles formulated an elitist doctrine of "Higher Sodomy" which differentiated the homosexual acts of the intelligent from those of "ordinary" men.
Yes, and I guess farting is also different in kind when done by intelligent people. One of Lytton's buddies was John Maynard Keynes. He also had a famous S&M relationship with Roger Senhouse, head of the publishing house Secker and Warburg. For more disgusting moments, you may watch the movie Carrington, which nauseatingly recreates his menage-a-trois with nutcase Dora Carrington. For some reason beyond the ken of reason, she apparently loved Lytton despite his total disregard for her, and his preference for her gay husband Ralph Partridge.
Which brings us back to Washington. A new book has begged controversy by claiming George and most of the other founding fathers were gay. It is known that he had no children. Was Martha just his beard? A few years ago I wouldn't have countenanced such a thing, and even now it isn't at the top of my list of interesting topics. However, having discovered what I have in the past five years by hundreds of hours of research, the claim no longer surprises me. I think it is more important that the founding fathers appear to be Jewish than that they may have been gay, but—as with almost everyone else I have studied—it wouldn't surprise me if they were both. As I have said, only half-jestingly, in previous papers, it looks like nearly every famous person is a gay Jewish spook. In fact, in all seriousness, I have reset my default position on all famous people to that setting. Being a mathematician and able to run statistics, I find that is the only logical thing to do.
Some mainstream sources have critiqued these gay claims against the founding fathers by arguing that the claims can't be true due simply to their number. The author claims that many of these famous men were gay, and he is answered that since only 2% of men are gay, the odds are very much against all these founding fathers being gay. But that is what you call pushing statistics. The argument, though appealing to math, doesn't wash, and it doesn't wash because statistics don't work like that. The 2% statistic applies to all men, not to each group of men. You can't apply the 2% statistic to any and every group of men, no matter how small or specific. It would be like going into a gay bar and expecting only 2% of the men there to be gay. The founding fathers were only a handful of men out of all the men in the country, so there is no way to apply the general statistic to them. They could very easily have all been gay, if there was some system in place to promote gays to these positions. And, as we have seen in previous research, there is such a system in place in several fields, including the arts, the performing arts, the media, politics, and possibly Intelligence.
I will have more to say about Revolutionary times in upcoming papers. This is just the first step.
You may now read my paper on Benjamin Franklin for more.
*This reminds me that Benedict Arnold may actually be Arnold Benedict, or Arnold Bennett. We have seen prominent people flip their names like that, as an easy way to hide. Something for future research.
Comments