Miles Williams Mathis: Thomas Jefferson – Part II
First published on August 3, 2020, by Miles Mathis
I ended part I just before Jefferson became President, so we have a lot left to cover.
BOOK: European Royal Bloodlines of the American Presidents – Library of Rickandria
He had become VP in 1796, which also made him head of the Senate.
Wiki tells us Jefferson was perfect in that role because he had been studying parliamentarian law for 40 years by that time, but since he was just 53, that means he would have had to have been studying since he was 13.
So, another mainstream fudge.
It is admitted that Jefferson as VP purposely undercut the US relationship with France, advising the French to stonewall President Adams.
John Adams (October 30, 1735 – July 4, 1826) was a Founding Father and the second president of the United States from 1797 to 1801. Before his presidency, he was a leader of the American Revolution that achieved independence from Great Britain. During the latter part of the Revolutionary War and in the early years of the new nation, he served the U.S. government as a senior diplomat in Europe. Adams was the first person to hold the office of vice president of the United States, serving from 1789 to 1797. He was a dedicated diarist and regularly corresponded with important contemporaries, including his wife and adviser Abigail Adams and his friend and political rival Thomas Jefferson.
So, Jefferson was basically acting as a statesman of France, which is of course highly illegal.
He should have been charged with treason.
And I say that not as a partisan of Adams.
I like Adams even less than Jefferson, but I am just pointing out how all these guys were above the law even then.
The law was always for the other guy.
Due to the interference of Jefferson, the US actually entered into a war with France, the so-called Quasi-War.
Although the historians now flip the event, claiming Adams and the Federalists wanted the war to build up the military, that is a reversal, since it was Jefferson that incited it on purpose, to damage Adams so that Adams would serve only one term.
Anyone with two eyes can see that on a first reading.
I remind you that we discovered this was all due to the East India Company being split and fighting itself for control of the US, with Jefferson on one side and Adams on the other.
However, I now think it may be even deeper than that.
We found that Jefferson was directly descended from John of Gaunt in many lines, connecting him to the Komnenes, so he should have been on the “British” side.
Why do we see him so conspicuously on the “French” side?
That would seem to put him on the Catholic southern side of this split, except for one thing:
that side had just fallen in the French Revolution—with the inside help of Jefferson, of course.
France was no longer Catholic and was no longer being run by the Medicis, Bourbons, etc.
The First Estate was now gone, and with it the influence of Rome.
Like England, France was now being run by bankers hiding being Protestants.
So, it begins to look like Jefferson was a mole inserted into France to control the opposition.
Remember, France lost this war for control of America.
Strange that Jefferson would win this little battle against Adams, beating him the election of 1800, but lose the war to maintain primary ties with France and not England.
Unless that was the plan all along.
I have shown you that France was the planned loser in the French Revolution.
Miles Williams Mathis: The French Revolution – Library of Rickandria
The people and country were much worse off afterwards, and went into a two-century tailspin that they are still in.
Since then the country has been run by foreign interests.
You may say it always was, but those interests changed with the French Revolution and became even more foreign and even less interested in France as France.
If we look down on history from a bird’s eye view, we see France’s position as loser was maintained throughout the 19th century, through the World Wars, and up to the present time.
Like Germany, France has suffered a long series of defeats for several centuries, all the way back to the time of Richelieu.
France, like Germany, was allowed a few brief periods of fake and manufactured victories —France with Napoleon and Germany with Hitler—but the general trend has been defeat and evisceration.
I am showing you that was no accident and no misfortune.
It was the result of long and detailed planning by the British East India Company, and the Stanleys and Komnenes hiding behind it.
We have seen the foundations of that plan going back to the Battle of Bosworth Field and before.
Miles Williams Mathis: Henry VII – Another Jewish Invasion of England – Library of Rickandria
But if we want to focus on Jefferson’s part in it, we have to realize that he was playing France all along.
He had been inserted to destroy her through the French Revolution, and he continued that role after the Revolutions.
Remember, all of history is on its head, and this is just another example of that.
Day is night and black is white.
Jefferson only seemed to be promoting the interests of France but notice that his advice to them always backfired.
Somehow, his instruction or “ministering” to them never did them any good.
Jefferson wasn’t the only one we can say this about.
His French cohort Talleyrand now looks like yet another mole of the same sort, since up to his appointment as Foreign Minister for France in 1797, he had been living in the US.
Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord (/ˈtælɪrænd ˈpɛrɪɡɔːr/;[1] French: [ʃaʁl mɔʁis də tal(ɛ)ʁɑ̃ peʁiɡɔʁ, moʁ-]; 2 February 1754 – 17 May 1838), 1st Prince of Benevento, then Prince of Talleyrand, was a French secularized clergyman, statesman, and leading diplomat. After studying theology, he became Agent-General of the Clergy in 1780. In 1789, just before the French Revolution, he became Bishop of Autun. He worked at the highest levels of successive French governments, most commonly as foreign minister or in some other diplomatic capacity. His career spanned the regimes of Louis XVI, the years of the French Revolution, Napoleon, Louis XVIII, Charles X, and Louis Philippe I. Those Talleyrand served often distrusted him but found him extremely useful. The name “Talleyrand” has become a byword for crafty and cynical diplomacy.
Please read the clues!
Talleyrand has the usual red flags all over him.
He was nobility and both his father and uncle were Lieutenant Generals.
He was actually a Talleyrand Perigord, linking us back to the Counts de la Marche.
This connects us to the:
- Capetians
- Bourbons
- Valois
Remember, Talleyrand, like his uncle, had been a clergyman.
His uncle was Archbishop of Reims, and he himself was a bishop at the opening of the French Revolution.
But despite being a cleric, Talleyrand was anti-clerical.
He was an ally of the revolutionaries.
We saw the same thing with Abbe Sieyes in part 1.
Both were in the First Estate, but in favor of its destruction.
Make sense of that if you can.
The only way to do it the way I have done it: by seeing that these clerics like Talleyrand were moles for the other side.
We have proof of this when Talleyrand was finally defrocked by the Pope in 1802.
We can only wonder why Pius VII took more than 13 years to figure this out.
The Pope could have perhaps prevented the French Revolution by defrocking dozens of top clerics in France in the 1780s, but he didn’t.
Pope Pius VI (Italian: Pio VI; born Count Angelo Onofrio Melchiorre Natale Giovanni Antonio called Giovanni Angelo or Giannangelo Braschi, 25 December 1717 – 29 August 1799) was head of the Catholic Church and ruler of the Papal States from 15 February 1775 to his death in August 1799. Pius VI condemned the French Revolution and the suppression of the Catholic Church in France that resulted from it. French troops commanded by Napoleon Bonaparte defeated the Papal army and occupied the Papal States in 1796. In 1798, upon his refusal to renounce his temporal power, Pius was taken prisoner and transported to France. He died eighteen months later in Valence. His reign of more than twenty-four years is the fifth-longest in papal history. He was also the longest-ruling pope of the Papal States.
Pius VI and VII were Braschi and Falconieri, linking them to the Medici, meaning they were Jewish.
Pope Pius VII (Italian: Pio VII; born Barnaba Niccolò Maria Luigi Chiaramonti;[a] 14 August 1742 – 20 August 1823) was head of the Catholic Church from 14 March 1800 to his death in August 1823. He ruled the Papal States from June 1800 to 17 May 1809 and again from 1814 to his death. Chiaramonti was also a monk of the Order of Saint Benedict in addition to being a well-known theologian and bishop.
My guess is the Medici also wished to gut the First Estate, but of course they wanted to be the beneficiaries of that, not English bankers.
Somehow the Komnenes, coming down from England, were able to infiltrate this pillaging of the First Estate at the last moment, undercutting the Medicis.
Probably it was a joint project of the bankers north and south, but the northern bankers somehow manipulated the event to gain the upper hand in France.
One way they did this was via the United States, and the simultaneous fake revolution there.
Rome was led to believe the US, via people like Jefferson, was an ally of Medici France, when they were in fact agents of Komnene England.
You will see more of what I mean by that as we proceed.
A huge clue here is that Talleyrand’s son married Margaret Elphinstone, daughter of George Keith Elphinstone, Viscount English Admiral Keith.
We saw the Keiths in my paper on Ben Franklin, since I showed you that he was related to them.
Miles Williams Mathis: Benjamin Franklin: Premier American (British) Spook – Library of Rickandria
That Keith was Governor of Pennsylvania at the time, remember?
So, it should look strange to you that one of the leaders of France had such ties to England.
Admiral Elphinstone’s mother-in-law was a Murray, and though thepeerage scrubs her, we know the Murrays are as good as Stanleys.
Same family.
We hit the Murrays a second time through the Mercers, and this time Lundy isn’t able to scrub them.
They are the Marquesses of Athole; and my point is proved, since the 1st Marquess married… Lady Amelia Stanley, daughter of the 7th Earl of Derby.
That’s how close Talleyrand was to the Stanleys, and thereby the Komnenes.
Thepeerage.com scrubs Talleyrand’s wife, but Wiki gives her as Catherine Noel Worlee.
Catherine Noël de Talleyrand-Périgord (née Worlée; 21 November 1761 – 10 December 1835) was a French courtesan and noblewoman. Born in India as the daughter of an officer of the French East India Company, she married George Grand, an officer of the English East India Company. She had a scandalous liaison with Bengal councillor Philip Francis in Calcutta.
They tell us she was born in India to a French officer, but the story is thin and looks false.
Her name gives her away, as usual.
No doubt she links us to the Noels/ Gordons/Byrons of the British peerage, and to Lord Byron (George Gordon), who I have shown you was Jewish.
They admit Catherine married a British civil servant, George Grand, in India at age 16, though they also try to pass him off as of French/Huguenot extraction.
Note the Huguenot, which is our clue here.
There is a Chevalier George Grand in the British peerage, who lived in Amsterdam around 1750.
His daughter married Maj. Gen. Augustine Prevost, of the British army.
Catherine Noel soon ran off from her husband and joined up with Sir Philip Francis, secretary of William Pitt the Elder.
Miles Williams Mathis: Brad Pitt’s Genealogy – Library of Rickandria
Francis’ daughter was the wife of George Cholmondeley, Marquess and Lord Steward of the Household.
So, all of Noel’s early links are to England, not France.
Talleyrand’s other concubine, and mother of his son, was Adelaide Filleul, a former mistress of Louis XV.
Another of her previous lovers was the Jesuit Marmontel.
As an encyclopediste, he also links us to British agents.
Filleul fled her salon in 1792 to live in Mickleham, Surrey.
In 1802 she married a Souza from Portugal, linking us to the von Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Becks, and all sorts of royal action, including the Oldenburgs.
Talleyrand was also the father of painter Eugene Delacroix. Talleyrand’s mother was Alexandrine de Damas d’Antigny, daughter of Judith de Vienne.
Her father was the Count of Comarain and her mother was Anne de Chastellux.
The Counts of Comarain come from the Counts of Brienne, who we looked at in my paper on Napoleon.
Miles Williams Mathis: Was Napoleon Jewish? – Library of Rickandria
They link us to the Vasas, and thereby to the Jagiellons and Komnenes.
They also link us to the Vicomtes de Neufchatel and de Baume.
Talleyrand’s paternal grandmother was a Chamillart de la Suze, daughter of a de Rochechouart de Mortemart and a Colbert.
Jean-Baptiste Colbert (French: [ʒɑ̃.ba.tist kɔl.bɛʁ]; 29 August 1619 – 6 September 1683) was a French statesman who served as First Minister of State from 1661 until his death in 1683 under the rule of King Louis XIV. His lasting impact on the organization of the country’s politics and markets, known as Colbertism, a doctrine often characterized as a variant of mercantilism, earned him the nickname le Grand Colbert ([lə ɡʁɑ̃ kɔl.bɛʁ]; “the Great Colbert”).
Her grandfather was Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Prime Minister 1661-83 under Louis XIV.
Louis XIV (Louis-Dieudonné; 5 September 1638 – 1 September 1715), also known as Louis the Great (Louis le Grand) or the Sun King (le Roi Soleil), was King of France from 1643 until his death in 1715. His verified reign of 72 years and 110 days is the longest of any monarch in history.
The Colberts were Jewish bankers.
So, although Talleyrand was a Bourbon in one main line, you can see how his blood had been turned over the centuries.
All this means that although Talleyrand appeared to be working for France, he was actually working against her, as a mole of the Komnenes.
I have previously suggested the same thing about Richelieu but haven’t fully researched it yet.
But we now have some evidence it may be true of Talleyrand.
But back to Jefferson.
We are told he opposed the Alien and Sedition Acts, but he actually only opposed the Sedition part of that, since it was being used by Adams to shut down newspapers allied to Jefferson.
He let the greater part of the Alien Acts stand, and they still stand to this day.
Jefferson was so incredibly partisan, that when Washington died in 1799, Jefferson purposely did not attend his funeral.
We are told this was to do with the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which Washington opposed as detrimental to the Union.
Those resolutions, drafted by Madison and Jefferson, argued that States should be able to ignore Federal laws they found unConstitutional.
Those resolutions passed in their States, but ten other States disapproved of the idea.
As we would expect, once Jefferson became President and the Sedition Acts were allowed to expire, he was no longer so concerned about State rights.
They were mainly about his fight with Adams.
But I pause to point out that, whatever their difference of opinion about states’ rights, Jefferson’s snubbing of Washington’s funeral looks very strange.
If nothing else, it is another signal of Jefferson’s character.
He was so caught up in his own advancement, he couldn’t see beyond his own nose.
As they say now, it was all about him.
As yet another indication of his unpopularity, we find that although Jefferson nudged the outrageously unpopular Adams in the 1800 election, he couldn’t even beat his own running mate, the not popular either Aaron Burr.
They actually tied in the Electoral College vote, and Jefferson required another 36 ballots, and the vigorous campaigning of Hamilton, in order to prevail.
This tells us that nothing has changed since the beginning.
Never once has this country presented us with any Presidential candidates worth voting for.
It has been lesser of two evils from the founding, and maybe now you understand why.
As usual, we get lots of fake portraits of Burr, carving down his nose and making him look more Gentile, but that is more what he really looked like.
He is listed in the peerage, but is completely scrubbed except for his first wife.
However, through her we can immediately link him to. . . Talleyrand.
She was Theodosia Bartow, and her first husband was Lt. Col. Jacques Prevost, brother of Maj. Gen. Augustin Prevost, who we saw above linked to Talleyrand’s wife.
Just a coincidence?
Not a chance.
I think Burr and Hamilton were also related through Theodosia Bartow, since I think her name was changed from Barstow.
The Barstows of the peerage are scrubbed before 1838, but before that they were Baillies through the women.
And if we take these Baillies back a couple of generations, we find they are actually Hamiltons, Earls of Haddington.
In about 1720, the son of Charles Hamilton, Lord Binning, took the name of his mother Rachel Baillie, becoming George Baillie of Jerviswood and Mellerstain.
Burr’s second wife was Eliza Bowen, whose mother was Hebe Bowen.
Need I say more?
Well, maybe this:
Eliza had previously been married to Stephen Jumel.
You may wish to respell that Jewmell.
At Geneanet, we find Burr was also a Pierrepont, taking him back to:
- Russell
- Cavendish
- Melton/Middleton
- Clifford
- Beauchamp
- Greystoke
- Manners
and Ferrers.
The Meltons are 1st cousins of Tim Dowling, meaning we are only one step away from the who take us there, since they are in the direct line of Dowling.
Stuarts as well.
It is the Beauchamps.
On his father’s side, Burr is a:
- Sherman
- Bell
- Butler
- Ward
- Hull
and Fortescue.
The Fortescues take us to the top of the British peerage once again.
In the Burr line, he comes from several ancestors named Jehu Burr.
On his mother’s side, he was also an Edwards and a Stoddard (see below).
Burr’s daughter Theodosia married Joseph Alston, Governor of South Carolina, and they forget to tell you these Alstons were baronets in the British peerage.
Joseph’s close cousin William Alston was 8th Baronet Alston.
His wife was Mary Rose, scrubbed, but Rose is a Jewish name.
Her father was probably a banker.
The 3rd Baronet, Joseph Alston, married the daughter of the Baronet Evelyn, and his mother was a Gold.
Also, Jewish.
They come from Hugh Gold of London, scrubbed.
This also links us to the Balams, of course a Jewish name, and they take us back to the Wodehouses and Townshends.
Even the name Theodosia is a clue in this direction, since of course it is a Byzantine Empire name, linking us to the Komnenes once again.
The name Aaron takes us in the same direction.
Burr is the one who famously protected Associate Justice Samuel Chase from being impeached in the Senate, allowing him to keep his seat on the Supreme Court.
Miles Williams Mathis: The Supremes – Library of Rickandria
Chase was Jewish and that is roughly what he looked like.
Down-turned nose and droopy septum.
Though there are some wild portraits of him looking completely different (see second one).
He looks Jewish in both, but in different ways.
The nose was fixed in the second one, but it is still very long.
But the lips and eyebrows don’t even get close to matching, so it is hard to say which is right.
The only thing we can be sure of is that he wasn’t as presentable as the first one.
Chase’s mother was a Walker, linking us to the current Bushes.
Miles Williams Mathis: LOOKS LIKE the Bushes are Jewish – Library of Rickandria
He married a Baldwin, linking us to the current actors.
The Chases are in the peerage, but most are recent, and all are incredibly well scrubbed.
A Mary Stewart Chase married into the peerage in 1821 by marrying a Biddulph, of those baronets.
But being a Stewart, she was probably nobility already.
Geni gives her father as George Chase of Wokingham.
Samuel Chase became a member of the Continental Congress at age 33, coming from nowhere.
His bio is extremely thin, and all we know is he was from wealth.
We may assume it was from banking.
We do know he attempted to corner the flour market in 1778 using insider information from the Congress, damaging his reputation (which was already not good).
He moved ahead only through crony appointments, including his crony appointment to the Supreme Court by George Washington.
Jefferson wanted Chase out due to his vigorous and often illegal prosecutions under the Sedition Acts against supporters of Jefferson.
So, Burr’s defense of Chase has to look very strange.
Not only was Burr Jefferson’s VP, was he was supposed to be a Republican and anti-Federalist.
Also strange is that the Senate was heavy with Republicans.
25 of the 34 Senators should have been in Jefferson’s hand, since only nine were Federalists. Jefferson could even lose two of those Senators and still win.
But he didn’t even come close.
Only 18 agreed to impeach Chase, so Chase must have spread a lot of bacon.
That’s why he was called Old Bacon-Face, you know.
He probably had a very oily face as well, of course.
Current historians have to cover the tragedy of Chase’s acquittal by constantly extolling Burr’s impartiality and fairness as head of the Senate.
You have to laugh.
Burr was one of the least impartial jerks who ever lived, although the list is long.
Mainstream historians try to convince us Chase’s acquittal was a good thing.
Wiki puts it this way:
As Chief Justice William Rehnquist noted in his book Grand Inquests, some senators declined to convict Chase despite their partisan hostility to him, apparently because they doubted that the mere quality of his judging was grounds for removal.
Rehnquist’s usual unctuous spin, since it wasn’t Chase’s:
“mere quality of judging”
that was in question.
In other words, it wasn’t his judgment of cases that was being tried in the Senate, and they admit that.
He had been caught extravagantly flouting the law in many cases.
Lawyers who do this are disbarred and judges who do it can also be dismissed for cause or even jailed.
As just one example, at the request of Jefferson, Congress did in fact impeach John Pickering, Circuit Court Judge in New Hampshire who liked to show up to court drunk. *
Judges are free to judge, but they aren’t free to break the law, any more than anyone else is.
Chase had acted as a prosecutor rather than a judge, which is illegal.
He had ignored jury findings, which is illegal.
He had given juries false instructions, which is illegal.
He had ignored the Constitution on many occasions, which is of course the ultimate infraction for a judge.
As just one example, see the case of John Fries, tried for treason, who was railroaded by Chase in the most obvious manner possible.
He was tried without counsel.
Beyond that, Chase himself made an endless closing statement to the jury, all but demanding that they convict him.
So, Chase shouldn’t have just been thrown out of the Supreme Court, he should have been tried for gross assault against the person of John Fries and many others and convicted with a long sentence.
And that was just one of the many heinous crimes Chase was guilty of in his long, disgusting life.
And, I must say, George Washington should have been convicted as an accessory to these crimes, since he appointed Chase despite knowing what a towering criminal he was.
Miles Williams Mathis: Who WAS George Washington? – Library of Rickandria
That is criminal negligence, by definition.
Now, let’s take a quick look at the Hamilton-Burr duel, before moving on.
I wanted to see if perhaps it was faked.
Found no evidence of that, but did dig up some interesting things.
We are given many reasons it happened, but one of the more hidden ones is called the Holland Land Deal, which plays into my theory here.
This was over 3 million acres in Western New York which was sold to rich Holland investors, i.e. Dutch East India Company.
This had been illegal, since aliens were prevented from owning land in the US. But Burr, “assisting” the New York legislature, passed a variance allowing it to go ahead.
Hamilton and others representing the British East India Company were naturally incensed, so you see how that plays in here again.
Hamilton became a one-man wrecking crew against the Dutch East India’s main man in the US, Aaron Burr, keeping him from becoming President in 1800 and keeping him from becoming Governor of New York in 1804.
So, from the point of view of the Dutch, something had to be done.
I suspect it was the Dutch who suggested the duel, provoking Hamilton so that he could not refuse, at the risk of being labelled a coward.
They then somehow rigged the duel against him, perhaps by some tacit agreement that both men would agree to miss, with Burr reneging on that agreement at the last moment.
We have evidence of that, since we have several accounts that Hamilton intended to waste his first shot (miss) on purpose, including Hamilton’s own account before the event in writing.
But the lying historians spin even this, claiming there may have been a conspiracy to damage Burr via Hamilton’s death.
What?
So, we are supposed to believe Hamilton died on purpose, just to damage Burr’s reputation?
That makes sense, right?
Obviously, if there was any conspiracy, it was to murder Hamilton, not to damage Burr.
We also have Hamilton’s response before dying, he told Husack he had never fired at all, and that his second Pendleton knew he had no intention of firing at Burr.
Hamilton was shocked: not that he had been hit in a fair fight, but that all those involved had lied to him.
It is also possible that Hamilton’s own father-in-law schemed against him, since he was Dutch.
That would be Philip Schuyler, one of the richest men in the US:
As you see, he was also Jewish, as were they all, but he had a nose that apparently couldn’t be toned down.
You will tell me Schuyler lost his New York Senate seat to Burr, so they couldn’t be allies.
But Schuyler retook that seat in the next election (1797).
He resigned in 1798 not due to anything Burr had done, but only to bad health.
He died November 18, 1804, just a few months after the duel.
And yes, that date is aces and eights, Chai.
The Schuylers owned much of upstate New York, which is why I think he might be involved in this Holland Land Deal. Plus, the Holland Land Deal didn’t come out of nowhere.
One of the primary investors was Nicholas von Staphorst, a big Dutch banker who had been loaning money to the US since 1782.
In fact, Staphorst was a top instigator of change in the Dutch Republic after 1788.
Remember, the Prussians had come in and squelched a revolt against the aristocracy in Holland in that year, so it looks like the bankers were the ones egging on the revolt, not the French.
In fact, the revolt didn’t end, it simply changed courses, since the bankers never quit.
They immediately tried to switch gears, which is why the British East India Company was forced to move even more strongly against them in that year, forming the Triple Alliance.
The Dutch Republic was allegedly the third arm of that alliance, but it was actually a British/Prussian alliance against the Dutch bankers.
Staphorst and others, tapping southern (Rome) and eastern alliances (Russia), were planning a walk-around of the Prussians, going ahead with plans to take over the Dutch government, so the British had to step in to prevent that.
It didn’t work, because as usual it was just a bluff, and the bankers in all countries went ahead with their plans.
But it was a major signal of more jockeying between the northern Phoenicians and the southern.
Miles Williams Mathis: Phoenicians – Where did they ALL Go? – Library of Rickandria
What they don’t tell you is that these Dutch bankers of the Holland Land Deal were also involved in the Louisiana Purchase of 1803-4.
Another of them, Willem Willink, is described as “an investor” in the Louisiana Purchase.
Say what?
You probably thought that was a purchase of the US from France, so how could it have Dutch investors?
It could, because the Louisiana Purchase was purchased with money borrowed from Dutch bankers.
So, the land was only “nominally” in the possession of the US.
Sort of like your house is only nominally in your possession.
Since you probably bought the house with borrowed money, who really owns your house?
That’s right, the bank.
Until you make that final payment, the bank owns the house, and they can “re-possess” it nearly at will.
All it takes is one late payment. Same with the Louisiana purchase. The Dutch bankers owned it, and we may assume they continued to own it until they sold it to some other bankers.
That means that although the British East India Company was making strong inroads into the US at the time, in 1804 the Dutch were still not out for the count.
Not only were they buying up large parts of western New York, they were buying the entire middle section of the US.
Anyway, what I was looking for was links between these Dutch bankers like Staphorst and the Schuylers.
Before we get there, I remind you that the Schuylers were closely related to the Livingstons —which is probably why the Livingston we looked at in part I didn’t want to sign the Declaration of Independence.
He was of the Dutch faction, so it wasn’t that he wanted the colonies to remain British.
It was that he wanted the colonies to remain colonies, and therefore relatively lawless.
He probably feared that if the colonies became a country of any stripe or denomination, they would coalesce and demand greater order—something the Dutch East India Company didn’t want.
In fact, that is what happened in the event, so Livingston was correct.
The formation of the United States was actually good for the British and bad for the Dutch.
The Dutch had wanted to treat the Americas as slave colonies or vassal colonies, in which it was best to insert the minimum amount of government.
Any governing would be done through trade and banking.
But the English proceeded on a different plan, where the colonization would be more of an occupation and settling.
Since that required more government, any concentration of legislative power would be to their benefit, even if it wasn’t at first under their control.
It could always be infiltrated later.
Anyway, a search on the Willinks finds they became bankers in England as well.
By the 1950s they were Baronets of Liverpool.
By the time of our story here (1804), they had already married the Lathams, linking them to the Mayers and Viscounts Chetwynd.
These Chetwynds were related to the Berkeleys and Villiers, taking us back to the same people we saw in Jefferson’s ancestry, including John of Gaunt.
The 1st Viscount Chetwynd married Mary Berkeley, whose mother was Barbara Villiers, granddaughter of Theophilus Howard, 2nd Earl of Suffolk.
Suffolk’s wife was Lady Home, daughter of Elizabeth Gordon, of the Earls of Huntley.
Howard’s grandfather was the Duke of Norfolk.
What this means is that after the war of 1812, the Willinks were forced to switch sides, marrying into the British East India Company.
But if we take the Willinks back instead of forward, we find they were Rutgers, which does indeed link them to the Schuylers.
Hester Bierens : Family tree by Chr H BRAND (ervespelberg) – Geneanet
Another investor in the Holland Land Deal was Rutger Jan Schimmelpenninck, who was of course also a Rutger, giving us the link immediately.
Rutger Jan, Count Schimmelpenninck (31 October 1761 – 15 February 1825), Lord of Nyenhuis, Peckedam and Gellicum, was a Dutch jurist, ambassador and politician who served as Grand Pensionary of the Batavian Republic from 1805 to 1806. Historian Niek Sas called him the first Dutch liberal politician.
His wife gives us a second link, since she was a Nahuys.
Her brother was Maj. Gen. Huibert Nahuys.
So, we have found confirmation of my suspicion that Hamilton’s father-in-law Schuyler may have been conspiring against him.
Another clue in the same direction is Burr’s second in the duel, William van Ness.
William Peter Van Ness (February 13, 1778 – September 6, 1826) was a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of New York and the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, also notable for serving as Aaron Burr’s second in Burr’s duel with Alexander Hamilton.
He was also Dutch, as you can see by his name.
Not only were the van Nesses also Simons, they were related to the Schuylers through the Rensellaers.
And who was Hamilton’s second?
Strangely, this Judge Pendleton was elected to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, but did not attend.
He was elected to the Continental Congress of 1789, but did not attend.
We are not told why, but we can guess.
Perhaps he felt the same way about the colonies that Livingston did.
Through the Hurts, the Pendletons are descended from the Russells, Dukes of Bedford.
Isabella Pendleton (Hurt) (1654 – 1724) – Genealogy
That of course links us to the Northern line of the Phoenicians, but way back.
Miles Williams Mathis: Phoenicians – Where did they ALL Go? – Library of Rickandria
In a curious coincidence, Pendleton’s wife was a Bard, whose mother was a Valleau, whose mother was a Fauconnier.
That is the same as Falconieri, linking us to Pope Pius, as we found above.
And therefore, to the Southern Phoenicians again.
That isn’t decisive, since it is also somewhat distant, but I think you will agree it is fascinating.
So, we have links going both ways for Pendleton.
How is it decided?
In this way:
the Pendletons were closely related to the Kennedys.
See John Pendleton Kennedy, Secretary of the Navy in 1852-3.
John Pendleton Kennedy (October 25, 1795 – August 18, 1870) was an American novelist, lawyer and Whig politician who served as United States Secretary of the Navy from July 26, 1852, to March 4, 1853, during the administration of President Millard Fillmore, and as a U.S. Representative from Maryland’s 4th congressional district, during which he encouraged the United States government’s study, adoption and implementation of the telegraph. A lawyer who became a lobbyist for and director of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, Kennedy also served several terms in the Maryland General Assembly and became its Speaker in 1847.
I bet you thought the Kennedys arrived from Ireland after that.
Nope.
They were already here in the 1700s.
They married into the Schuyler clan in the 1760s, when Archibald Kennedy, Earl of Cassilis, married Katherine Schuyler.
Which means the Pendletons were related to the Schuylers through the Kennedys.
In fact, that connection had happened only a few years before the duel, when Pendleton’s niece Ann had married John Kennedy.
This linked the Pendletons to the Schuylers, so it is quite possible that—unknown to Hamilton himself—his own second was an agent of the Dutch.
Alexander Hamilton (January 11, 1755, or 1757 – July 12, 1804) was an American military officer, statesman, and Founding Father who served as the first U.S. secretary of the treasury from 1789 to 1795 during the presidency of George Washington, the first president of the United States.
If that is true, it would be quite easy for the two Dutch seconds to arrange for the death of Hamilton, while making it look like an accident.
In fact, we have some evidence of that, since the reports of the duel are garbled.
No one can agree what happened, which shouldn’t be possible in a straightforward event.
We find multiple stories in manufactured events, since the multiple stories are broadcast on purpose, to create confusion.
To me, the eyewitness stories look like lies, which most likely indicates the seconds and other attendants were all conspirators against Hamilton.
More evidence comes from Jeremy Bentham, who, having heard the story from Burr’s own lips, called Burr
“little better than a murderer”
Another who may have been part of the conspiracy was John Barker Church, who was married to Hamilton’s wife’s sister, making him an in-law of the Schuylers.
John Barker Church, a.k.a. John Carter (October 30, 1748 – April 27, 1818), was an English born businessman and supplier of the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War.
He has red flags all over him, including an alias of John Carter.
I remind you that John Carter is the real name of Charlton Heston.
Charlton Heston (born John Charles Carter; October 4, 1923 – April 5, 2008) was an American actor. He gained stardom for his leading man roles in numerous Hollywood films including biblical epics, science-fiction films and action films. He won the Academy Award as well as nominations for three Golden Globe Awards, and three Primetime Emmy Awards. He won numerous honorary accolades including the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award in 1978, the Golden Globe Cecil B. DeMille Award in 1967, the Screen Actors Guild Life Achievement Award in 1971, the Kennedy Center Honors in 1997, and the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2003.
Or said to be the real name of Heston.
John Carter is starting to look like a recycled Intelligence name.
Also think of John Carter of Mars, a character in the Edgar Rice Burroughs’ novels.
Edgar Rice Burroughs (September 1, 1875 – March 19, 1950) was an American writer, best known for his prolific output in the adventure, science fiction, and fantasy genres. Best known for creating the characters Tarzan (who appeared in a series of twenty-four books by him) and John Carter (who was a recurring character in a series of eleven books), he also wrote the Pellucidar series, the Amtor series, and the Caspak trilogy.
Burroughs was also a spook, so the books might as well have been called CIA Agents on Mars.
Church was English and came out of the London Assurance Company—the company of his uncle John Barker.
The Barkers were the Baronets of Grimston Hall, related to the Bacons and Stoddarts.
The Stoddarts are a subclan of the Douglases.
This of course links us to the Stoddards of Massachusetts, related to all the people above, especially the Pierponts and Edwards.
Aaron Burr’s 2g-grandfather was Solomon Stoddard.
That Stoddard is the one who succeeded Eleazer Mather.
Church allegedly went broke after bad stock speculation, though that is probably just his cover story.
He allegedly fled to the US and changed his name to avoid creditors.
But somehow, less than two years out from this bankruptcy, he was hired by Congress to audit army accounts.
Right.
I guess we are supposed to believe Congress didn’t do any background checks on auditors, to at least be sure they were who they said they were and weren’t bankrupt conmen.
A year later, he was already a banker and shipper in Boston.
By 1780 he was Commissary General, provisioning the entire French Army in the US.
In 1790 he returned to England and became a Member of Parliament, we suppose under his original name.
That’s right:
provisioning the French Army in 1780 and a member of the English Parliament in 1790.
We have more proof of Church being a top agent when he paid for and organized Talleyrand’s years in the US, as well as Lafayette’s bail from prison.
In 1799 Church returned to the US to found the Bank of North America and the Manhattan Company (later Chase Manhattan).
Church supplied the pistols used in the duel, a huge red flag.
Also, a clue is that they were the same pistols used by Hamilton’s son, when he was killed in similar circumstances.
So, they must have been rigged, unknown to Hamilton.
Hamilton must not have known they were the same pistols used by his son.
Hamilton is looking extremely trusting and clueless, since had he known he would obviously not have agreed to use the same pistols that had killed his son.
David Hosack is another mysterious character, since he not only attended Hamilton as his physician after the shooting, but he had also attended Hamilton’s son in that duel three years earlier.
David Hosack FRS FRSE FLS (August 31, 1769 – December 22, 1835) was an American physician, botanist, and educator. He remains widely known as the doctor who tended to the fatal injuries of Alexander Hamilton after his duel with Aaron Burr in July 1804, and who had similarly tended to Hamilton’s son Philip after his fatal 1801 duel with George Eacker. He established several institutions including Elgin Botanic Garden and a medical school at Rutgers University.
Beyond that, Hosack is the one who told one of the main stories after the famous duel.
According to his story, which is ludicrously bad, he saw nothing since the principles
“disappeared into the wood”
He claimed to have never seen Burr at all, even when he was called to attend, since Burr was
“hidden behind an umbrella by van Ness.”
Right.
An umbrella at a duel, where it was not raining?
You have to be kidding me.
Did they also have throw pillows, and drapes handing from the trees?
And even more suspicious, though Hosack should have been a sort of third for Hamilton, he later appeared to be an ally of Burr.
When Burr fled to Europe in 1807, it is Hosack who loaned him the money and planned his trip.
Make sense of that if you dare.
If we can link Hosack to the Schuylers or other Dutch, I think you will agree a case is coming together.
Hosack’s mother was Jane Arden, and the Ardens were the Barons Alvanley, related to the:
- Vanes, Dukes of Cleveland
- Russells
- Villiers
- Fitzroys
- Lowthers, Earls of Lonsdale
and the Peppers.
His wife was the daughter of Thomas Eddy, a rich banker who was a close personal friend of Philip Schuyler.
Eddy had just founded New York Savings bank the year before the duel.
He was also invested in prisons and asylums, so he was the usual scumbag.
And yes, he was an ancestor of Mary Baker Eddy and the other agents we have uncloaked.
Most importantly, Eddy was appointed in 1797 treasurer of the company that was trying to build the Erie Canal.
And where is that, you should ask yourself.
Oh yeah, it is in Western New York, same place the Holland Land Deal was going through.
So, like the rest of these people, Hosack was linked to that huge Dutch investment.
Burr had enabled its passage through the New York legislature, but Hamilton was getting in their way.
Therefore, I think I have collected enough evidence for you to see that Hamilton was simply murdered.
Bentham got it wrong:
Burr wasn’t:
“little better than a murderer”
he was an actual cold-blooded murderer, and the rest of these people were accomplices.
Burr fled to Louisiana and gathered a private army, planning to protect himself from arrest while hoping to conquer Mexico for himself.
This was against the Neutrality Act, since citizens cannot wage war on their own behalf.
Remember, Burr had already been convicted under this act a decade earlier, when he outfitted a ship in the French Revolutionary Wars.
Since that is a lesser crime, Jefferson charged Burr with treason and ordered his arrest.
He should have charged him with the murder of Hamilton, but possibly he thought treason would be easier to prove.
It wasn’t, since treason is quite difficult to prove.
They admit Burr sent a letter to Jefferson saying he could do him much harm, so I don’t know why Burr wasn’t tried for threatening the President.
Jefferson was either extremely incompetent as an attorney and weak as a President, or he simply let Burr off the hook.
Like everyone else in government, Burr had a list of crimes as long as your arm—no, as long as the arm of a giant squid—but Jefferson and Supreme Court Justice Marshall couldn’t find any of them or make them stick?
Not believable.
Possibly Jefferson was also invested in the Erie Canal or the Holland Land Deal.
Actually, I looked into it.
We are told he thought the Erie Canal was madness, but we can easily link him to the Holland Land Deal.
That Deal was linked to the Louisiana Purchase, as I showed you above.
The same Dutch bankers were behind both.
Well, Jefferson is the one who brokered the Louisiana Purchase, as President, so it is very likely he was invested with these Dutch bankers in both the Louisiana Purchase and the Holland Land Deal.
And why wasn’t Burr charged with illegal dueling?
He was, both in New York and New Jersey.
In New Jersey, he was indicted, but the indictment was quashed by the State Supreme Court, in a very suspicious action.
We aren’t told the court proceedings in New York.
Burr then fled to England, where he lived on Craven Street in London.
That’s appropriate.
Bentham, despite knowing Burr was a murderer, remained his friend, telling us what to think of him.
Burr still hoped to conquer Mexico, but he was finally ordered out of England and France.
He returned to New York and eventually remarried at age 77.
He started blowing all his wife’s money on land speculation (we can guess where), she caught him and divorced him within four months.
Her divorce attorney?
Burr finally died soon thereafter.
Back to Jefferson.
Jefferson’s cabinet is interesting.
He appointed Albert Gallatin as Secretary of the Treasury.
We already saw Gallatin in my paper on Lincoln.
Abraham Alfonse Albert Gallatin (January 29, 1761 – August 12, 1849) was a Genevan-American politician, diplomat, ethnologist, and linguist. Often described as “America’s Swiss Founding Father”, he was a leading figure in the early years of the United States, helping shape the new republic’s financial system and foreign policy. Gallatin was a prominent member of the Democratic-Republican Party, represented Pennsylvania in both chambers of Congress, and held several influential roles across four presidencies, most notably as the longest serving U.S. secretary of the treasury. He is also known for his contributions to academia, namely as the founder of New York University and cofounder of the American Ethnological Society.
His real first name was Abraham, not Albert.
He is sold as Swiss, but he was Jewish.
We have both photos and paintings of him, so we can see how the painters cheated:
The nose is still very long, but it has been straightened, and the nostrils narrowed.
But if the artist wished to make him look not Jewish, he needed to make far more changes.
Here’s a third portrait, and this one is a pastel—my specialty.
That one looks fairly accurate, though from the photo above I would expect the septum to droop a bit more.
Gallatin’s second wife was Hannah Nicholson.
The Nicholsons were related to the Edwards through the Bealls.
This means Gallatin was closely related to Aaron Burr and John Barker Church through his wife.
In his paternal line, Gallatin was a Gervais, linking us forward to comedian Ricky Gervais.
Ricky Dene Gervais (/dʒərˈveɪz/ jər-VAYZ; born 25 June 1961) is an English comedian, actor, writer, television producer and filmmaker. He co-created, co-wrote, and acted in the British television sitcoms The Office (2001–2003), Extras (2005–2007), and Life’s Too Short (2011–2013) with Stephen Merchant. He also created, wrote, and starred in Derek (2012–2014) and After Life (2019–2022).
Gallatin was also:
- a Goudet
- a Vaudenet
- a Rollaz
- a de Buisson
- a de Tudert (think Tudor, since the word Tudert is French and therefore the “t” is silent)
- a de la Maisonneuve
and an Albertine.
Gallatin had been a citizen of Geneva until 1785, as part of the top banking family there.
So, we have to ask why Jefferson was appointing a Geneva banker to head the treasury of the US.
Did he really think that was a good idea?
Jefferson, who was supposed to be so suspicious of the banks, appointed the fox to run the henhouse.
It is no accident that Gallatin left Geneva in the 1780s.
That is when the revolt against the rich rulers there happened (1782).
Although it was quashed by France, the Gallatins could probably see the independence of Geneva was coming to an end.
And they were right:
France would take Geneva just a decade later, cutting into the power of the local bankers.
We know that Gallatin was shifty, since he ran for the US Senate in 1793 and won, despite not having the citizenship requirements to do so.
He was caught only after the fact and was expelled in 1794.
This means he was probably also not qualified to have been a Pennsylvania representative in 1788.
He had allegedly become a US citizen in 1785, but in Virginia not Pennsylvania.
Despite being thrown out of the Senate in disgrace, he immediately ran for the US House in 1794 and won.
He took his seat in 1795 and just one year later we are supposed to believe he was the Republican leader in the House.
Not really believable, is it?
Just four years later Jefferson picked him as
“the only man who understands the state of the Treasury”
Hmmm.
And who arranged financing for the Louisiana Purchase?
That would be Gallatin.
He thought it was a good idea, apparently, to borrow the money from Dutch bankers, rather than pay for it from the Treasury.
So, when you are told Gallatin lowered taxes, remember he lowered them so far that the US couldn’t afford to do anything without borrowing money from private foreign bankers.
We can be sure he was in cahoots with those Dutch bankers.
This is no wild guess, since the Geneva and Dutch banks were closely tied.
They weren’t linked only by Calvinism back to the 1500s, you know.
Calvinism was just the outer garment covering a deeper connection.
Gallatin also:
“presided over a major expansion of public land sales.”
Of course he did:
that was the whole point of the bankers’ investment in the Louisiana Purchase.
Mark it up and resell it at a profit.
But the bankers, I mean government, kept most of the mineral and water rights, saving all the most profitable corridors for themselves.
Another interesting member of Jefferson’s cabinet was Levi Lincoln.
Obviously Jewish, and an ancestor of Abe, though they mostly hide it.
They have to, because the name Levi is too big a clue, even bigger than Abraham.
They both come from Samuel Lincoln, a weaver who came to the US in 1637.
They are also related to the Gilmans, one of whom signed the US Constitution.
Although sold as poor nobodies, all these Lincolns are in the British peerage, including Samuel and Abe.
Yep, Abe, the old log splitter, is actually an English noble.
These Lincolns of Norfolk go back to the 1400s.
Through the Flowers, the Lincolns link us to the Baillies, who we saw above.
They are Hamiltons, so Abe Lincoln was related to Alexander Hamilton.
Lundy scrubs this link at thepeerage.com.
Through Bathsheba Herring, the Lincolns take us to the Harrisons, linking those two Presidents.
Through the Norwoods, we hit the Howards, which is a huge find.
Lundy scrubs this John Howard of the peerage, but we may assume he is one of the Howards we saw above:
the Earls of Suffolk and Dukes of Norfolk.
As for Levi Lincoln, we are told his father first apprenticed him to a blacksmith, but finding the boy liked books better, he sent him to Harvard.
Levi Lincoln Sr. (May 15, 1749 – April 14, 1820) was an American revolutionary, lawyer, and statesman from Massachusetts. A Democratic-Republican, he most notably served as Thomas Jefferson’s first attorney general, and played a significant role in the events that led to the celebrated Marbury v. Madison court case. He served two terms as the lieutenant governor of Massachusetts, acting as governor for the remainder of Governor James Sullivan’s term after his death in December 1808. Lincoln was unsuccessful in his bid to be elected governor in his own right in 1809.
You have to laugh at the naivete of these stories.
Here is the sort of bio we get for Levi after that:
From 1775 to 1781, he served as clerk of the court and probate judge of Worcester County and served the town of Worcester in a variety of posts into the 1790….
During these years, Lincoln rose in prominence to become one of the largest landowners in Worcester.
He was a charter member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1780.
What? Working as a clerk of the court and probate judge he became one of the largest landowners?
And why was he elected to the Academy?
Based on what?
What did he know about either art or science?
He ran for Congress many times, getting beaten several times, but finally winning a House seat in 1800.
He held that seat for about three months before Jefferson appointed him US Attorney General.
Wow, as a former probate judge, maybe he was overqualified for that post, huh?
The high point of Levi’s career appears to be the seven weeks he substituted for Madison in the Marbury v. Madison case.
Basically, the position of Attorney General looks like a sinecure in this case.
In fact, Lincoln’s entire life looks like a sinecure.
His biographers seem unsure that he ever did anything other than get out of bed and show up.
Next, Jefferson’s Secretary of the Navy, Col. Henry Dearborn:
Henry Dearborn (February 23, 1751 – June 6, 1829) was an American military officer and politician. In the Revolutionary War, he served under Benedict Arnold in his expedition to Quebec, of which his journal provides an important record. After being captured and exchanged, he served in George Washington’s Continental Army. He was present at the British surrender at Yorktown. Dearborn served on General George Washington’s staff in Virginia.
Well, what do you know.
That nose again.
Everywhere we look, there it is, threatening to poke us in the eye.
According to his bio at Wikipedia, Dearborn did even less in office than Lincoln did.
They literally can’t find anything to report from 1801 to 1809.
I guess he just blew his nose and collected a paycheck.
But if you want to know why he was appointed rather than your ancestor, it is because his mother, Sarah Marston, was a Walker.
So, he was from the same families as the rest of these people.
In the next section, we come to Jeffersonian Democracy, whereby Jefferson extended suffrage to all white men.
Did he do that because he believed in equality or because
“he wanted ordinary people to have the chance to become government officials?”
No, because they didn’t and still don’t.
He did it simply to get re-elected, and to bring about the death of the Federalist party, which he did.
The analogy is the modern Democratic party expanding their base by making it easier for minorities to vote.
Did they do that because they love minorities and fairness?
No.
Did they do it because they wanted ordinary people to become government officials?
No.
The minorities in government now aren’t ordinary people, they are blacks or Hispanics or whatever, who happen to have married into the Families.
They are ruling class people who just happen to have some color, but they are always rich and connected.
The reason the Democrats appealed to minorities is that it helped them win elections.
They saw these minorities doubling every few decades, especially Hispanics, so they could see dollar signs there.
However, that worked a bit too well, and they are scrambling to unwind it.
Sometime near the end of the 20th century, the Republican party became so weak it couldn’t legally win a national election.
National elections since then have been rigged to counteract that (no, not by Russia), because the rulers actually require two near-equal parties in order to give the appearance of choice. They need you to think you are involved in the equation, because it keeps you busy and quiet, like a child doing busy work in school.
The two parties also make you feel powerful, since you think you can:
“throw the bums out”
and try something different with the opposite party.
All a charade, but that is how it works.
Also, now that elections can be stolen from the ground up by computers, real voters aren’t necessary at all.
Therefore, extending and maintaining wide suffrage is no longer necessary.
The rulers can just manufacture any voting base they require, by making up numbers.
So, in that sense, the time of having to appeal to voters as voters is over.
Strictly speaking, there are no voters, just clueless citizens who have to be fooled somehow in continuing to go along with the script.
The illusion of voting still helps achieve that, so it still kept.
But even as we speak, the Republican party is being propped up by magic tricks.
The governors are doing everything in their power to weaken the Democratic party, so that when it loses again in November, people will buy the outcome.
People didn’t really buy the outcome in 2016, which is why Russia had to be blamed.
Yes, the 2016 outcome was pushed by huge amounts, but not by Russia or Trump.
It was pushed by those who own the US and the world.
Miles Williams Mathis: DID BLACKROCK/VANGUARD BUY THE ENTIRE WORLD? – Library of Rickandria
It was the outcome they desired, for their own purposes, and you had nothing to do with it.
Russia had nothing to do with it.
China had nothing to do with it.
Trump had nothing to do with it, either, since he is just a talking prop:
an actor.
NWO: MEDIA: HOLLYWOOD: ACTORS – Library of Rickandria
He is just playing a role, as he has for decades.
Next, let’s look at Jefferson’s fiscal policy.
They admit he eliminated many of Adams’ taxes, including the whiskey tax.
Fine, but once they were gone, he was down to import duties, which were then 90% of the income of the US.
Except that, remember, he later banned all imports from England and France as well.
That dropped federal revenue to near zero.
Since we are told Jefferson and Gallatin also cut the National Debt in half, then down to zero, you have to wonder how the nation didn’t simply collapse.
We want a smaller government now, sure, but not when a nation is just starting out.
And although Jefferson was allegedly against banks, we are told that Gallatin convinced him to keep the First Bank of the United States.
Passing the buck, as they say.
Since the country appears to have been subsisting on loans from foreign bankers, I don’t know what the First Bank was doing, other than holding up its own roof.
To learn more about this, I encourage you to visit the Wikipedia page for the First Bank, where you will learn. . . nothing.
According to the plan put before the first session of the First Congress in 1790, Hamilton proposed establishing the initial funding for the First Bank of the United States through the sale of $10 million in stock of which the United States government would purchase the first $2 million in shares.
Hamilton, foreseeing the objection that this could not be done since the U.S. government did not have $2 million, proposed that the government purchase the stock using money lent to it by the bank; the loan to be paid back in ten equal annual installments.
But I thought the US didn’t have the money.
If they didn’t have it, how could a bank they just created have it?
Where was that $2 million coming from?
Who was loaning it to the US?
No answer anywhere on the page.
We are told foreign investors could be stockholders but could not vote.
Oh, well that’s OK then.
I am sure they couldn’t influence the bank in other ways.
Obviously, this wasn’t a national bank, since it wasn’t funded by the nation.
It was funded by foreign bankers, like those we have looked at from Holland, so it was a private bank.
Interest wasn’t paid to the US; it was paid to these private “stockholders”.
Do you think Jefferson couldn’t figure that out?
Gallatin just fooled him into thinking that wasn’t so?
So, who physically occupied this First Bank?
Must have been the foreign bankers, or their representatives, since the Bank was founded with their money.
And that is exactly what we find.
Among the first three commissioners for the bank was Thomas Willing:
Thomas Willing (December 19, 1731 – January 19, 1821) was an American merchant, politician and slave trader who served as mayor of Philadelphia and was a delegate from Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress. He also served as the first president of the Bank of North America and the First Bank of the United States. During his tenure there he became the richest man in America.
Oh, my eye!
He studied law in the Inner Temple, London.
That isn’t called the Inner reason, you know.
He went into business with Robert Temple for no Morris, Jr., and they ran one of the biggest trading companies in the States after 1757, trading:
- lumber
- tobacco
- sugar
- rum
and slaves.
So, they were a major arm of the East India Company.
As a member of the Continental Congress, Willing voted against the Declaration of Independence, confirming my previous commentary.
He was 1st President of the private Bank of North America from 1781, then became 1st President of the First Bank of the United States in 1791.
So, it is pretty obvious his bank just renamed itself, pretending to be National after 1791.
Thanks to Alexander Hamilton, the East India Company was installed as the First Bank of the US.
So, if you were sad that he got shot, you really shouldn’t be.
He was a big thief just like the others.
Too bad they didn’t all shoot each other in duels.
Willing’s grandmother was a Harrison, linking us directly to Levi Lincoln and all the rest.
His sister married Capt. Stirling, and their son became the 1st Baronet Stirling of Faskine.
Of course we have seen these Stirlings before, in my paper on Dunblane.
Miles Williams Mathis: The Dunblane Massacre – Library of Rickandria
They were related to the:
- Campbells
- Flemings
- Elphinstones
- Grahams
and Stuarts.
They are right at the top of the Scottish peerage.
Willing’s grandniece Ava married John Jacob Astor IV.
John Jacob Astor IV (July 13, 1864 – April 15, 1912) was an American business magnate, real estate developer, investor, writer, lieutenant colonel in the Spanish–American War, and a prominent member of the Astor family. He was among the most prominent American passengers aboard RMS Titanic and perished along with 1,510 others when the ship sank on her maiden voyage. Astor was the richest passenger aboard the RMS Titanic and was thought to be among the richest people in the world at that time, with a net worth of roughly $87 million (equivalent to $2.83 billion in 2024) when he died.
The Willings have a rather small presence in the British peerage, and do you know why?
Have you figured it out?
See Willem Willink above, the banker who floated the loans for the Louisiana Purchase and the Holland Land Deal.
Willing=Willink.
Willink is just the Dutch spelling of Willing.
Same family of bankers.
They are mostly in the Dutch peerage, not the English.
So, you might ask yourself why Jefferson was so against this bank as VP, but for it as President.
Does that make any sense?
Sounds to me like his opposition as VP was just a lot of wind, created for future quotes.
In other words, he was again controlling the opposition.
Jefferson also gutted the army and navy, both as a matter of manpower and as a matter of boats and such.
Given that the country was only a couple of decades out of a Revolutionary War and would be in the War of 1812 just around the corner, that doesn’t make much sense, either.
Of course, it indicates:
- That the US wasn’t really independent
- That Jefferson knew he was protected by the East India Company
He didn’t need to arm the country, since the country could rely on the arms of the bankers and shippers.
All he needed to do is sell the country to the right people and maintain the right alliances.
Now, we are told Jefferson’s had an enlightened approach to Natives, seeing them as noble savages who should be treated fairly and assimilated.
Except that it wasn’t true.
It was more speechifying for the sake of later quotes.
As President, Jefferson actually wished to do what Andrew Jackson later did:
Andrew Jackson (March 15, 1767 – June 8, 1845) was the seventh president of the United States from 1829 to 1837. Before his presidency, he rose to fame as a general in the U.S. Army and served in both houses of the U.S. Congress. His political philosophy became the basis for the Democratic Party. Jackson’s legacy is controversial. He has been praised as an advocate for working Americans and preserving the union of states, and criticized for his racist policies, particularly towards Native Americans.
sweep the Natives aside at any cost.
For Jefferson as for Jackson, the Natives were colorful museum pieces to be stuffed and collected, while at the same time wiping them out.
They weren’t even second-class citizens, as blacks would later be.
They were non-citizens, akin to buffalo or pronghorns.
The only reason Jefferson didn’t start a full-blown war with the Natives is that he didn’t think he could win it with a gutted military.
The French or British might ally with the Natives and wipe the young country back to the Atlantic Ocean.
So, Jefferson ordered his representatives to be conciliatory to the Natives as far as possible, while driving around them at all times.
In other words, he created the forked tongue:
say one thing and do another, to fool the stupid Natives.
He figured it worked with the Gentiles, so it should work all the better with the Natives.
Jefferson also acted like a banker with the Natives, encouraging them to buy supplies like:
- coffee
- whiskey
- sugar
on credit, with their lands as collateral.
When they defaulted, he would take their lands.
Such an enlightened person, eh?
Here is one of his more touching and enlightened quotes as President:
If we are constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe, we will never lay it down until that tribe is exterminated, or driven beyond the Mississippi.
What a noble sentiment!
Remember, it was during his Presidency that the treaty with the Cherokee in Georgia was first broken.
It soon led to the Trail of Tears, in 1838, in which 17,000 Cherokee were forcibly moved from their treat lands in Georgia to Oklahoma, with about half dying along the way.
Why?
Because gold had been discovered nearby.
What are the lives of 8,000 Natives compared to some yellow rocks?
Yes, what an enlightened and civilized people we are, to be sure.
On the way out, we are supposed to believe that Jefferson died broke, as usual.
Same story we get with Karl Marx and hundreds of other famous people.
Miles Williams Mathis: What I Finally Understood about Famous People – Library of Rickandria
Jefferson was supposed to have been $100,000 in debt at the end, with no money to give to his heirs.
Boo-hoo.
He was so broke that they allegedly had a lottery to raise funds for his debts.
Right.
What was the prize?
Sally Heming‘s bloomers?
Jefferson died on July 4 at 12:50 p.m. at age 83, so that they could include as much numerology as possible.
125 adds to eight.
As is always the case with these people, his whole life was a fraud.
The mainstream stories are transparent myths.
Everything you were taught in school is upside down to the truth.
You will say I haven’t completely unwound the whole East India Company mystery, and that is true.
It is very complex, since these people are constantly making alliances and then breaking them.
There is always some multi-level con being run by both sides, as they try to sucker the other side into making a mistake.
Sort of like the Hamilton-Burr duel.
Nothing is ever what it seems to be on the surface.
And it isn’t just the Gentiles they will con; they will also con one another in a heartbeat.
All is fair in war, you know, and love is just a word.
But I think I have made some progress, nonetheless.
If nothing else, I have taught you how to study history.
You don’t study history by learning facts and dates.
You study it by questioning every story for sense.
Every word of every story.
You look for contradictions.
You demand sense.
And you go into each story knowing that it has been flipped again and again.
You know you will have to despin it, so you search for ways to do that.
I will be told that my method of demanding sense is futile, since history doesn’t make sense.
As an outcome of human action, we should expect it to be neither logical nor rational.
And while that is true, that isn’t what I am saying.
Even accepting the fact that humans are not logical or sensible, we can still comb history for contradictions.
The contradictions I am talking about aren’t contradictions in human emotions or actions; they are contradictions in storytelling.
For instance, if you are told on one page that Jefferson was left-handed and told on another page, he was right-handed, you have just discovered a contradiction.
Both can’t be true.
And that has nothing to do with humans being irrational.
It has to do with storytellers being sloppy.
Yes, in some cases, it just means an error was made.
But, as we have seen, in most cases it means much more than that.
When you find a story riddled with:
- contradictions
- slurs
- fudges
and logical impossibilities, you know you are in the middle of a lie.
By using reason and logic, you can very often unwind that lie.
So, although most people aren’t logical, you can be.
You can use logic to turn the lies of history back over, figuring out what happened and what didn’t happen.
*
Pickering died less than two years later, we suppose of a pickled liver.