Miles Williams Mathis: Thomas Jefferson – Part I
First published by Miles Mathis on July 10, 2020
Lots of requests for this one, so I hope you enjoy it.
Though I don’t think you will.
Or, not if you ever liked Jefferson.
I was never too invested in the old stories one way or another, you may be surprised to hear, which I suppose is why I research them objectively and lose them with equanimity.
We will start with the fact that Jefferson is listed at thepeerage.com, though it is not clear why.
He is not linked to any peers there.
So, it looks like he has been scrubbed.
My best guess is that the link is through his mother, Jane Randolph, though Lundy breaks any links of her out.
She is given no parents.
Jefferson admitted she was “aristocracy”, though historians never follow that suggestion, letting it die on the vine.
But we know the Randolphs helped found Virginia and were one of the wealthiest families there from the beginning.
Randolph family of Virginia – Wikipedia
They are the ultimate Virginia bluebloods, and everyone admits that.
Once we get back to England, we have to reconstruct the links, but the Randolphs are actually Stewarts, being descended directly from the High Stewards of Scotland, and before that from the FitzAlans.
This of course takes us right back to William the Conqueror, who was a FitzAlan.
One of the main marriages of the two families is that of Thomas Randolph, 1st Earl of Moray, to Isabella Stewart in around 1320.
She was the granddaughter of Alexander Stewart, 4th High Steward.
This links us immediately to the:
- Erskines
- Grahams
- Bruces
Kings of Scotland.
It also links us directly to the:
- Dukes of Albany
- Earls of Fife
- Earls of Dunbar
and the Earls of Buchan.
Also, to:
- the Keiths
- the Campbells
- the Drummonds
- the Douglases
and the Lennox.
Several dukes there.
Elizabeth Randolph from Virginia is also in the peerage, though she is likewise scrubbed.
She married Hon. Richard Bland, also scrubbed, and their daughter married Captain Henry Lee.
These Lees are also scrubbed backward – though we find they were:
- Constables
- Burnhams
- Corbins
but forward they yield:
- Carters
- Butlers
- Moores
and of course, Gen. Robert E. Lee—who is also listed in the British peerage.
General Lee married a Custis, whose mother was a Fitzhugh, and her mother was a Randolph.
So, Lee married his cousin.
Lundy scrubs both the Fitzhugh and the Randolph again, but they must be our links to the British peerage.
Lee’s grandmother-in-law was a Calvert, whose first husband (before Custis) had been David Stuart—linking us once more to the Stuarts.
Her second husband, John Custis, was the son of Martha Dandridge, aka Martha Washington.
So, the Custises, and therefore the Lees, were in-laws of the Washingtons.
Miles Williams Mathis: Who WAS George Washington? – Library of Rickandria
I didn’t know that before today. As for the Fitzhughs, they were closely related to the Nevilles, Greys, Willoughbys, deBurghs, Beauforts, Ferrers, Percys, Beauchamps, and Montagus (Washingtons again). The Beauforts take us directly to John of Gaunt. The Fitzhughs link to John of Gaunt a second time through the Greystokes. Also remember that two Lees signed the Declaration of Independence. So that family didn’t come out of nowhere with General Lee. Let’s see what Tim Dowling at Geneanet can tell us about Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson : Family tree by Tim DOWLING (tdowling) – Geneanet
Like Wikipedia, he ends the Randolph line at William Randolph of Kent, b. 1573.
But he makes one mistake.
He takes this Randolph’s wife Dorothy Lane back through the Vincents to the Tanfields, and William Tanfield’s mother is Katherine de Neville.
Her mother is Katherine Howard, daughter of Sir Robert Howard, which means Katherine’s nephew was Thomas Howard, 2nd Duke of Norfolk—who was the great-uncle of two of the wives of Henry VIII.
Howard also happens to be the second cousin of Tim Dowling, 18x removed.
Katherine de Neville’s grandmother was Joan of Beaufort, daughter of John of Gaunt, confirming my guesses above.
Jefferson descends in unbroken line from John of Gaunt, making him a . . . Lancaster.
See my recent paper on the English Revolution, telling you what to think of that.
Miles Williams Mathis: The English Revolution – Library of Rickandria
It not only links him to the Tudors, it links him to the Stanleys and the Komnenes.
Jefferson links to the same people through his great-grandmother Mary Isham, who was also aristocracy.
We just go back to Gregory Isham of Pytchley, who married Elizabeth Dale, granddaughter of Mary Clavering.
We know we are on the right track because these Claverings are 1st cousins to Tim Dowling, which means we are just a step away from the royal line.
And indeed, we are just one step here away from the la Zouches, the de Pierreponts, and de Nevilles again.
Taking us back to the royal lines of Scotland and England.
Jefferson’s other grandmother was a Rogers.
Does this link us forward to H. H. Rogers of Standard Oil?
Possibly, though both Geneanet and Geni scrub the link.
In Jefferson’s line, Geneanet only takes us back to Charles Rogers of London, b. 1660.
In H. H. Rogers’ line, Geni takes us back to Thomas Rogers of Kingsbridge, b. 1621.
Are they related?
Probably, but I found no proof of it.
We do find a Thomas Rogers in thepeerage with the right dates, but no other indication it is the same Thomas Rogers.
On his father’s side, Jefferson was a Fuller, although Dowling is keen to scrub that.
Her name is Judith Fuller.
- Bathursts
- Phipps
- Hicks-Beaches
- Pratts
and Nevills.
- Fleetwoods
- Hervey
OHO! These are the Nevills, Earls of Abergavenny, who were originally Nevilles from. . . Virginia.
See Captain Edward Neville, d. 1701, Virginia.
He comes from the Lords Abergavenny, Newton St. Loo, Somerset.
They were related to the:
- Windsors
- Beauchamps
- Beauforts
taking us once again back to John of Gaunt.
So, we have now traced Jefferson back to him three times.
Judith Fuller’s daughter Judith Soane married Peter Field, whose mother was Anne Rogers Clark.
Dowling scrubs her as well, but that doubles our bet above, since H. H. Rogers was also a Clark.
He was also:
- a Strong
- a Barnard
- a Robinson
The Fields also link us to. . . the Stanleys.
See Mary Stanley, b. 1621, England.
Mary Stanley (2) : Family tree by Tim DOWLING (tdowling) – Geneanet
Given that we have linked Jefferson to John of Gaunt three times, and given that the Stanleys are also directly linked to Gaunt via the Nevilles, the odds are very good this Mary is from the Stanleys, Earls of Derby.
The Fields don’t yield any more nuggets, but Dowling does take them back to 1200, and my guess is they take us forward to actress Sally Field.
In support of that, we find Sally is also a Dryden, and she is descended from William Bradford of the Mayflower, Governor of Plymouth Colony.
Bradford is admitted being from English nobility.
In Jefferson’s Branch line, through the Jennings, we come to Joan del Heath, who takes us to the Venables, and the same people a fifth time.
We know because this Elizabeth Venables is the 19th great grand aunt of Tim Dowling.
Elizabeth Venables : Family tree by Tim DOWLING (tdowling) – Geneanet
Thanks, Tim, for making this so easy! Not only does this link us to the Houghtons, as in Erica the Disconnectrix Howton at Geni.com, it links us to the Leighs, as in the Lees.
It also links us to the Lathoms, see the Lathams in our paper on F. Scott Fitzgerald.
Miles Williams Mathis: F. Scott Fitzgerald: Spook Baby – Library of Rickandria
The Venables link us forward to the Breretons and Hulses, think Tom Hulce of Amadeus.
Through the Breretons we hit the Cholmondeleys and the Egertons.
We also hit the Pilkingtons, think Ricky Gervais’ round-headed friend.
We also link to the:
- Hastings
- Bigods
- le Despencers
and Russells.
Also, to the Greys and Talbots.
So, Jefferson wasn’t just nobility on his mother’s side.
He was nobility on both sides.
We have linked him to royal lines five times already, three times on his mother’s side and twice on his father’s side.
At Wikipedia, as elsewhere, there is huge effort to misdirect away from this.
They have a separate page on Jefferson’s early life, which includes two long footnotes on Jefferson’s ancestors in England.
Early life and career of Thomas Jefferson – Wikipedia
They never get anywhere near the truth.
They don’t even mention the Randolphs in the ancestry footnotes.
They also misdirect by telling us Jefferson had little interest in ancestry, and
“only knew that his paternal grandfather lived.”
That’s convenient.
As a boy, Jefferson started his education at Rev. James Maury’s school.
Maury’s mother was a Fontaine, of the famous and wealthy de la Fontaines of France.
That includes Nicholas de la Fontaine, righthand man of John Calvin, who led the prosecution of Michael Servetus.
Also, the famous fabulist Jean de la Fontaine:
Note the nose.
He married a 14-year-old, and the importance of that will become apparent in a moment.
Also, Gaspard de la Fontaine, b. 1787, first Prime Minister of Luxembourg.
He is well-scrubbed everywhere except Geneanet, where we find he married a Francq.
Individual not found: J.gaspard Theodore Ignace DE LA FONTAINE – Geneanet
As in Anne Frank, Jewish.
Their son married a de Villers, same as the English Villiers, and they were nobles related to:
- Saint-Remy
- Saint-Albin
- Wijnbergen
and Bourdon.
Gaspard’s mother was a Wellenstein, which links us to Dutch nobility and the East India Company.
The de la Fontaines were also Gordons, which confirms all this once more.
We can trace them back to a Susanne de Gordon, whose son Gilles de la Fontaine was one of the first Protestant converts (Huguenots) in France in 1535.
Gilles de la Fontaine (1475 – 1535) – Genealogy
He was in the court of Francis I, but we are told his conversion was overlooked due to his honorable conduct.
Right.
This just means the Huguenots were invented at court.
The de la Fontaines had been high nobles in France since the 1100s, when they took part in the Third Crusade under Philip Augustus.
I also remind you that Black Panther Huey Newton’s wife was the part-black Gwendoline Fontaine.
Before we move on, I just want to be sure you understand the enormity of what we just discovered.
And it will be confirmed below.
Jefferson was part of this long project of Protestant disputation and infiltration, going back to Calvin and the French Huguenots.
He wasn’t just a Protestant; he was from the central families of Europe that had invented it.
So, we have to read his life in the context of all we have discovered in the past decade of heavy research.
Like others we have studied, Jefferson’s school records make no sense.
He entered William and Mary College at age 16, studied only two years, but supposedly graduated.
While there he apparently was already initiated into the Freemasons, since they admit he was in the secret Flat Hat Club.
This club was founded on November 11, 1750, and had secret handshakes, silver medals, and so on.
Although he was out of William and Mary by 1762, he wasn’t admitted to the Virginia bar until five years later.
We aren’t told what he was doing during those five years, other than studying the law with George Wythe, but if Jefferson could graduate from college in two years, it shouldn’t have taken him five years to study the law privately.
Others we have looked from these families studied the law for only a year or two before being admitted to the bar. In perhaps an example of parallelism, the Duke of Wellington studied at the 1770s. This was Samuel Whyte, son of Whyte’s Academy in Dublin in Solomon Whyte, so it may not be a coincidence. Whyte’s was closely connected to Thomas Sheridan, godson of Jonathan Swift. Sheridan is in the peerage, though we are not told why. Perhaps it was his connection to Newtons. Jefferson’s teacher George Wythe deserves a pause. Here is what he looked like:
George Wythe (/wɪθ/; 1726 – June 8, 1806) was an American academic, scholar, and judge who was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States. The first of the seven signatories of the United States Declaration of Independence from Virginia, Wythe served as one of Virginia’s representatives to the Continental Congress and the Philadelphia Convention and served on a committee that established the convention’s rules and procedures. He left the convention before signing the United States Constitution to tend to his dying wife. He was elected to the Virginia Ratifying Convention and helped ensure that his home state ratified the Constitution. Wythe taught and was a mentor to Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, Henry Clay and other men who became American leaders.
They just give themselves away, over and over.
They admit he studied Hebrew under Rabbi Seixas.
His mother was a Walker, and his great-grandfather was George Keith, prominent Quaker and friend of:
- George Fox
- William Penn
- Robert Barclay
When Barclay [think Barclays Bank] became Governor of East Jersey, Keith was appointed Surveyor-General.
He was given many thousands of acres for his troubles.
Keith helped splinter the Quakers, which was no doubt his assignment.
Miles William Mathis: The SOCIETY of FRIENDS Looks Like Another JEWISH FRONT – Library of Rickandria
He was a relative of Sir William Keith, Governor of Pennsylvania who later helped Ben Franklin get his start.
These Keiths were British nobles, of the Baronets and Earls Keith, related to the Erskines and Stuarts, which explains why they were so interested in religious disputation.
Protestantism had been created by top nobles across Europe not only to counter Rome, but to splinter Christianity into as many warring sects as possible, with the long-term goal of destroying it altogether.
That hasn’t really worked out for them, especially in the US, but they have had many more limited successes.
Wythe is also related to Benjamin Franklin in several lines.
Miles Williams Mathis: Benjamin Franklin: Premier American (British) Spook – Library of Rickandria
We saw in my paper on Franklin that he was a Keith, related to the Governor of Pennsylvania; but Franklin’s grandmother was a White/Wight, which is the same as Whyte/Wythe.
So, Franklin and White were close cousins, perhaps even second cousins.
Wythe was also a recent descendant of William Forbes, 7th Lord Forbes.
He and other Scottish nobles were famous for being among the first prominent Protestants in Scotland, signing a band in 1560 to support the English in expelling the French.
Forbes’ son the 8th Lord Forbes married a Gordon of those Earls, making them cousins of Wythe as well.
Through the Walkers, Wythe was also closely lined to. . . the Stanleys.
His first cousin married Micajah Stanley.
Their daughter Barbara married a White, confirming the Whites are same as the Wythes.
And if you still don’t think these people are Jewish, see Barbara’s daughter Catherine, who married Levi Coffin.
Miles Williams Mathis: Opening Coffins – Library of Rickandria
These same Walkers lead us forward to the Governors and Senators of Florida and Kentucky, which does link us forward to George Walker Bush.
Miles Williams Mathis: LOOKS LIKE the Bushes are Jewish – Library of Rickandria
Bush is also a Livingston, linking us to another Founding Father, see below.
Anyway, Wythe married the daughter of Zachary Lewis in 1748, but she died eight months later on August 10.
Aces and eights, Chai, indicating some sort of fake.
Did he hide her for insurance money or kill her?
No idea and I don’t really care.
Just pointing out the fake.
Wythe’s second wife Elizabeth died years later on August 18, also aces and eights, just so you know.
Making this one more suspicious, Wythe freed his longtime housemaid and cook Lydia Broadnax just two days after Elizabeth’s death, but she did not leave.
She stayed with him for ten more years, and I am not the first to guess she was his concubine.
Elizabeth was a Taliaferro, which is the first of many links between Wythe and the Booths.
See General William Booth Taliaferro of the Civil War, a cousin of Mary Todd.
His mother was a Booth, and her grandparents were Nathaniel Wythe of Virginia and Elizabeth Todd.
These are the same Todds as Mary Todd Lincoln, being descended from Captain Thomas Todd of Virginia.
Wythe was a close friend of Virginia Governor Berkeley, who was also the 4th Baronet Botetourt.
Berkeley’s stepfather was Edward Devereux, Viscount Hereford.
So, Jefferson’s teachers were also British aristocracy.
He was certainly NOT brought up to be a revolutionary or a Republican of any sort.
In 1772 Jefferson married Martha Wayles [think Jimmy Wales], daughter of a huge slave trader.
She was his third cousin.
So, despite what we are told, Jefferson must not have had much of a problem with the slave trade.
Martha’s father was nothing less than a monster, and no one with a conscience would have ever married his daughter.
Despite being only 23, Wayles had been married before.
So, Jefferson must have married her for her money.
And for her sisters.
Martha came with a huge dowry, including Elk Hill Plantation and many slaves.
Elk Hill (Goochland, Virginia) – Wikipedia
Martha had six half-sisters, two of them part-black slaves.
Although Martha’s sisters were “black”, they were actually only ¼ black and looked mostly white.
They were very pretty.
Nonetheless, this didn’t save them from being slaves.
Jefferson only freed one of them much later, and only because she was the mother of six of his children.
So again, remind yourself that these ladies not only looked white, but were the half-sisters of his wife.
How could you treat them as slaves?
But he did.
One of them was the now-famous Sally Hemings, who became Jefferson’s mistress when Martha died at age 33.
And Jefferson didn’t even wait for Sally to grow up.
He was probably sleeping with her by the time she was 13, and possibly even earlier.
When Martha died, Sally was only nine.
We know that Jefferson took Sally with him to France, when she was only 14.
Jefferson was 44.
Wikipedia tells us Sally was 16 in Paris, but they can’t do math.
According to the dates given, she was 14.
So, if you were disgusted by Woody Allen and Soon-Yi, this is much worse.
Miles Williams Mathis: WOODY ALLEN & the Teutonic Knights – Library of Rickandria
Soon-Yi was around 20, not 13 or 9.
Also possibly interesting is that when Jefferson went to Paris three years earlier, he took Sally’s older brother James Hemings with him. . . of course as a slave.
James was only 19.
You might ask why Jefferson took this handsome quadroon with him.
We are told that is it so that James could train as a chef and learn French.
Do you believe it? James killed himself at age 36.
No one around Jefferson fared very well, neither his wife, nor his children, nor his slaves.
Jefferson’s first daughter Martha married a Randolph.
Since Martha’s grandmother was also a Randolph, you see how it goes.
Jefferson didn’t believe in public education for girls, but we are assured Martha was educated privately.
In singing and embroidery, I guess.
When he went to Paris with James Heming, he also took this daughter with him but stuck her in a convent.
When his younger daughter Mary came over with Sally Hemings, she also got stuck in the convent.
They try to sell us this as some sort of idyll, but convents were more like expensive jails for women.
The girls couldn’t leave, couldn’t see boys, and couldn’t even speak most of the time.
Jefferson even made sure his daughters got no religious instruction in the convent, because they were Protestants.
Isn’t that cozy?
All the downsides of a convent, but without the upside.
The Jewish historians selling us this story actually make it sound like the girls were lucky to get no religious instruction while in the convent.
That would be sort of like going to chef’s school but not being able to do any cooking.
It is while reading about daughter Martha that we learn both she and her father had red hair.
Didn’t know that.
Though you can sort of see it in the portrait under title—which I had never seen before researching this paper.
Later portraitists like Peale were no doubt instructed to play down that nose as well as the red hair, I guess.
Nothing wrong with red hair, which can be very pretty, but in this case, it does act as another clue to their ancestry.
Martha’s sister-in-law, Ann Cary Randolph, was the main player in a saga that confirms my suspicions about these families.
Not only did her father marry an underage girl, causing an outcry, but there was a much larger controversy in the family.
Ann’s sister Judith also married a cousin, Richard Randolph, and Ann went to live with them.
Ann was 18 and Judith was 17.
Richard was 19.
Well, Ann got pregnant, and someone killed the child.
Many testified Richard was the father as well as the murderer.
Martha Jefferson testified that she supplied her sister-in-law Ann with gum guaicum, an abortifacient.
Richard was acquitted due to his connections, but allegedly died just two years later in 1796:
“under mysterious circumstance”
We can be fairly certain he faked his death and moved to Barbados or somewhere.
Clearly, he needed to start over.
Even more strange, perhaps, is that this disgraced girl Ann, now said to be with no means, and kicked out of the Randolph house by Richard’s brother—and accused by him of murdering Richard—ended up in 1808, 15 years later, at age 34, as the housekeeper of Gouverneur Morris.
Morris was one of the richest and most prominent men in the US, having written the Preamble to the Constitution and at that time being a New York Senator and Ambassador to France.
We are told Morris picked her up out of a boarding house.
He married her the next year.
Here is what he looked like, just so you know:
Ann was a lucky lady, right, marrying a Neanderthal?
We are told that at her wedding, Ann wore
“the worn dress she wore as housekeeper as her wedding dress.”
Yeah, I bet she did.
I guess she also wore clown shoes and a red rubber nose.
The things they expect us to believe!
And in the off chance she really did wear that, we feel even more sorry for her.
Morris’ grandmother was Isabella Graham, of the Marquesses (and Dukes) of Montrose.
They are closely related to the Ruthvens, Earls of Gowrie; Stewarts, Earls of Atholl and Dukes of Lennox; and the Campbells, Dukes of Argyll.
They link us to many kings of Scotland and England.
Miles Williams Mathis: Thrones infiltrated – Library of Rickandria
So, these were the Randolphs and Jeffersons:
an inbred bunch of fornicators sleeping with their sisters and slaves and their slave’s sisters.
And brothers.
Even reading the whitewashed mainstream stories is enough to turn your stomach.
But let’s back up a bit.
In 1773, when Jefferson was 30, his wife’s father died, making Jefferson even wealthier.
He got another 135 slaves and another 11,000 acres.
Nonetheless, we are supposed to believe this
“contributed to his financial problems”
since he also inherited Wayles’ debts.
It’s always the same sob story with these people.
Although they are richer than Croesus, we are supposed to believe they are perpetually broke.
Croesus (/ˈkriːsəs/ KREE-səs; Ancient Greek: Κροῖσος, romanized: Kroisos; Latin: Croesus; reigned: c. 585 – c. 546 BC) was the king of Lydia, who reigned from 585 BC until his defeat by the Persian king Cyrus the Great in 547 or 546 BC. According to Herodotus, he reigned 14 years. Croesus was renowned for his wealth; Herodotus and Pausanias noted that his gifts were preserved at Delphi.
The only thing that is broke is this record, which keeps playing the same miserable lie.
In the next paragraph at Wiki, we are told when his wife died, she made him promise never to marry again, since she couldn’t bear to have another mother raise her children.
I hope you can see through that story.
It is told to try to justify future events, but Martha need not have worried:
Jefferson hardly cared for his kids, being away all the time, and only one survived.
And as we have seen, he threw her in a French convent.
The next section leads by telling us Jefferson was 33—one of the youngest delegates to the 2nd Continental Congress—in 1775.
Notice how they had to work that in there.
Only one problem:
he wasn’t 33 in 1775.
He wouldn’t be 33 until April 13, 1776.
Given that he was only 32 in 1775 and had only served in the Virginia State Congress (Burgesses), it is difficult to understand why he was chosen for the Committee of Five to draft the Declaration of Independence.
This is just skipped over.
Also, strange that the youngest of the five would write the document.
Equally strange is that we are never told how the Continental Congresses were elected.
Nothing about that in most encyclopedia entries.
At USHistory.org, we finally find this:
These were elected by the people, by the colonial legislatures, or by the committees of correspondence of the respective colonies.
That’s sort of vague, isn’t it?
Since the entire Revolutionary War was based on representation, this is a very important question, don’t you think?
So, it must look strange when the answer is so obviously buried.
Therefore, we shouldn’t pass over this.
We should demand an answer.
Which one was it?
Were they elected by the people, by the colonial legislatures, or by committees of correspondence?
If they were elected by the people, they would just say so, wouldn’t they?
So that must mean they weren’t elected by the people.
We are obviously being dodged here once again.
What you should understand is that these guys weren’t chosen by the people, i.e. selected from among the people by the people.
They were rich guys who appointed themselves to these positions and then claimed they had been elected.
Just like now.
Except back then they didn’t even pretend to have elections, stuff ballot boxes, or rig computer tallies.
They just called themselves representatives, and that alone was supposed to make people feel represented.
Remember the whole
“taxation without representation”
thing?
The early colonists didn’t like being taxed by the King without representation in London.
So, the aristocrats here pretended to address that question.
How?
By simply appointing themselves as “representatives”.
The word then stood for the thing, but the final link was still missing.
Since these representatives hadn’t been chosen in fair elections, and didn’t really represent anyone but themselves, the people were still completely left out of the equation.
Do you think Jefferson really gave two figs for the non-wealthy citizens of Virginia?
Do you really think your “representatives” in Washington give a rat’s behind for anyone but themselves and those donating big sums to their re-election committees?
They don’t.
They are there to shaft you and yours at every opportunity, and they never miss one.
The oldest on the Committee of Five besides Franklin (who I have already uncloaked) and the best hidden is Roger Sherman.
Miles Williams Mathis: Benjamin Franklin: Premier American (British) Spook – Library of Rickandria
His maternal grandfather was Benjamin Wellington.
The Shermans are in the British peerage, starting in one line with Bezaliel Sherman, a Jewish banker in London from about 1650.
His daughter married Sir Henry Vincent, 6th Baronet, linking us to Jefferson and the genealogies above.
See William Randolph’s wife Dorothy Lane, above, who was also a Vincent.
The Vincents link us to the:
- Pitts
- Nortons
- Ashes
- Vanes
and D’Arcys.
Forward they link us to the Howards, since the 7th Baronet married Mary Howard in 1745, descended from the Dukes of Norfolk—who we also saw above.
So, these people were close cousins of Sherman and Jefferson.
Mary Howard’s father was Governor of Berwick-upon-Tweed, a very wealth port in the far north of England with an important mint.
It had been a Phoenician stronghold back to Roman times.
Think of it as a Hanseatic port.
It had been Scottish for much of its history, but was later taken by England after the Stanleys (Tudors) took over and heavily re-fortified by Elizabeth I.
Berwick included Lindisfarne Castle and the Holy Island.
Not coincidentally, Roman Polanski has shot several of his films there.
Just so you know, other Governors of Berwick around that time included:
- a Vaughan (think David Vaughan Icke)
- a Clavering (see above)
- a Monckton
- a Russell
- a MacCartney (think Paul McCartney)
- a Leveson
- a Cavendish
- a Bathurst (think Anna Faris)
and a Carey (think Jim Carrey).
If we track the Vincents forward to the 19th century, they marry Herberts and Bouveries, linking us to Jacqueline Bouvier.
The Shermans of course spit out several top generals and admirals and billionaire bankers, including:
- William Tecumseh Sherman
- Vice President James Sherman
- railway man Moses Sherman
- McKinley’s Secretary of State John Sherman
- billionaire lumberman Isaac Watts Sherman (also listed in the peerage)
and many others.
Isaacs Watts Sherman’s granddaughter married the 4th Earl Craven in 1893, also linking her back up with the Barringtons and Liddells (think Lewis Carroll’s Alice). For a rich guy, Roger Sherman sure didn’t know how to choose a portrait painter.
The other founding fathers have some decent portraits, but Sherman has some of the spookiest I have ever seen:
That’s just scary.
And it is only one of several.
The US Shermans go back to Watertown, MA, where they were related to Palmers.
They came over from Essex, where they were related to Butlers.
Tim Dowling takes them back to Thomas Sherman, b. 1490, Suffolk.
Through the Lawrences and Welles, they go back further, linking us to the Greystokes around 1400.
Maude de Greystoke : Family tree by Tim DOWLING (tdowling) – Geneanet
Of course, the Greystokes link us to John of Gaunt, see above.
Sherman’s direct ancestor Maude de Greystoke was Tim Dowling’s 17th great-grandmother.
Her son married Margaret de Beauchamp, whose son married Cecily Plantagenet, daughter of King Edward.
So, that’s who Roger Sherman was.
Wikipedia actually has a section on Sherman’s genealogy but of course misses that.
We are told that although Sherman had no legal training at all, he was urged to take the bar exam anyway and passed it the first time.
Hallelujah!
They just proved what I said above, didn’t they?
How old was he?
Age 33, of course.
What did you think?
Strangely, I could find no confirmation that Sherman was a delegate at the 2nd Continental Congress on his own page.
His Wiki page completely leaves off any mention of that or his work on the Declaration of Independence.
Finally, I realized why that is.
Although he is listed in the 2nd Congress and was one of the Committee of Five, he never signed the Declaration of Independence.
He abstained because he was hoping for a reconciliation with England.
So that begs this question:
why would the Continental Congress appoint him as one of five to draft a Declaration of Independence, when he didn’t even want independence?
Don’t you think they would have appointed the top five revolutionaries in Congress?
Like maybe Patrick Henry?
Patrick Henry (May 29, 1736 [O.S. May 18, 1736] – June 6, 1799) was an American politician, planter and orator who declared to the Second Virginia Convention (1775): “Give me liberty or give me death!” A Founding Father, he served as the first and sixth post-colonial governor of Virginia, from 1776 to 1779 and from 1784 to 1786.
Why Sherman?
I have previously shown we can ask the same thing about Ben Franklin.
Franklin was actually a cloaked Tory, spending most of his time living in England and palling around with his gay peerage cousins, so why was he chosen as one of the five?
It makes no sense.
Actually, the same can be said for John Adams, also admitted being a Tory.
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.
I haven’t hit him yet, but Wiki admits he:
“defied anti-British sentiment”
protecting British soldiers against murder charges in the Boston Massacre.
He won that case, remember, getting six of the eight soldiers acquitted.
Despite being convicted of killing five unarmed citizens for throwing snowballs, the other two were let off with a brand on their hands.
That was in 1770, so Adams wasn’t very popular in those years.
He couldn’t have won any real election to any real representative body.
Later, as President, he passed the Alien and Sedition acts, proving he was always a cloaked fascist.
Alien and Sedition Acts – Wikipedia
Other easy clues are the names of his brother and sister:
Elihu and Jerusha.
His mother was Susanna Boylston from a very wealthy family.
She was also:
- a White
- a Smith
- a Gardner
White may link us to Whyte/Wythe. She is listed in the British peerage, as are the Presidential Adams.
Their relatives the Smiths are scrubbed in the peerage, but my guess is they link us to the bankers of Nottingham.
In fact, there are several Smiths linked to the Adams here.
A great-aunt married Thomas Smith, but John Adams himself married Abigail Smith— who of course became the famous Abigail Adams.
Abigail Adams (née Smith; November 22, [O.S. November 11] 1744 – October 28, 1818) was the wife and closest advisor of John Adams, the second president of the United States, and the mother of John Quincy Adams, the sixth president of the United States. She was a founder of the United States, and was both the first second lady and second first lady of the United States, although such titles were not used at the time. She and Barbara Bush are the only two women in American history who were both married to a U.S. president and the mother of a U.S. president.
Their son married Sarah Smith.
Tim Dowling takes these Smiths back to Sir Nicholas Smith, married to Dorothea Horsey.
Nicholas Smith : Family tree by Tim DOWLING (tdowling) – Geneanet
But he gives up the farm anyway, since he admits that this Smith is related to his own spouse as her 7th cousin 12x removed.
Which means these Smiths are indeed the Smiths of Nottingham, who married into royal lines long ago.
Remember, we have previously seen Abel Smith, banker of Nottingham many times, including prominently in the Titanic paper.
Miles Williams Mathis: The Titanic – The Fraud that Keeps on Giving – Library of Rickandria
The fact that we see the Smiths joined to the Gardners here confirms it, since the Smiths and Gardners were also joined at the hip in the Titanic saga.
Anyway, Abel Smith married a Beaumont.
Although these Beaumonts are scrubbed at the peerage, linking Abel to no one important, we know better.
It was this link to the Beaumonts that allowed Abel’s son George Smith to become the 1st Baronet.
His son then changed his name to Pauncefote-Bromley, married the Viscount Curzon’s daughter, and his son changed his name again, becoming Admiral Sir Howe Bromley.
These Bromleys then linked to the Chaplins, later spitting out Charlie Chaplin.
Sir Charles Spencer Chaplin (16 April 1889 – 25 December 1977) was an English comic actor, filmmaker, and composer who rose to fame in the era of silent film. He became a worldwide icon through his screen persona, the Tramp, and is considered one of the film industry’s most important figures. His career spanned more than 75 years, from his childhood in the Victorian era until a year before his death in 1977, and encompassed both accolade and controversy.
They also hooked up with the:
- Cecils
- Bournes
- Taylors
So, you see how it is done.
How did I know?
Because the Beaumonts were Viscounts de Beaumont, the second one marrying the daughter of Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham in about 1460.
The Duke’s wife was Lady Neville, daughter of Joan de Beaufort, daughter of John of Gaunt.
How many times can I pull up the same line in one paper, eh?
So, this is why we find John Adams on the Committee of Five.
The Committee of Five of the Second Continental Congress was a group of five members who drafted and presented to the full Congress in Pennsylvania State House what would become the United States Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776. This Declaration committee operated from June 11, 1776, until July 5, 1776, the day on which the Declaration was published.
Like everyone else there, he was a representative not of the people, but of this same Lancaster bloodline we have found here a dozen times already.
It is beginning to look like the Committee of Five wasn’t appointed at all.
Meaning, the Continental Congress didn’t vote these guys into place.
Due to bloodlines alone, they had the highest rank, so they automatically took the top five spots.
When these people aren’t ranking one another strictly by money, that’s how they do it.
It doesn’t matter what your talents or beliefs are, it matters how blue your blood is in the current ruling lines.
Let me clarify that.
Some have claimed I have some blood from noble lines, and I am starting to admit that is a possibility.
The jury is still out, and while I don’t think I am closely connected to the current ruling families—like the ones we see in Hollywood and politics—I may be linked to far older lines.
My rude arrival on the scene may be partially explained by some inherited traits running more clearly in my “blood” or DNA or whatever.
In other words, like everyone else, I am a freak accident of a million marriages, but in my case some long-buried lines came together, giving rise to some things you don’t see every day, like this paper for instance.
But anyway, my point is that doesn’t do me any good, because “nobility” isn’t determined by how noble you look, act, or are, it is determined by your relationship to other current “nobles”.
Neither previous rank nor current merit mean anything.
The only thing that is meaningful is your contemporary connections—which I remain certain I do not have.
Or, if I do, they are guiding me from caves buried deep underground or something.
We both laugh, but I am not completely joking.
The last member of the Committee of Five was R. R. Livingston.
Robert Robert Livingston (November 27, 1746 (Old Style November 16) – February 26, 1813) was an American lawyer, politician, and diplomat from New York, as well as a Founding Father of the United States. He was known as “The Chancellor” after the high New York state legal office he held for 25 years. He was a member of the Committee of Five that drafted the Declaration of Independence, along with Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and Roger Sherman, but was recalled by the state of New York before he could sign the document. Livingston administered the oath of office to George Washington when he assumed the presidency April 30, 1789. Livingston was also elected as a member of the American Philosophical Society in 1801.
That stands for Robert Robert.
No, seriously.
That’s him and his grandfather.
They look like lovely people, right?
Like Sherman, Livingston is among the least well-known of the Founding Fathers, and that may not be an accident.
Like the Stanleys, he needed to remain in the shadows.
He administered the oath of office to George Washington, so he looks sort of like Thomas Stanley, Earl of Derby, putting the crown on the head of Henry VII after the Battle of Bosworth Field.
Miles Williams Mathis: Henry VII – Another Jewish Invasion of England – Library of Rickandria
Livingston was at the same time the Chancellor of New York and the first Secretary of Foreign Affairs under Washington.
That office was later changed to the Secretary of State, so Livingston was basically the first Secretary of State.
Another clue is that Livingston, like Sherman, didn’t actually sign the Declaration of Independence.
Somehow, I saw that coming.
We are told he was recalled to New York just before the signing and so had to miss it.
Right.
That would be like missing a date with Gigi Hadid because your Mommy called you home for dinner.
Jelena Noura “Gigi” Hadid (/ˈdʒiːdʒi həˈdiːd/ JEE-jee hə-DEED; born April 23, 1995) is an American fashion model and television personality. In 2016, she was named International Model of the Year by the British Fashion Council. Throughout her career, Hadid has made at least 50 appearances in international Vogue. Models.com ranks her as one of the “New Supers.” Since 2017, Hadid has been one of the highest-paid models in the world, earning $20 million.
Livingston had his cousin sign for him, but that doesn’t really count, does it.
Amazingly, Livingston was also too busy to sign the Constitution, having a second cousin sign for him there.
If you don’t find that suspicious, you need to remove the facemask and breathe deeply for a while.
Your brain is goofed on carbon dioxide.
Livingston was Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of New York for 18 years.
The Bible that Livingston used to swear in Washington is kept at St. John’s Lodge #1 and is still used to swear in Presidents.
BOOK: European Royal Bloodlines of the American Presidents – Library of Rickandria
I have already done the genealogy of the Livingstons, showing you that they are actually Levinsons/Levesons, or the sons of Levi.
Miles Williams Mathis: More on the Rockefellers – Library of Rickandria
In the US they go back to Robert Livingston the Elder, a descendant of Lord Livingston of the Earls of Linlithgow and Callendar.
The first Lord Livingston was Lord High Chamberlain of Scotland in 1448.
His father was keeper of Stirling Castle, where he had custody of James II of Scotland in his minority.
His sister married a Hamilton.
They were also related to the:
- Menteiths
- Douglases
- Grahams
- Bruces
and Flemings.
In the US they married the Schuylers, linking them to Dutch nobility while linking two branches of the East India Company.
Our Chancellor Robert Livingston is listed in the peerage, so it is not just his ancestors that were nobles.
They were still peers after they came to the US.
Or, I should say his uncle James and cousin Gilbert are listed in the peerage.
Lundy chooses to scrub Robert and his father, though it makes no sense to list one brother and not the other.
Robert’s great uncle married a Beekman, and so did his father.
His grandmother was Margaret Howarden (Howard, again), the daughter of wealthy merchants in New York, and granddaughter of Capt.
Isaac Bedloe, of early Huguenots who bought Liberty Island.
So, we get the Huguenots again.
Also, I hope you registered the name Bedloe.
Do you recognize it?
It leads us back to more fakers.
William Bedloe (20 April 1650 – 20 August 1680) was an English fraudster and Popish Plot informer.
Remember William Bedloe, who was involved with Titus Oates in the fake Popish Plot against Charles II.
Charles II (29 May 1630 – 6 February 1685) was King of Scotland from 1649 until 1651 and King of England, Scotland, and Ireland from the 1660 Restoration of the monarchy until his death in 1685.
Miles Williams Mathis: The English Revolution – Library of Rickandria
I have hit that several times, including in that last link and here:
Miles Williams Mathis: The Film Magnolia is Propaganda – Library of Rickandria
William’s father was also named Isaac Bedloe.
Which is probably why they misspell the name on Livingston’s page as Bedlow.
They don’t want you to make the connection.
And guess what, we can link to John of Gaunt again via another fake the Livingstons were involved in more directly.
That would be the “Black Dinner”, where the young Earl Douglas and his brother were invited to dinner with James II of Scotland and allegedly beheaded by Crichton and Livingston.
James was the son of Joan de Beaufort, granddaughter of John of Gaunt.
What they don’t tell you is that this Alexander Livingston of Callendar was a Douglas, so there is no way he would be beheading them.
He wasn’t just Governor of Scotland at the time; his mother-in-law was Joan Douglas.
They admit Livingston later allied with the Douglases against Crichton, so you can already see the whole thing is another con.
It wasn’t the Douglases they were trying to get rid of, it was the “Yorkish” Stewarts and their allies, as in the War of the Roses.
James’ mother Joan de Beaufort had already gotten rid of many of them, and this was just a continuation of that.
In other words, the children of John of Gaunt were doing in Scotland exactly what they were doing in England:
trying to take over the throne by marriage and intrigue.
The marriage of a Beaufort to James I was the first part of that, and the death of James I was the beginning of the intrigue.
We are told that despite this murder of the Earl, the Douglases took over the Scottish court anyway.
That is what you call a reversal.
The Douglases didn’t take over despite that event, but because of it.
Because it was fake.
The Black Dinner was another fake event manufactured to create sympathy for the Douglases.
The Douglases were allied to the Gaunt faction, so it wasn’t the Douglases taking over court, it was the Gaunts/Komnenes.
The Gaunt faction had married into the Douglases as well, you see.
Let me unwind it for you.
The problem the 16-year-old Archie, 6th Earl of Douglas had was that they had married him to a Lindsay of the Earls of Crawford, and they led right to Robert II Stewart, King of Scotland, whose mother was a Bruce.
So, they were what we might call Yorkists.
They had the wrong blood, according to the Gaunt faction.
But Archie’s great-uncle James was still alive, and he had married better.
His second wife was Beatrice Sinclair, of the Earls of Orkney.
They had previously been infiltrated by the Komnenes via Isabel of Strathearn.
Her father was Malise, 7th Earl of Strathearn, and his grandmother was. . . Agnes Comyn.
Comyn=Komnene.
These Comyns were the Earls of Buchan.
They arrive from nowhere in about 1150 and marry into the Scottish royal line with the granddaughter of Donald III.
This takes us back to the MacBeth story, which you now see is another cover for the Komnenes.
Donald III, also called Donald Bane, was the son of King Duncan, who had been killed by Thane MacBeth.
Donald’s older brother killed MacBeth, but died with his son in battle, leaving the throne to Donald.
Unfortunately, Donald had no sons, so his nephew took over.
The funny thing is, the histories conspicuously fail to tell us who Donald’s wife was.
He had a daughter, so he must have had a wife or concubine.
Thepeerage.com also conspicuously fails to list a wife.
But since the Comyns later claimed the crown through his granddaughter Hextilda in the event called the Great Cause, we may assume Donald’s wife was a Komnene or other Phoenician of the same family.
Competitors for the Crown of Scotland – Wikipedia
To prevent civil war, Edward I of England intervened in the Great Cause and decided the case in favor of John Baillol, Lord of Galloway, descended from King David I.
Surprisingly, the Comyns strongly supported this decision, so we must assume it was the second-best choice for them.
Wikipedia admits the Comyns were the most powerful baronial family in Scotland, and John II Comyn had conveniently married Baillol’s sister Eleanor.
You see how the Komnenes work.
But even Wiki doesn’t tell you all.
John’s father John I Comyn had also married into that family.
He married Marion de Galloway, whose grandfather was David of Scotland, Earl of Huntingdon, who was grandson of David I.
John II’s daughter Julienne also did her part, marrying a MacDougall.
They descend directly from Olaf Bitling, King of Mann.
And they descend from the Kings of Alba, who were also named Donald.
So, you see how it goes.
Taking all this back to the Black Dinner, we see that the Douglases were the same as the MacDougalls, also taking us back to the Isle of Mann.
So, no one was trying to splinter their power, least of all the Crichtons or Livingstons.
No, this was a consolidation of power, and the jettisoning of unwanted lines in favor of wanted ones.
As you see, James Douglas—under orders from the Komnenes—had to get rid of his great-nephew, who was foolish enough to marry a Lindsay.
I doubt anyone was beheaded.
This looks like a lot like the Princes in the Tower story, where Stanley needed to get rid of the young Edward V and replace him with Richard III.
The problem was again marriage, since Edward was betrothed to Anne of Brittany.
The Stanleys couldn’t allow that, because Anne was a Habsburg in the maternal line.
Richard was much smarter, since he agreed to marry a Neville.
That linked him right back to John of Gaunt, you see.
Many theorized the Princes in the Tower escaped to France, and that is my assumption as well.
There was no need to kill them, just to banish them.
But saying they had been killed spread the necessary fear.
Same with these Douglas children.
They didn’t need to be beheaded when they could easily be put on a ship to France.
We have more proof of the fake when they admit Douglas’ lands and titles weren’t forfeit but simply given to his great-uncle.
James then became far richer and more powerful, being not only the 7th Earl of Douglas but the Earl of Avondale as well.
And through his wife and children he would continue to spread the Komnene seed.
Unfortunately, James’ first son William didn’t get the Komnene memo, or didn’t read it to the end, and he married his cousin Lady Margaret Douglas, taking him back to the line of Robert III Stewart.
So, he had to be axed somehow.
His brother James couldn’t get the message, either, since he married the same woman.
These Douglases weren’t too bright.
His younger brother Archie was just as dense, marrying a Dunbar, who took him back to Robert II.
The fourth brother Hugh didn’t marry, which was smart, but he tried to avenge his brothers.
I guess we can give him credit for that.
So, the Komnenes had to work through the daughters, as usual.
The first married a Hay and prospered.
Now let’s back up a bit, to the point I mentioned Isabella of Strathearn, a Comyn.
This name Strathearn is important, because if we take it forward to James I of Scotland, we can understand why and by whom he was killed (or banished).
James I (late July 1394 – 21 February 1437) was King of Scots from 1406 until his assassination in 1437. The youngest of three sons, he was born in Dunfermline Abbey to King Robert III and Annabella Drummond. His eldest brother David, Duke of Rothesay, died under suspicious circumstances while detained by his uncle, Robert, Duke of Albany. James’s other brother, Robert, died young. Concerns for James’s safety deepened in the winter of 1405–1406 prompting plans to send him to France. In February 1406, James took refuge in the castle of the Bass Rock in the Firth of Forth after his escort was attacked by supporters of Archibald, 4th Earl of Douglas. He remained there until mid-March when he boarded a vessel bound for France. On 22 March, an English vessel captured the ship and delivered James to Henry IV of England. The ailing Robert III died on 4 April and the 11-year-old James, now the uncrowned King of Scotland, would remain in captivity for eighteen years.
Although he had been married to a Beaufort, he wasn’t following Komnene orders, so Walter Stewart was ordered to take him out.
We are told Stewart was the Earl of Atholl, but the full title was Earl of Atholl, Strathearn and Caithness.
That tells us who he was.
Although he was the son of Robert II, his only children were with a Barclay, so he was no danger to the Komnenes.
He had already been infiltrated.
We are told this was a coup, but it was never meant to take over the throne, since the Komnenes had already done that through the Queen Beaufort.
They just needed to replace James I with his son.
Therefore, we may assume the conspirators were allowed to escape.
We are told Stewart was tortured for three days, but there is no way that happened.
He was 77, ancient for the time, so he was not a good choice to take part in a murder or an extended torture.
He wouldn’t have survived ten minutes of it, much less three days of it.
So, he was only the front and eye candy.
My guess is he simply changed his name and lived on.
In fact, I believe he married the Queen, changing his name to James Stewart.
Why do I believe it?
Because this James, the so-called Black Knight of Lorn, looks like a fake.
He has no bio before marrying the Queen, and we don’t even know why he was called the Black Knight.
Probably because he was a ghost.
I also believe it because he married the Queen right after the coup.
Also, because he has no DOB at thepeerage.
Also, because he died of old age soon thereafter, when Walter Stewart would have been 88.
Also, because there was already a Lord of Lorn, his brother Robert, who has a real bio.
Also, because thepeerage tells us he died around 1448 and Wikipedia tells he died around 1451.
Why the mismatch?
Wiki tells he was born around 1399.
Why doesn’t anyone know?
All these other Stewarts have firm dates.
But most of all because this James Stewart took over the titles of Earl of Atholl and Earl of Buchan, which he passed to his sons.
Since his wife was the Queen Dowager, it doesn’t make much sense she would give him the title of the man who had killed her husband and been drawn and quartered for it.
Do you think she would want to call him Atholl, or have him or his sons called that in her presence?
No, it makes no sense.
She would have made him Duke of something pleasant, not Earl of Atholl.
For more weirdness, do you want to guess who their son, the Earl of Atholl, married?
Remember the Lady Margaret Douglas above who married two of the sons of James Douglas, 7th Earl Douglas—the one who allegedly murdered his great-nephews in the Black Dinner of 1440?
Well, she also married this John Stewart, Earl of Atholl.
So, she looks like the go-to lady for these fake events.
Her only son didn’t marry, so the Earl of Atholl died out immediately again.
OK, that was a rather long digression, but since I kept us entertained, I won’t apologize.
We filled in some major holes from previous papers.
But let us return to Jefferson.
If we study the Declaration of Independence, we find that most signers were very rich lawyers or very rich merchants.
24 lawyers and 14 merchants are listed.
We are just surprised not to find any bankers listed—though my guess is some of them were bankers.
But my point is, do you honestly think these people were a fair representation of the early colonists?
Every single one of these people was from aristocratic lines, though not all were as lofty as the Committee of Five we just looked at.
Which means all of them were Jewish to a large degree.
I just proved that with the Committee of Five, and it is true of all the other signers, though again perhaps not to the same degree.
So, I repeat, how could these wealthy Jewish aristocrats have possibly been representative of anything but wealthy Jewish aristocrats?
They couldn’t, which is precisely why the US became what it is.
In fact, it is even worse now than then, since these families have continued to filter themselves over the past two centuries, concentrating ever more wealth and power at the top.
Although the US was highly stratified in 1776, it is far more stratified now.
With far more tools to control us, they find it far easier to lie and steal than they did then.
With a far larger population creating far more wealth, there is more wealth to skim, and it is skimmed very efficiently.
In fact, “skim” is no longer a descriptive term, since it implies skimming a small portion off the top.
These people no longer skim.
They have dug their spoons deeper and deeper into the cream, taking the majority of it and leaving us only the watery milk at the bottom.
Only the fact that productivity is so fantastically high allows us not to live like peasants (at least in the first world).
Until recently, the dregs in the US and Europe were still fairly sweet, and the rulers found that stability was easiest to maintain by keeping them that way.
But in the past fifty years that has changed ever more rapidly, as the greed of the rulers has accelerated dramatically.
Due to their control of the media, they believe they can maintain stability despite growing levels of theft, so they are testing that theory.
NWO: MEDIA: GLOBAL CONTROL – Library of Rickandria
They appear to want to calculate exactly how far they can push this equation.
The usual cost/benefit analysis.
They want to see how much they can treat us like peasants before we start acting like peasants.
That is to say, how much can they steal from us before we become so dejected we stop working and productivity takes a huge dive.
I really don’t think they wish to go back to the old forms, because they have generated far more wealth this way.
You can’t steal much from slaves or peasants, because they don’t have anything.
You can’t tax slaves or peasants.
Once you have taken all the land and minerals, your wealth has peaked.
But with a productive populace, you can steal a large part of that product, you see.
The current test, with Covid, is precisely that test.
It is a psychological test of our current slave mentality.
Creating a maximally productive slave is a tricky thing.
To start with, we the people have to believe we are not slaves.
We have to believe that “all men are created equal”, which is why Jefferson put that in his document—though he obviously didn’t believe it.
We have to believe that we will share in the fruits of society, both financially and spiritually.
Hence, the
“Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness”
clause.
Productive slaves have to be convinced they are happy, which is why the media used to spend so much time driving that home.
This was the main line of propaganda until recently.
Think of the 1950s, when the manufactured satisfaction of the middle class was job one.
Almost all entertainment was geared toward a chirpy idyll of the Mayberry sort, or later of the Waltons or Little House on the Prairie sort.
But a certain group among the rulers came up with a big secondary project in the 1980s, to make people unhappy on purpose.
Miles Williams Mathis: Mental Health & the Men are Pigs Project – Library of Rickandria
They wished to split the sexes for profit.
This misery would create a market for new products, including:
- drugs and other healthcare
- porn
- beauty products
- body alteration
and so on, while also demasculinizing men.
This, they thought, would lower the threat of revolution.
However, as you can see, the two projects are contradictory.
The secondary project conflicts with the primary project, doesn’t it?
Miserable slaves may at first spend more money compensating for their misery, but eventually they are going to admit to themselves they are miserable.
At that point, they realize they are slaves.
They become dejected and stop working and productivity plummets.
The main scheme has just been short-circuited by poor planning.
Therefore, I would say it isn’t just the populace of sheep that needs to wake up.
It is the top Phoenician rulers who need to wake up and realize their whole scheme is unwinding.
This secondary project of created misery, though perhaps profitable in the short term, is fatal to their long-term plans.
It is certainly fatal to the Declaration of Independence, which was a good plan of control.
It’s true intent was well hidden, and it fooled we the people for a long time.
Many of us thought we were free and happy, which his why things progressed so quickly for the rulers.
We were a captive audience.
The rise of Hollywood made it even easier, since that sold the propaganda like nothing before.
NWO: MEDIA: HOLLYWOOD – Library of Rickandria
But the huge propaganda successes of the 1960s and 70s made the rulers giddy, and they wanted more.
NWO: PROPAGANDA – Library of Rickandria
They played a tune that worked, and so they have turned up the volume more and more since then.
But what they have missed is that what sounds sweet at 60 decibels, say, sounds like pain at 150 decibels.
It causes madness in the DJ as well as the audience.
They have also missed this subtlety:
the 1950s were one big lie, yes, but they were not yet a vicious and insane lie.
It was the lie of Mr. Ed and Kukla Fran and Ollie and Mayberry and Strangers in the Night and Moon River.
It was a dreamy and pacifying lie, while the lie now is a shattering nightmare.
The lie of Game of Thrones and Breaking Bad and Dexter and Sandy Hook and Columbine and gangster rap and Django Unchained and John Wick.
Yes, that sells anti-depressants out the wazoo, but what else does it do?
It begs an empire-ending collapse of Biblical proportions, a Sodom and Gomorrah outcome where rich people end up as pillars of salt.
You and I would love to see that, but I don’t think that is what the desired endgame is for them.
The Phoenician Navy will no doubt reply they have climbed out above the possibility of a major reversal.
They have fine-tuned their methods.
They have contingency plans in place.
They have covered all their bases.
They have built walls to prevent any flood.
All famous last words.
For myself, the only contingency plan I see that might be successful at this point is a slow reversal, like when you cross the path of a rattlesnake or a shark.
I also remind you of this sentence in the Declaration of Independence:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.
The Declaration, being a sort of Preface to the Constitution, states that one of our unalienable rights is to abolish a destructive form of government.
Which means, legally, that any court trying any person or group for sedition or treason, would have to prove the current government was NOT destructive of those ends (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, among others).
Do you think any lawyer could prove that to a jury these days?
I don’t.
Any educated jury should know by now that its own government, and the people who own and run it, are making us the people unhappy and fearful on purpose, in order to profit from our misery and fear and to use it to control us.
Miles Williams Mathis: More Proof the Trump Trials are Vaudeville – Library of Rickandria
But I didn’t get back to Jefferson, did I?
With more research, we find out why Jefferson was chosen to write the Declaration.
It was precisely because he was young and unknown.
Adams was at first chosen by Congress, but he passed to Jefferson, admitting that he himself was
“obnoxious, suspected, and unpopular”
True.
And true of everyone else in Congress, then as now.
Beyond that, most of them were unmitigated cowards, and were probably fearful to have their names on the document at all, lest the revolution fail.
You can be sure this is why Livingston and Sherman didn’t sign it.
In other words, it went to Jefferson by default.
It was somewhat of a hot potato, and he got stuck with it.
Fortunately, the cause of independence from England had strong support from certain powerful parties in England, as we have seen—which is why it succeeded.
It didn’t succeed due to the heroism of Washington or anyone else, you can be sure.
It is because the East India Company and other powerful entities supported it.
Despite the Boston Tea Party, which was mostly another fake, the East India Company was on the side of the colonists.
Not because of any solidarity or fellow feeling, but because the EIC felt it would be easier to negotiate with and dominate a fledgling country like the US than an old powerhouse like England.
In fact, the EIC had already infiltrated the colonies thoroughly, and mostly owned them, so the American Revolution was more a war over ownership between England and the EIC, or two arms of the aristocracy, than between England and the colonies.
This is also why France came in on the side of the colonies:
again, not due to solidarity or fellow feeling, but due to prior alliances.
The French contingency that was backing the revolution in the US was the same contingency backing the revolution in France:
the rich merchants and bankers.
Miles Williams Mathis: The French Revolution – Library of Rickandria
They are the ones that had allied themselves to the Protestants in both France and England, in order to overthrow Rome and steal all its assets in both countries.
They had long since accomplished that in England but were just then getting it done in France.
Which is why we are seeing the American founding fathers with hidden links to the same alliance, especially the Protestants/Huguenots.
This is a nicety not often commented on, but you should always have found it strange that these early Americans had so many alliances to France, but none to the Catholic faction.
France had been Catholic since the beginning, so it should look odd that Jefferson and other ambassadors had no allies in that quarter.
We are seeing why that is.
The US was founded by the Komnene/Vasa/Jagiellon faction of the Phoenician Navy, not the Habsburg/Medici/Bourbon/Guise faction.
Which explains why the US was Protestant from the start, despite being an ally of France.
It is also why the Catholics have always had it hard here, even up to the present moment, when they continue to be attacked in fake events like the priest scandals.
Miles Williams Mathis: Let’s put the Spotlight on Spotlight – Library of Rickandria
Furthermore, it explains why so many crypto-Jews in the US are hiding behind Catholicism:
it is the last place you would expect them to hide, so you don’t ask the question.
Miles Williams Mathis: The Supremes – Library of Rickandria
While we are on the topic again, it also explains why the Komnenes were able to take England more than two centuries before they finally took France.
It is simply because the Habsburgs and Medicis and Bourbons had a much weaker foothold in England and Scotland than they did in France.
The Komnenes came down from the north, while the Habsburgs and Medicis mostly came up from the south.
So, although the Komnenes found resistance in England and Scotland, they found much less resistance there than in France or Spain.
Although the monasteries in England were taken in 1536, it took until about 1790 to take the First Estate in France.
And the Komnenes didn’t finalize their ownership of Europe and Russia until 1945.
Pockets of Europe held out until then—and I don’t mean the Nazis.
Miles Williams Mathis: Hitler & Top Nazi Genealogy – THEY WERE JEWS! – Library of Rickandria
Added August 12, 2021:
Almost incredibly, I just discovered that the mainstream has been admitting Jefferson was a Phoenician since at least 2004.
Was Emperor Charlemagne Phoenician too, just like President Jefferson?
National Geographic professional geneticist and genealogist Spencer Wells, who heads the Genographic Project, confirmed through DNA testing on Jefferson’s descendants that through the male line Jefferson carried Phoenician markers, namely the K2 haplogroup.
Miles Williams Mathis: Phoenicians – Where did they ALL Go? – Library of Rickandria
Also note Wells’ names, Spencer and Wells, indicating he is from the same lines.
So, he should know.
Further, it was discovered that various percentages of the inhabitants of the islands of Malta, Sardinia, as well as parts of ancient Carthage in Tunisia, Gibraltar, Spain and the islands of the Aegean are of Phoenician origin, also.
Robert Coolidge has confirmed my genealogical research as well, concluding Jefferson descended through John of Gaunt to Charlemagne.
Since I have shown Charlemagne also came from Phoenicians, we find confirmation from several sources.
OK, in the next section, we learn Jefferson was a colonel at the beginning of the War in 1775, at age 32.
Hmmm.
I don’t remember him being a lieutenant, captain, or major, do you?
Like a prince, he was given a bye into colonel.
Even then, he did no fighting, since he was in the Virginia House drafting their Constitution.
Notably, he tried to force through a law that forbade any state support of religion, though it failed.
He also tried to disestablish the Anglican church, but that also failed.
I used to think that separation of church and state was a good idea, but I have changed my mind.
Not because I became a Christian, which I didn’t.
I haven’t been to church since I was about 15, and I don’t miss it.
No, I changed my mind because I came to understand why the Founding Fathers were pushing this.
They weren’t pushing it to guarantee your right to worship as you choose, though that is the line they sell you.
They were pushing it because they were deeply and profoundly irreligious themselves and wanted to govern and trade without any interference from Christian rules against usury, or other rules of conduct.
They wished to destroy worship altogether, because it competed with them.
The church competed with their ability to tax.
The church competed with their ability to propagandize.
And the church competed with their ability to control.
RELIGION: VATICAN: THE DARK HISTORY OF THE DIVINING SERPENTS – Library of Rickandria
That has become clearer through the decades and centuries, and should be crystal clear now, when the descendants of these people are just shutting down churches by fiat.
One of the most illogical and unConstitutional of the current executive orders promulgated by state governors has been the closing of all houses of worship.
Let me just ask you this:
if church and state are truly separate, then how can the state close all churches?
Shouldn’t churches, being separate, be able to make their own rules?
If the church can no longer influence the state, why should the state influence the church?
The governors are simply using a fake crisis to do everything they ever wanted to do, and one of the things they most wanted to do is shut down churches.
That should tell you who we are dealing with.
So, the Constitutional clauses about religion never had much to do with your right to worship.
They had to do with your right NOT to worship, you see.
That subtlety was always fairly well hidden in regard to the Constitution, I admit, but if you look closely at the Founding Fathers, their lives, and their writings, you see this is true.
And if you look at the history of the US from a bird’s eye, including not only the original projects like the founding documents, but also later projects like the:
- Theosophy project
- Marxism
- Humanism
- Atheism
and Transhumanism, the greater motion becomes clear.
NWO: TRANSHUMANISM – Library of Rickandria
I also remind you that at the same time Jefferson and Franklin were moving against religion in the US, their comrades in France were moving even more precipitously there.
See my paper on that Revolution, where we see that afterwards the governors tried to stamp out religion altogether, by changing the calendar so that people couldn’t even figure out when holy days were.
Their leaders promoted a Cult of Reason (yes, that is really what they chose to call it) beginning in 1793, which was a state-sponsored atheistic “religion”.
It was so unpopular it sparked widespread real rioting (not the fake rioting of the Bastille kind).
This rioting was so widespread and so powerful it had to be quelled with violence not seen in the Revolution itself.
This was the only real involvement of We the People in the fake French Revolution, and We the People were simply quashed by force.
Miles Williams Mathis: The French Revolution – Library of Rickandria
The next year, the leaders in Paris replaced the Cult of Reason with a Cult of the Supreme Being, which was also intended to replace Catholicism and Christianity.
It was almost as bad, though it wasn’t atheistic.
The people also refused that, and it died quickly on the vine.
The Jews finally gave up (for the time) in 1802, when Napoleon let the people be Catholics, as long as they otherwise did as they were told.
Miles Williams Mathis: Was Napoleon Jewish? – Library of Rickandria
When Virginia was invaded by Royal troops in 1781, they wanted to capture Jefferson, but we are told they couldn’t find him.
They looked for him at Monticello, but he had fled to
, his other plantation to the west.
The story ends there.
But why didn’t they look for him at Poplar Forest?
Did it exist in another dimension?
No, it was just up the road and had his name on the gate.
Still, no one thought to look for him there, I guess.
He was like Han Solo:
the stormtroopers are always firing on him, but they have terrible aim, you know.
If we seek for the source of this stupid story, we are given a footnote to George Tucker’s Life of Thomas Jefferson.
George Tucker (August 20, 1775 – April 10, 1861) was an American author, educator and historian in Virginia, following early years as an attorney and politician. His literary works include The Valley of Shenandoah (1824), the first fiction of colonial life in Virginia, and A Voyage to the Moon (1827), which is among the nation’s earliest science fiction novels. He also published the first comprehensive biography of Thomas Jefferson in 1837, as well as his History of the United States (1856). Tucker’s authorship, and his work as a teacher, served to redeem an earlier life of unprincipled habits which had brought him some disrepute.
What is the first thing we learn on Tucker’s Wiki page?
His literary works include The Valley of Shenandoah (1824), the first fiction of colonial life in Virginia, and Voyage to the Moon (1827), which is among the nation’s earliest science fiction novels.
Tucker also published the first comprehensive biography of Thomas Jefferson, as well as his 1856 History of the United States.
You have to laugh.
Voyage to the Moon and its sequel The Life of Thomas Jefferson.
He should have joined the two, so we could have Thomas Jefferson Frees the Moon.
When the Virginia General Assembly reconvened in 1781, Colonel Jefferson’s Monty Python “run away” strategy was questioned.
They concluded he had fled “honorably”, but he was not re-elected as Governor.
According to Wikipedia, this was the extent of Colonel Jefferson’s heroism in the Revolutionary War.
Surprisingly, Jefferson also had very little to do with setting up the new government after the War, instead being sent with Franklin and Adams to France to negotiate trade treaties.
Franklin soon got bored and fled to England to play with his pals, so Jefferson became Minister to France.
He was away for five years at this crucial juncture in American history, apparently finding French history more diverting.
Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès (3 May 1748 – 20 June 1836), usually known as the Abbé Sieyès (traditional French pronunciation: [sijɛːs]; modern pronunciation: [sjejɛs]), was a French Catholic priest, abbé, and political writer who was a leading political theorist of the French Revolution (1789–1799); he also held offices in the governments of the French Consulate (1799–1804) and the First French Empire (1804–1815). His pamphlet What Is the Third Estate? (1789) became the political manifesto of the Revolution, which facilitated transforming the Estates-General into the National Assembly, in June 1789. He was offered and refused an office in the French Directory (1795–1799). After becoming a director in 1799, Sieyès was among the instigators of the Coup of 18 Brumaire (9 November), which installed Napoleon Bonaparte in power.
In fact, Jefferson was one of three authors (a consulting author, we are told) of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, along with Abbe Sieyes and Lafayette.
Marie-Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier de La Fayette, Marquis de La Fayette (French: [ʒilbɛʁ dy mɔtje maʁki d(ə) la fajɛt]; 6 September 1757 – 20 May 1834), known in the United States as Lafayette[a] (/ˌlɑːfiˈɛt, ˌlæf-/), was a French military officer and politician who volunteered to join the Continental Army, led by General George Washington, in the American Revolutionary War. Lafayette was ultimately permitted to command Continental Army troops in the decisive Siege of Yorktown in 1781, the Revolutionary War’s final major battle, which secured American independence. After returning to France, Lafayette became a key figure in the French Revolution of 1789 and the July Revolution of 1830 and continues to be celebrated as a hero in both France and the United States.
I have hit Lafayette in the paper on the French Revolution, so let’s take a look at Abbe Sieyes.
You will tell me he destroys my theory about Protestants running the French Revolution, since he was a Catholic Abbot, but just wait.
His Wiki page collapses under the weight of red flags.
His father was a tax collector but was allegedly of “humble income”.
Right.
We are told that though the family had noble blood, they were commoners.
That’s sort of like saying that despite all being six feet tall, they were short.
He was educated privately by Jesuits.
Miles Williams Mathis: The Jesuits – Library of Rickandria
Are you getting the picture?
Disraeli admitted the Jesuits were embedded Jews.
Another big clue most will miss is his time at the college at Draguignan.
But all you have to do is take that link, where you will find a rabbit hole so deep you have to pipe in sunshine.
The name comes from the Latin draco, meaning dragon.
Their motto is
“I nourish others; I devour my own.”
The town is one of the oldest in France, containing dolmens.
It was chosen as the Prefecture of the Var over Toulon, although we are never told why.
It is because Draguignan is an ancient Phoenician trading site.
Although the town only had around 10,000 people in WWII, the Nazis found it worth occupying early.
Miles Williams Mathis: More WWII Fakes – Library of Rickandria
Christopher Tolkien, who died a few months ago at 95, died there, for some reason not given.
Christopher John Reuel Tolkien (21 November 1924 – 16 January 2020) was an English and naturalised French academic editor and writer. The son of the author and academic J. R. R. Tolkien, Christopher edited 24 volumes based on his father’s posthumously published work, including The Silmarillion and the 12-volume series The History of Middle-Earth, a task that took 45 years. He also drew the original maps for his father’s fantasy novel The Lord of the Rings.
Maybe Smaug is buried there.
Although we are told Sieyes spent ten years at seminary, they admit he spent most of his time studying science and engineering.
They admit:
“he had a dislike for conventional theology”
Yeah, I bet he did.
While at the Sorbonne, he became influenced by the teachings of:
- John Locke
- Condillac
- Quesnay
- Mirabeau, Turgot
- the Encyclopédistes
and other Enlightenment political thinkers, all in preference to theology.
Among those “other Enlightenment thinkers“ was the atheist Voltaire.
John Locke was a Protestant dissenter, being a Socinian, so he is a strange mentor for an abbot.
Locke is a strange mentor for any of these guys, considering that he was a major investor in the slave trade through the Royal African Company.
This is admitted on his own Wiki page.
Locke wrote the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina in 1669, which established feudal aristocracy in the southern colonies early on.
In fact, Locke was a member of the Board of Trade, and as such was one of just a handful of men responsible for the terms of slavery from Virginia to Florida.
And don’t forget what he looked like:
So, if you are subjected to any flag waving concerning Locke’s role in founding the US, just remember who he really was.
Quesnay was another atheist, most famous as an economist.
He was in favor of Constitutional Despotism, which means he loved and promoted the Oriental system of total top-down control.
In other words, he was a fascist, but one who thought they needed a fascist constitution.
Despite that constitution, all power would be wielded by one man:
the despot.
The polar opposite of a Republic.
So, another strange mentor for the author of the French Declaration.
On Sieyes Wiki page, the author finally admits:
Even when corresponding with his deeply religious father, Sieyès showed a severe lack of piety for the man in charge of the diocese of Chartres. [8]
It is theorized that Sieyès accepted a religious career not because he had any sort of strong religious inclination, but because he considered it the only means to advance his career as a political writer.
So, there you go.
Abbe Sieyes was about as Catholic as Milton Berle.
Milton Berle (born Mendel Berlinger; Yiddish: מענדעל בערלינגער; July 12, 1908 – March 27, 2002) was an American actor and comedian. His career as an entertainer spanned over eight decades, first in silent films and on stage as a child actor, then in radio, movies and television. As the host of NBC’s Texaco Star Theatre (1948–1953), he was the first major American television star and was known to millions of viewers as “Uncle Miltie” and “Mr. Television” during the first Golden Age of Television. He was honored with two stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame for his work in both radio and TV.
This is who Jefferson was collaborating with in France.
Jefferson finally returned to the US when Washington offered to make him Secretary of State.
But he almost immediately got crossways with Alexander Hamilton because he (Jefferson) wasn’t in favor of a National Bank.
We are told this is because Jefferson was leery of bankers, but I find that doubtful.
Like Andrew Jackson later, he was probably only against one set of bankers, but for another.
Jefferson looks to me like a pawn of the East India Company, which means the EIC probably didn’t want a National Bank for their own reasons.
They preferred private banking, for reasons I probably don’t need to list.
You can be sure neither the Federalists nor the anti-Federalists were really against “monied interests”, since both were made up wholly of monied interests.
So, we may assume this was just a squabble among various big bankers as to who got to control the US treasury, and how to sell that control to the American people.
There was no chance it would turn out well for us, whoever came out on top there.
In fact, the various billionaire families continued to bicker over this until the early 20th century, as we know.
It didn’t turn out well for us.
At any rate, Jefferson lasted only three years as Secretary of State, resigning at the height of the French/British squabbles in 1793.
In 1794:
- Washington
- Hamilton
- Jay
negotiated the Jay Treaty, pretty much proving the whole Revolution was a hoax.
After only a decade, the US was already crawling back in bed with England.
Jefferson no doubt opposed this treaty mostly for cosmetic reasons: it made the entire con too obvious.
But of course, Jefferson had also made many alliances with the French and Dutch and Spanish Phoenician Navies, who weren’t happy to see the US making trade alliances with England.
No doubt Jefferson had made promises, and those promises were now being broken.
He needed to at least appear to be in vigorous opposition.
The 1796 election, the first after the “Kingship” of Washington, shows us the true popularity of Jefferson.
He couldn’t even defeat the:
- dumpy
- short
- fat
- bald
- admittedly obnoxious
and unpopular Adams.
Remember, Adams admitted himself he was obnoxious and a poor speaker and writer.
So, how did Jefferson lose?
He lost not for any philosophical or political reasons, least of all because of the French Revolution or the Federalist squabbles.
He lost because Adams’ people called him an atheist and a coward, and that stuck.
That swung the election, because it was something average people could understand.
As an American voter, you should know that is how it works.
It has always worked that way in your lifetime, and it worked the same way back then.
Few people could penetrate international politics, but they could spot a coward and an atheist when they saw one.
So, Jefferson’s attacks on religion had not gone unnoticed.
The people of the time apparently didn’t buy the argument that Jefferson was just fighting for their freedom of religion.
They could see what I told you above:
like Franklin, Jefferson was really fighting for freedom from religion, which the voters didn’t need.
You should also take note that only 20% of eligible voters turned out to vote in 1796.
And that was considerably better than the 12% who voted in 1788 or the 6% who voted in 1792.
You will say people were just slow learners.
They couldn’t figure out where or how to vote.
But if that is true, they were VERY slow learners, since in 1820 the turnout was still just 10%.
That doesn’t really support what we have been taught about our representative democracy, does it?
These people had allegedly just won the first War of Independence in the history of the world—or at least against a major European power—but no one cared?
No one bothered to show up for a vote?
Were we Americans really that incredibly complacent from the beginning, or is there something we aren’t being told?
I will be assured that the first two elections were just ceremonial.
No one was running against Washington, so the vote was pretty much meaningless.
He would have been President if no one had voted for him, so it doesn’t matter that almost no one did.
1820 was also uncontested.
But this “ceremonial” claim isn’t really true, since in the first two elections the race for Vice President was hotly contested and quite interesting.
And Washington was neither young nor especially healthy.
He would be dead less than ten years later.
So, the position of Vice President wasn’t meaningless.
However that may be, the election of 1796 was certainly interesting, and politically very important.
The candidates had many real differences—and not just their wigs.
So, the fact that 80% of voters stayed home has to look pretty strange.
We begin to understand this better if we start with the first election in 1788.
Not only was Washington running unopposed, but many states were also ineligible to vote at all, for various reasons.
So, citizens of the new country weren’t being led into this process of voting in a positive way.
If you think that was an accident, think again.
We are told Washington was considered a shoo-in by the framers of the Constitution, but shouldn’t the voters have decided that?
We will never know if he was or not, since the entire process was treated as a fait accompli.
Beyond that, although Washington was sworn in in New York, New York hadn’t even voted for him in any way.
New York hadn’t voted at all, because although it had ratified the Constitution, its legislature failed to appoint its electors on time.
An astonishing failure.
North Carolina and Rhode Island voters also sat at home, because their legislatures still hadn’t ratified the Constitution, though they had had a full year to do so.
Vermont had declared itself a sovereign state, so its voters were also screwed.
Beyond that, Wikipedia tells us this:
Though all states allowed some rudimentary form of popular vote, only 6 ratifying states allowed any form of popular vote specifcally for Presidential electors.
That’s what you call criminally vague, and there is no effort to clarify.
Whatever it means, it is clear that voting was not a top priority in the early years of the US.
Which makes the claim we had some sort of representative democracy or republic little more than air.
We already saw above that the Continental Congresses weren’t chosen by voting.
Both they and the Congresses of Confederation were chosen by state legislatures.
That is to say, delegates were appointed, they were not elected.
So, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution were drafted with almost no input from We the People.
Therefore, no matter what else those documents are, they are not Republican documents.
They were created without direct elected representation.
Which is ironic, to say the least.
This should remind you that Jefferson wasn’t even in the country when the Constitution was being written and ratified.
He was in France from 1783 to 1789, and the Constitution was ratified in 1787.
Jefferson did not sign the Constitution.
Wikipedia tells us the anti-Federalists opposed the Constitution, and Jefferson was the top anti-Federalist, so did he oppose the Constitution?
As a whole, yes, though he mostly withdrew his opposition after the Bill of Rights was appended.
We are told the anti-Federalists were:
- small farmers
- shopkeepers
- laborers
but that is the usual lie.
Everyone involved in this squabble was a rich man, since only rich men were in government.
Only they had a voice.
It is true the anti-Federalists opposed a strong central government, but not for the reasons you are taught.
You are supposed to believe they were fighting for the little guy here, but no one was fighting for the little guy.
The little guy was out of the loop completely, as usual.
As I keep telling you, what they were fighting about is the influence of the always hidden East India Company.
The East India Company didn’t like the Constitution, one because it gave people rights, and two because it threatened to limit their ability to control localities without the interference of a strong central government.
The EIC loved the colonies precisely because they were relatively lawless.
In such a case, the traders set the laws or customs, and of course this is the way the EIC wanted to keep it.
So, the historical argument is basically on its head, as usual: up is down and left is right.
You are taught the anti-Federalists opposed the Constitution and a strong Federation because they were for local autonomy; when the truth is they didn’t care a whit for local autonomy.
What they cared for is maintaining the EIC’s ability to control localities covertly.
Conversely, you are taught the Federalists wanted a strong central government in order to more efficiently guide trade and ease governance; when the truth is their main concern was trying to take control of banking and trade from those who currently had it and shifting it to their own men.
And if you dig a little deeper, it is not just the EIC hidden here, it is two competing arms of the EIC, which are usually called the Dutch and the English EIC.
The Dutch had gotten here first, as you can see from the fact that New York was originally New Amsterdam.
The Dutch had allied with the French and Spanish, as we see from the split in the American Revolution.
So, the Federalists were fronts for the English EIC and the anti-Federalists were fronts for the Dutch/French.
The Dutch/French wanted a weak central government, because they were already in place as local bankers and didn’t want to be displaced.
The English wanted a strong central government, because that was the only way they were going to be able to continue displacing the bankers already here.
They wanted to set up new central institutions, you see, which would eventually drive out the decentralized ones.
So, it was all to do with trade and shipping and banking, and nothing to do with personal freedoms.
All the talk about freedoms was just the usual cover.
CONTINUE
Miles Williams Mathis: Thomas Jefferson – Part II – Library of Rickandria