Prominent Peers Throughout Europe Have Been Jewish For Too Many Centuries

By Tapestry, 1/31/2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more:

 

Related Articles:

 

Follow us on Gab
Follow me us Twitter
Subscribe to our Blog
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel