Thank you, Jerry

I don't have any meaningful comment except to say thanks to Jerry for this most interesting and thought provoking article. We don't know as much as we would like about blood relationships among oligarchs, but secret societies certainly seem to share a lot of DNA. From my recent reading of Ed Griffin's "The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve", it seems that a lot of oligarchs get adopted by existing oligarchs, and then become oligarchs themselves. The Morgans and Rockefellers seem to have been "adopted" by the Rothschilds, for example.

I would add a note about the Brits claiming descent from the Israelites. Several centuries earlier, they had claimed descent from Brutus in order to claim to be more Roman than the then invading Romans. Perhaps when Project Bluebeam is enacted, the Brits will claim descent from a prior set of ur-space aliens. See the 5 star review on Amazon of Adrian Gilbert's "The New Jerusalem: The Extraordinary True Story of How a Secret Society Rebuilt London", for a précis of the Brit's ancestral claims.

(Off topic): BTW, what is the reason for a string bass scroll as your header photo? Does one of you play this noble instrument?
Hi Mike, thanks for reading, and thanks for the book tip. I'll check it out.

Geoffrey Ashe in "Dawn Behind the Dawn" mentions an ivory carving dating back to ~24,000 BC which he says is the earliest representation of "the peculiar mystique of the number seven" in the form of a seven-circuited spiral in a group of seven spirals. Both the spiral and the number seven seem to have been signatures of the shamanic Indo-European tribe that we suspect might be the earliest manifestation of the ruling elite and/or their memes. So we had been looking for spiral themes for the header, and the string bass scroll showed up in the collection of demo images for a Wordpress theme I had been testing, so I rolled with it.

Ancient Gravettian ivory panel from Mal'ta:

The Gravettian carvings are new to me, and the Czech gallery is fascinating. Mr Ashe has some similarities with the author I mentioned, Adrian Gilbert. Some of their chosen topics are "out there", but they do mostly scholarly work. I just checked Mr Ashe's "The Hell-Fire Clubs: A History of Anti-Morality" out of my local library. I expect to find a few oligarchs among the habitués. ;)

Thanks for satisfying my curiosity about the bass scroll. Violin family scrolls (including viola, cello and bass) in general are often interesting and are often used to help identify instruments. I had thought that they were carved to follow a golden spiral, but Wikipedia informs me that they are carved on a logarithmic spiral instead. Or sometimes not...
From the above-linked review of "The New Jerusalem" by Adrian Gilbert:

What brings me back to this fascinating book now that my interests have veered more to the political side of things is the central theme of the book -- the non-Jewish Zionism that sprang up in England after Henry VIII had his little row with the Catholic Church. Very clever, these Brits. From the time the British Isles came under the influence, if not actual control of the Romans, the native Brits claimed descent from Brutus, great-grandson of Aeneas. In this way they trumped the parvenu Romans with their putative genealogy. Then, rather suddenly, when Henry VIII broke free from the Catholics, the Brits became one of the Lost Tribes of Israel, descended from King David! Just like that!

That would make this "British Israel" claim old enough to predate Shakespeare! Which puts a new wrinkle on Joe's view that the Shakespearean plays represent a reversal of the Gospel humiliation of the Jews under Roman Imperial rule. So maybe Shakespeare was not really talking about the beleaguered Rabbinical Jews and Conversos, but he was talking about the Tudor dynasty as the newest graft onto the old tree? What a hall of mirrors.
Jerry, this is a very complicated topic. I think it is possible, even probable, that Shakespeare was at least aware of the British Israel meme (for want of a better term here), as it was very recent history in her/their day. Unlike Adrian Gilbert, I tend to think that the British royals (specifically Henry VIII) were cynically claiming descent from one of the lost tribes of Israel in order to claim precedence over papal authority to make high appointments in the church. (See below for why he might be so kind to the British Israelis.) I also don't think this claim would make a great difference to Joe's interpretation of the Shakespeare works he cites in Shakespeare's Messiah.

The documentation I find on British Israelism indicates that it sprang up spontaneously in the late 19th century, suspiciously, IMHO, coincident with the Brit's attempts to gin up Zionism. From my reading, Zionism is almost entirely non-Jewish in origin. I think the British Israel thing is/was a front for non-Jewish Zionists. The best single source on this is Regina Sharif's book, "Non-Jewish Zionism: Its Roots in Western History". Some day I will scan my copy and post it somewhere. The book is long out of print and typically sells for $100+. I don't know if the author is still around or not. I've tried to find her, but have had no success.

Factoid: the new edition of "The New Jerusalem: The Extraordinary True Story of How a Secret Society Rebuilt London" by Adrian Gilbert (under a new title, "London a New Jerusalem") is published by Covenant Publishing Co Ltd, owned by the British-Israel-World Federation. Not that there's anything wrong with that. ;) That said, it is a fantastic book.
Hi Mike and Jerry

First, I would note that Jerry conclusions concerning a 'fuzzy set' are speculation. Without DNA evidence we can only guess and therefore what we need to focus on is getting the data.

I would love to find out how 'non Jewish' many of the 'non Jewish' zionists were - for example Churchill, Roosevelt and Hitler. What was their ethnic and family connections? We need to know this precisely and not laspe into 'fuzzy' thinking.

Joe, from your comments I am not sure whether you understand what "fuzzy math" is. It shouldn't be viewed as a derogatory term. But, my point is that without "fuzzy set" mathematics, the entire concepts of "race" or "ethnicity" become completely meaningless.

When you point to "DNA evidence", remember that the human genome consists of over 3 billion base pairs. Out of this, a typical gene chip measures a few hundred thousand SNP's. The pattern of base pairs and SNP's is different for every single human being, and relationships can be traced with great precision -- but there is no hard and fast genetic pattern which defines membership in an ethnic group.

The genome defines a "vector space" which is analogous to 3-dimensional physical space, in the sense that you can define a distance between any two points. The DNA vector space has literally billions of dimensions, but the concept of 'distance' is applicable just the same. For purposes of visualization, high-dimensional vector spaces can be collapsed along two or three dimensions, but it's important to remember that any such collapse results in some loss of information and discriminatory power.

Here is a collapsed 2-dimensional ("PCA") scatter plot from Elhaik's 2013 paper comparing Eastern European Jews to Caucusus ("Khazar") populations and Palestinian populations. Do you see any "precise" way to identify the Jews in this scatter plot, just from their location in the diagram? It looks to me like Jews are pretty similar to Druze, Armenians and Georgians, and some of them aren't much different from some French or Spanish. This is the nature of the data we're dealing with. "Looking" at the data in higher dimensionality doesn't eliminate the overlaps.
Last edited:

I really don't understand what this has to do with the problem of the ethnicity of the oligarchs. If your point is that the concept of ethnicity is fuzzy i agree. But this does not mean the oligarchs may share a hidden ethnic or family relationship.
Perhaps I am missing something .

Hi Joe,

Perhaps it might help to illustrate some of these concepts, by addressing your particular example of Churchill, Roosevelt and Hitler. One important point I was making in the article is that genealogy is another valid data source, so we aren't necessarily operating in a vacuum of information.

Let's look first at Roosevelt. Coming from a very old, New England Protestant family, his heritage can be traced in many cases back as far as eight generations.

Former Michigan governor Chase Osborn claimed in 1934 that “the Roosevelts were descended from the Rossacampos, a Jewish family expelled from Spain in 1620.” Some part of the family apparently migrated from Spain to North Holland, where they changed their name to Rosenvelt; and in 1649, Claes van Rosenvelt immigrated to the US, where his children were baptized in the Reformed Dutch Church of New York. So, if Osborn’s scenario is correct, the last overtly practicing Jew in the Roosevelt paternal lineage would have been the father of Claes van Rosenvelt; that is, eight generations preceding president Franklin Delano Roosevelt. When asked about the possibility of this Jewish aspect of his ancestry, Roosevelt graciously replied that "In the dim distant past they [the Roosevelts] may have been Jews or Catholics or Protestants—what I am more interested in is whether they were good citizens and believers in God—I hope they were both."

Of course, the Rosenvelts might have continued as “Crypto” Jews for some generations after they left Spain, and Roosevelt men occasionally intermarried with other New England Protestants carrying suspiciously Jewish-sounding surnames. However, many other names on the paternal side of Roosevelt’s family tree had seemingly indubitable WASP heritage: Aspinwall, Howland, Walton, Hardenbrook.

On FDR’s maternal line, the Delano family also goes back 7 generations in America to Phillipe de Lannoy, a Huguenot of the Plymouth Colony. The Delano men married women named Lyman, Church, Cushman, Peckham, Warren and Dewsberry. Lyman sounds like it could be a Jewish name -- but the Lymans of New England also trace their heritage to to the Puritans of Plymouth Colony, and this lineage includes names such as Robbins and Sheldon.

Overall, it seems unlikely that FDR’s portion of "Jewish blood" is even as much as one part in eight, which would be roughly the percentage of Jewish names in the ancient portions of his pedigree. No one in Roosevelt’s family for seven generations had been acknowledged to history as anything except practicing Protestants, and all recorded marriages and baptisms during that time occurred in Christian churches. That is, unless, there was some case of unacknowledged "paternity fraud" at some point in his background. Statistically, the probability of "paternity fraud" is thought to be about 1% to 2%.

Churchill is not so easy to trace. His mother, Jennifer Jerome, was an American beauty of mixed, mostly Northern European background, possibly including French Huguenot and some Iroquois. Internet rumor mill has it that Churchill's maternal grandfather, Leonard Jerome, was a Jew who changed his name from Jacobson. An article by David Burbridge traced this rumor to an article by Moshe Kohn (Jerusalem Post, January 1993) which, on investigation, turned out to be a satirical piece with no further documentation. Churchill’s putative father was Randolph Churchill, undoubtedly British; however, it is impossible to say who the father really was, as Jennie Jerome was notoriously promiscuous, and Randolph's behavior was hopelessly "beta". The leading alternative candidate would be King Edward VII, Prince of Wales, again unlikely to have been Jewish. According to conventional history, Edward VII would be descended from the Saxe-Coburg & Gotha noble family of Germany (three-quarters) and the Hanover dynasty of Britain (one-quarter).

In an interview with Jim Fetzer, Greg Hallett makes the claim that Edward VII's father was Lionel Nathan Rothschild. Bizarrely, he states that this was done "unbeknownst to Queen Victoria". I can't imagine how such a thing is even possible. There also may be some muddled claim in Hallett's rambling, that a Rothschild slipped in as a substitute to George III as Victoria's father. The most likely conclusion, is that Churchill was mixed British and Northern European, with a little bit of Iroquois thrown in. But, if Hallett's story is true (and I think this is ridiculous) it would make him 5/8 Jewish.

Hitler's mother was Klara Hitler, an Austrian Roman Catholic. His paternal grandmother, Maria Schickelgruber, was also an Austrian Roman Catholic. His paternal grandfather is unknown, and of course there are claims that he was Jewish, and might have been a Rothschild -- Salomon Mayer Rothschild being the only plausible candidate. However, most serious historians who have looked into this, conclude that the grandfather is more likely to have been another man from the Hitler (Heidler) family, and Adolf is the product of a cousin marriage.

Last edited:
So, tying this information together:

(1) Are Roosevelt, Churchill and Hitler the same ethnicity? No, not by any reasonable criteria, no matter how fuzzy. Roosevelt is predominantly New England Dutch, with an admixture of French and other Northern European, and perhaps with some small portion of Jewish blood; Hitler is at least three-quarters Austrian Catholic; and in the highly unlikely event that Hallett's theory is right, Churchill would be the most Jewish one at 5/8 Jewish. Otherwise, he is of European heritage, half from the noble class.

(2) Could Roosevelt, Churchill and Hitler share some portion of Jewish ethnicity? Possibly, yes. Probably, no.

(3) Is there a close family relationship? If the rumors about both Churchill and Hitler are both true, it would make them 3rd cousins once removed, common descendants of Mayer Amschel Rothschild. That's a close relationship that would probably be remembered (or at least rumored) within the families, and would be revealed by DNA testing, perhaps even DNA testing of currently living descendants -- if the testing was done with the most powerful technologies currently available. But, as I've said above, I think these Internet rumors are somewhere between unlikely, and ridiculous.

To bring Roosevelt closely into this Rothschild family tree, you would have to explain how one of those European Rothschilds managed to have an affair and father an illegitimate child in an anti-Semitic New England blue blood family.

(4) Is there a very distant family relationship? (That is, assuming Hallett's story is false?) Most Europeans are probably related at a 15th cousin level or thereabouts. Aside from that, there's no evidence in the genealogies of any family link at all, and highly unlikely that anything would turn up at the 4th cousin level, which is the most distant that anyone could hope to detect with DNA testing.

(5) Do Roosevelt, Churchill and Hitler share an intellectual zeitgeist? YES!! Roosevelt and Churchill were Freemasons, and Hitler apparently held occult beliefs that can be characterized as irregular Masonic.

(6) Were Roosevelt, Churchill and Hitler "oligarchs"? This is not as obvious as it seems. Personally, I think that they held crucial positions, but were far from omnipotent. All had to navigate cross-currents and maintain relationships with wealthy industrialists; bankers and financiers; religious leaders; and the mass media. Many would argue that they were merely pawns to those greater interests. I maintain that this is just another fuzzy set question.

(7) Could DNA testing reveal surprises? I suppose it's possible that all three would turn out to be Rothschild cousins. Or, that all the above genealogical information is complete fantasy, and that these individuals or their parents or grandparents were replaced in their cribs by imposters from completely different families. But given the facts as reported from reasonably reliable historical genealogies, I personally think this is grasping at straws.

If the Eloi theory is correct, I would expect that only Churchill is genetically "eloi" (or at least half eloi) in the sense that his descent through Randolph Churchill or Edward VII would make him part of the ancient and somewhat inbred European nobility; whereas it would be surprising (but not impossible) to find Hitler or Roosevelt to be somehow partly descended from that same inbred group.
Last edited:
I've been thinking about what Hallett said. Perhaps it might be possible to parse his statement "unbeknownst to Queen Victoria" to mean that she knew what she was doing was adultery, but not that it was incest -- as she had no way of knowing that a Rothschild was also her father.

I still don't understand where there is any scrap of evidence for Hallett's belief, or how he thinks that Victoria could have nine children with Rothschild (instead of Prince Albert) without anyone saying anything. He mentions that Prince Albert had what is known as a "PA piercing" which allegedly rendered him impotent, but this is absurd: folks who have such piercings today say that if anything, they enhance the pleasure of the sexual act. Not my idea of a good time, but to each their own.
Last edited:
Very interesting line of investigation, thanks for posting these essays.

My only comment is to mention a couple ideas I have seen from others on this topic:

First, author Morris Berman, whose books and blog I read occasionally, often responds to comments about elite criminality with the observation that, morally, the 1% are the 99%: the 99 are just less successful scumbags, but would trade places with the successful ones in an instant. From a broad "longue duree" historical perspective (as I understand Berman's view), the important thing is Western cultural narratives and mythology, worldview and guiding ideals, etc. Which are shared across the classes, if perhaps to a more or less refined degree.

Berman also responds to allegations of elite manipulation or social engineering with the observation that, while such may be true enough, metaphorically speaking it is not "rape" of the 99%, but "consensual sex": they are complicit in their own destruction, they embrace the toxic ideas and ideals that are fed them. Berman views the US as a "hustling" culture from top to bottom, and makes no excuses for anyone (except perhaps the small minority who read his works, whom he jokingly refers to as WAFers (a reference to his book "Why America Failed") and who are the only truly enlightened ones in a nation of trollfoons with their "heads rammed in rears.")

IMO this has some plausibility as a sociological long-view analysis. However, it's too blobby and vague to suit me, since the particulars here seem vital to really grasping how the world works.

Writer and researcher Miles W. Mathis OTOH does take an interest in the particulars of an anthropology of the elite. As I understand his basic theory, it is somewhat similar to your "upstart" model. In his view, there was a long run of aristocratic control, which finally was overthrown by the "financiers." I do not believe he views the financiers as a racial or ethnic class, but rather ideological and cultural. He bemoans this state of affairs, since in his view the aristocrats, while certainly flawed, supported "real art" and "real talent" as opposed to using culture for psy-ops and mass mind control (at least, in their modern form.) I may be distorting his view a little, but it's something like that. He gets more granular in some of his papers too, describing for instance the relation of Marx and his family to some of the aristocratic elites of the day. IIRC he suggests a certain amount of "merger" between the families of the two groups.
Hi TimR,

Great comments and food for thought.

Berman's general thesis, from what I gather from you, seems to resonate with what was expressed by such as Polybius and Cicero (see below) before the supposed time of Jesus of Nazareth. Of course, before the 'modern emancipation' of the serfs and the Jews in Europe perhaps we were always dealing in a vacuum of general ignorance by the general populace, at least. Where it was assumed, or preferred(?), or just part of the vector of general human societal advancement, that the common man must be kept slavishly busy producing titheable products for his respective 'lords' benefit. This idea, IMHO, seems somewhat belied by such as the modern pride of many 'modern' agrarian communities where they take (or took - in the case of Iowans for instance, now infected by anti-intellectual fundamentalsim) justified great pride in intellectual advancement. And as d'Toqueville (or was that Jefferson?), I think, suggested that it would take an informed public to make a democracy work in the long term, then who all is responsible for the dumbing down of such?

From Polybius, a 2nd century BCE Greek student of Roman institutions:
My own opinion at least is that the Romans have adopted this course of propagating religious awe for the sake of the common people. It is a course which perhaps would not have necessary had it been possible to form a state composed of wise men, but as every multitude is fickle, full of lawless desires, unreasoned passion, and violent anger, the multitude must be held by invisible terrors and such like pageantry. For this reason, I think, not that the ancients acted rashly and at haphazard in introducing among the people notions concerning the gods and beliefs in the terrors of hell, but that the moderns are most rash and foolish in banishing such beliefs. (6.56.9) from translation of W. R. Paton, LCL​

Another member here recently turned us on to Mathis, and maybe you have seen his theory about a trully shadow government of fake assassinated American elites (from his JFK analysis)? One might then see an elite motive for doing so in alignment with such as Cicero's feelings, where BTW, he expresses, like Plato, long before him the need for one master and ruler - god, who first was Augustus, and then the Flavians further veiled the 'divine' Caesars (and then the papacy) by using the fictive Jesus. With Mathis's shadow government then the people can go on with their wedge politics thinking they are running the show, but really our true leadership is pulling the strings behind a ghostly veil of Oz.

From Moses Hadas's Hellenistic Culture pp. 284,285:

If mos majorum conferred such authority on office-holders, it clothed law with a more definitely religious sanction. Republican Romans thought democracy of the Athenian type frivolity and never tired of praising the disciplined responsibility of Roman citizenship as against the individualistic and politically irresponsible Greeks. Cicero, for example, writes (Republic 1.53): "When equal honor is given to the highest and lowest--for men of both types must exist in every nation--then this very 'fairness' is most unfair; but this cannot happen in a state ruled by its upper class." But Cicero also provides the innate Roman reverence for law with a philosophic rationale which is more explicitly religious. When he speaks of the natural authority implicit in law, as he repeatedly does, he is plainly echoing Stoic theory. To the Stoics, it must be remembered, Zeus and nature are virtually interchangeable terms, and if the law carries the authority of nature its sanction is in effect religious. A passage like the following from the Republic (3.22) gives the position:

The law is right reason in agreement with nature, it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, though neither have any effect on the wicked. It is a sin to try alter this law, nor is it allowable to attempt to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed of its obligations by senate of people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is, god, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator and its enforcing judge.28​

Law, then, is universally binding, its source is deity, and transgression is sin. All that was left to do was to substitute Rome for the universe and make Augustus the authorized representative of deity, and this, as we have seen in the chapter preceding, is what Augustan propaganda actually did, by showing that the Romans were an elect and Augustus their divinely designated leader, by linking Rome and Augustus as objects of worship, and by making the Roman's highest duty service to the ideal of Rome.​

Elsewhere Hadas reveals a letter from Cicero to his brother discussing the merits of Epicurius points about the gods being fakeries, and then years later lying that he ever new anything about Epicurius.

One also has to remember that even Greek democracy was for the elites, just as the American one was intended, i.e. white males with sufficient property. Land is what the basis of aristocracy is. So nothing is said about the respective 'irresponsible' state of the hoi polloi like the Spartans enslaved Greek helots. The Spartans were widely admired even by the Jews, of which Hadas has much to say regarding the latter's role in our narratives.
Thanks for that perspective on Berman and Mathis. It's interesting to consider Roman parallels and precursors.

I have read that Mathis paper you mention, it's probably his most incredible sounding theory. I take a neutral position on it at this point, myself. I don't want to be misled by anything, but at the same time he always makes a strong case and I can't definitively say he's wrong. There certainly does seem to be a lot of suspicious photo manipulation going on, assuming he's taking them direct from official sources; but possibly there are other explanations than the ones he's come up with.
Hadas included all that in explaining how the fusion of the Greco-Roman and Judaic dialectic cultures became the man-made synthesis of what became Western civilization. He stated at the end of his preface that there would be 'some' who would not be happy with what he would be revealing. Fortunately for those 'some', the trollfoons are kept too obsessed with other distractions, 'bread and games' as the Romans had it.

I think that this may be the fly in Berman's thesis, if I understand it from you, in that the common man has not had too much of a chance to figure out what is always being done to him. And today it is probably even worse because most people feel they are part of the 'democratic' decision process, that is, that 'there is none so enslaved that believe that they are free'.

As for fake assassinations, I'm pretty sure Julius Caesar's was fake, and sardonically became the typological model for Jesus's earthly demise. He was joking with Brutus the night before (the Last Supper) about his immanent death, among numerous other things. And this all happened in a theater, as was the case with Lincoln. Did you read Mathis's take on Lincoln?
I agree, Berman's thesis does not seem water-tight w/r/t blaming the common man. Kind of bracing though in its sweeping damnation. Was it Freud who said about the US - "it was a mistake" ? That's Berman's view...

Yes, I've read most all of Mathis' non-science papers, all his history and pop culture stuff. Very informative, and again IIRC he used photo evidence to really seriously put in doubt the official Lincoln story.
Catching up on my reading:

The “Eloi” Model of Elite Genetics

This theory would claim that throughout history, the class of oligarchs (that is, the wealthy & powerful) are far more likely to have chosen their mates from among other wealthy & powerful people, rather than from the lower classes. Because of international politics, opportunities for travel, and cosmopolitan values, the wealthy and powerful are far more likely to choose their mates (or have mates chosen for them by their elders) among individuals from far distant locations, different religions, different cultures, or different languages, compared to low-class people with far more limited options. However, all of these mates chosen from all these different locations, regions and cultures would have one thing in common: that they would have been wealthy and powerful.

I came to that conclusion when researching my JFK book: A good example would be the seemingly strange alliance of Kathleen Kennedy (Roman Catholic daughter of Joe Kennedy Sr.) and William Cavendish, Marquess of Hartington (Anglican member of the British uber crust)- Of course they were allegedly dead soon after marrying, but I'm not buying- Those dead Kennedy's were fast tracked to breed off-line to solidify the Irish/American Catholic wing of the elite line up, a wing held back by British racism and pre-Civil War intrigues by Scottish Rite Freemasons and their pet project, Mormonism- When the dust settled and the Irish were allowed positions of influence within politics, police service, and labor unions (and organized crime), this clan, especially, was allowed access to power and wealth to control and maintain the integration of those willing collaborators- Bill Clinton (nominally Protestant), more so than JFK, is one primary end product of this process-

The cattle farmer and the sheep farmer have more in common with each other than with their respective herds-
Thanks CplCam, this is hilarious.

Ted Cruz won't engage in trading insults, even when called out on making death threats.

I especially liked the comment that said "Cruz certainly wouldn't pass a test for being humane."