return to updates

Isaac Newton

by Miles Mathis
First published May 2, 2020

The first part here is genealogy, but don't leave yet. If you can't abide genealogy, skip ahead, since
there is a lot beyond that. I hit the genealogy for a reason: we need to know where Newton came from
to understand the rest.

I used Tim Dowling's free pages at Geneanet for this one. The most important line in Newton's
ancestry is the Constable line, starting with his 4g-grandmother, d. 1512. [Yes, this links us to the
painter Constable.*] Her maternal grandmother was a le Despenser, which links us to the Earls of
Fleming and Earls de Warenne. Following them back we come to King David of Scotland, 1084,
continuing back to Malcolm of Scotland, and finally Finn in 249AD. But in another line we can go
back even further, to Mogh Lamha of Ireland, 110AD. Taking Newton's lines directly back, we also
hit Ethelred of England, Princess Elgiva of England, Ranulf of Poitiers, and Louis the Stammerer, King
843-879. That puts us in the French royal line, where we soon hit Charles the Bald, Judith Princess of
Bavaria, and Charlemagne. Yes, Charlemagne is in the direct line of Newton. We also hit Cerdic of
Wessex, who Tim Dowling takes directly back to Odin, in 215AD. Through him we go forward to
Gewar King of Norway 221AD, Skjold King of Denmark 237AD, St. Begga, Ostrogotha des Gepidae
500AD, Clotilde von Sachsen 581AD, Saint Arnulf, Adalbert of Italy 947, Alfonso de Castile 1155,
Archambaud de Bourbon 1189, King Louis Capet 1120, and Gilbert Baron de Lancaster 1089. Note
the Sachsen, way back in the 6th century. That is a variation of Saxe and Sachs, as in Goldman Sachs.

We also hit de Bruce 1190, de Lindsay 1172, Keith, and Lord Robert Stewart 1378. He links us to
Campbell, Stuart, Montgomery, and Erskine, the last taking us directly to James of Scotland 1512.
Other cousins of Newton in these lines include Douglas, Gordon, Grant, Mackenzie, Kennedy, Murray,
Graham, Basset, Montagu, Grey, Ferrers, Beauchamp, Constable, Wentworth, Howard, Hussey, and
Hervey.

Newton is also a FitzWilliam through his other great-grandmother, linking us to all the same families
once again.

Through the Gresley line, Newton is related to the Stanleys, Lathoms, Gerards, Pilkingtons,
Montgomeries, and Savages. Through these Stanleys, Newton was a contemporary cousin of the
Stanleys of Hartford, CT, related to the Scotts and Strongs. Through the Hilyards, Newton is a
Hastings, linking us to the de la Roches (think Rockefeller) and Beauclercs, including King Henry
Beauclerc 1102 and Henry II Plantagenet. Henry II is a step-grandfather of Newton, several centuries
removed, through Ida of Toeni. Newton is also a cousin of the Breretons, Harcourts, Russells, and
Bigods.

Through the Tyrwhitts, Newton is a cousin of the Clintons, de Burghs, and Kayes. Since Newton is
also a Blythe through his grandmother Margery, we have a curious possible link to Bill Clinton.
Remember Bill's alleged real name: William Blythe III.

In Newton's paternal line, we hit Daubeneys, Stourtons, Paynes, Vernons, Berkeleys, FitzGeralds,
Beaumonts, Grosvenors, D'Acres, Bassets, and FitzRoys. We even have women named Lettice, telling
us who we are dealing with. The Stourtons are one link to Geneanet sitemaster Tim Dowling, since
they are in his direct line. Tim Dowling's 16g-grandmother Alice Stourton is Isaac Newton's 5g-
grandmother, making them 6th cousins. The FitzRoys take us directly to King John and his wife Adela
Plantagenet. Through her, we hit the Warennes again, as well as the Douglases, linking us to all the
same people one more time. So Newton's paternal and maternal lines are linked going way back.
Eleanor of Aquitaine takes us back to Prince Robert of France, who links us not only to the Capets, but
to Charlemagne again. So Newton is descended from Charlemagne in both his paternal and maternal
lines.

So we have seen that Newton—whose ancestry Wikipedia and the other history sites completely ignore
—is actually descended from kings of England, France, Scotland, Ireland, Italy, Spain, and Bavaria.
He is a close cousin to all the top names in the peerage, including the Stuarts, Murrays, Stanleys,
Kennedys, Grahams, Lindsays, and Scotts. He is also directly descended from a god: Odin. That
always helps.

So if you thought Newton got where he did on genius alone. . . you would be wrong.

I have James Gleick's biography of Newton on my shelves, so I checked it for more information.
Unfortunately it is a complete wash. Gleick tells us Newton couldn't trace his ancestry past his
grandfather, which you see is a lie. He admits Newton was the Lord of a Manor, and his mother also
the daughter of a gentleman, but we get no more than that.

Finally, if we check thepeerage.com, we find Sir Isaac Newton listed, sure enough. So it is admitted by
some that he was a peer. The first thing we learn is that his famous birthplace in Woolsthorpe is not
actually his birthplace. That manor house, though large, was actually next door to an even larger
companion that was pulled down in 1798, called the Dower house. Both were owned by the Newtons,
with Newton's grandfather living in one and his grandmother living in the other. More to the point,
Lundy scrubs Newton's paternal grandmother and ends the line at his grandfather. According to
Dowling, she was Ann Wood, but no other information is forthcoming on her. Dowling does take the
Newtons back five more generations, to a Thomas of Somersetshire, b. 1441. Does Lundy at
thepeerage link us to any peers? No, since in the maternal line we find a similar scrubbing. The
Ayscough and Blythe lines end immediately. So Lundy admits Newton was a peer but won't tell us
anything else. Pretty strange. To learn more about the Newtons, we have to go to other pages. The
Newtons became baronets of the Wood in 1845, but the 1st Baronet is scrubbed after his grandfather.
Another became baronet in 1924, when he was Lord Mayor of London. He is scrubbed after his father.
Another Newton, Alfred, was Lord Mayor of London 25 years earlier, and he was also made a baronet.
Another, Sir Robert, became baronet of London in 1660, and that looks promising. . . except that we
are given no other information but the he married a Longston. Wiki tells us his daughter married a
Howard, which connects us to Isaac Newton, who was also a Howard (though way back). John
Newton became Baronet of Barrs Court in 1661, and Wiki gives the first three baronets as John. But
thepeerage scrubs the 1st Baronet, giving the father of the 2 nd as Thomas, not a baronet. That's strange.
Lundy may be trying to hide the fact that Isaac Newton is a cousin of these Baronets of Barrs Court,
but Wikipedia admits it. When Newton was knighted by Queen Anne in 1705, he submitted paperwork
showing he was a near cousin of these baronets, and modern genealogists have confirmed it. In fact,
the chief mourner at Newton's funeral in 1727 was the 4th Baronet, Sir Michael Newton.

And there was yet another Newton baronet in the 1600s, Sir Adam Newton, raised in 1620. He was
Dean of Durham College and lived at Charlton House, London. Charlton is a huge house built by
James I and then given immediately to Newton, who was tutor to his son Prince Henry. The house was
built for Henry, but he died within the year and so James passed the house on to Newton. Newton was
also Receiver-General under James (a sort of banker, accepting payments on behalf of the government).
He was basically the King's Treasurer, explaining his great wealth. Wikipedia also admits this Newton
was “associated with the Stuart royal family”. What does that mean? I take it to mean he was related
to them. We saw above that the Newtons were indeed related to the Stuarts, though with Isaac
Newton's scrubbed genealogy we had to go back many generations to prove it. Dowling scrubbed
Newton's lines so well that the best way to link Newton to the Stuarts is through Dowling himself.
Dowling is too vain to scrub that link. But since we know Dowling is a first cousin to the Stuarts and a
sixth cousin to Newton, the math isn't hard. This Adam Newton was probably a step or two closer to
the Stuarts than Isaac, explaining his preference. But as I am showing you, Newton's preference is
explained in the same way. Seven steps away from the Stuart royal line is not much.

Before we move on, there is another story about this Sir Adam Newton. He appears to have been in
Intelligence from early in life, since he was assigned to France as a spy in his 20s. He pretended to be a
priest and taught for a time at a college in Poitou. While there he “taught” the Huguenot theologian
Andre Rivet. Since the Huguenots are (often) Jewish fronts, you begin to see the picture. Rivet was
also probably a fake. He was chaplain of Henry, Duke of La Tremoille, so it is informative to find
Rivet claiming to be a Huguenot. The Dukes were heavily involved in the religious wars of that time,
though they weren't what we have been sold. Henry's father Claude had converted to Huguenot just
before the wars, which looks mighty suspicious. It is almost as suspicious as the Queen of Navarre's
conversion to Calvinism in 1560. All these people were crypto-Jewish, having no real interest in either
Catholicism or Calvinism, so when you see them embracing one or the other, you should dig deeper.
Remember, the religious wars started in earnest when the Queen of Navarre's son became Henry IV,
King of France, and for some reason decided to push the religion of his mother upon the entire country.
No one ever asks why he would do such a fool thing, but given what we now know, we can make an
educated guess: to foment wars on purpose, for profit. That is what these people do, you know. The
tocsin of these wars was the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, now admitted to have been instigated by
then Queen Mother Catherine de' Medicis. . . who I have shown was a crypto-Jew. Again, we get the
usual numerology markers, since the first paragraph on the Wiki page for the massacre has the date
August 18, 8/18, aces and eights, Chai. That was the wedding day of the King's sister to Henry III of
Navarre (later Henry IV of France). The massacre took place a couple of days later, on the feast day
of St. Bartholomew. Bartholomew was allegedly martyred for converting the King of Armenia to
Christianity. . . though that story is also fiction. But it is fiction for the same basic reason: to
manufacture schisms and thereby religious wars. These wars generate fantastic profit while hiding the
real battles for supremacy among the top Phoenician families.

We are told this marriage to Henry of Navarre was a big problem, but if the royal family had really
been against it they would have simply forbidden it. Princess Margaret of Valois didn't have to marry
Henry, and since it happened we may assume the Medicis wanted it to happen. The Medicis later
married Henry to one of their own, Marie de' Medicis, actually going so far as to annul Henry's
previous marriage to the Princess. So they never had any problem with Henry. He was obviously their
tool all along, which means his mother was their tool as well. Which means the Huguenot thing was
manufactured from the ground up by the Medicis, both as opposition control and as a wedge.

Anyway, the massacre of 1572—to the extent it actually happened—was not about Catholic v.
Protestant. It was about manufacturing division, and even more about stealing the assets of prominent
aristocrats targeted by the Medicis. Coligny was the main target, and he was killed (or relocated) not
for being Protestant but for being anti-Medici. The Medicis used the event to not only get rid of their
opposition, but to steal the wealth of any aristocrat who had resisted them. The Medicis, who wrote all
this history, have tried to point the finger at the Guises, but the Medicis were playing the Guises all
along. This wasn't a war of Guise against Bourbon, it was a war of the Medicis against both, but as
usual running the play from behind the scenes like spiders strumming a web. But that still deserves a
paper of its own. For now, I simply remind you that the Huguenots were like the Marxists of their
time, being either dupes or fronts for the fascists. As now, the real battle wasn't between Catholics and
Protestants, but between various factions of the Phoenician Navy. These were very old Jewish lines
battling for control of countries and their treasuries. Seeing Adam Newton involved in this as an
accomplice of the Dukes of la Tremoille is informative, since it allows us to see how the Stuarts had
their hand in the religious wars in France. Adam Newton was an agent of the Stuarts, who look to be
allies of the Tremoilles, who may have been cloaked enemies of the Medicis. It is difficult to unwind,
but an important clue is that the Tremoilles, including this Duke, claimed the title of King of Jerusalem
through the line of Cyprus. Being descendants of Frederick IV of Naples, they claimed the title
through a second line, via Brienne and John Casimir of Poland. So we may be witnessing a submerged
battle between the Medicis and Jagiellons, going back many centuries. In other words, northern and
southern lines of the Phoenicians battling for supremacy in France, with Spanish and English lines also
taking sides. The Medicis have no overt claim to the King of Jerusalem, that I know of, but they may
have married into the Bourbon line, using Henry, specifically to get it. The Bourbons did claim it, and
still do. The present King of Spain, Felipe VI, calls himself King of Jerusalem. So it appears the
Medicis captured the Bourbon line at this time to lay claim to the King of Jerusalem title, with
the Huguenot wars as cover. This is confirmed by the fact that historians are still hiding this almost
400 years later. The Medicis are not mentioned once on the page for King of Jerusalem.

But let's move on. We are told Newton entered Trinity College, Cambridge, as a sizar, that is to say a
scholarship student not from the gentleman class, but I find that pretty difficult to believe. Possibly this
was due to the death of his father, but I have found a lot of evidence Newton wasn't the son of a
tradesman or yeoman—as most of the other sizars allegedly were. More important is that he was at
Trinity, always a spook college. Unlike with most others, I am not going to argue Newton was only a
spook. No, in addition to being a real scientist, he was also a spook.
One of the first spooky things we find is that we have no real proof Newton graduated from Trinity in
January, 1665. The ordo senioritis is normally published, which tells us the candidates for the year in
each school and their order of graduation; but the relevant pages in the Grace Book for that year are
mysteriously missing. It is also known that Cambridge was dismissed in 1665 and 1666 due to the
Great Plague, so it is curious to be told Newton graduated that year. Also strange is that at Wikipedia,
we are told

Newton must have must have left college before August 1665 [according to whom?], as his name does not
appear in the list of those who received extra commons on that occasion, and he tells us himself in the
extract from his commonplace book already quoted that he was "forced from Cambridge by the plague"
in the summer of that year.

But if he graduated in January, 1665, and didn't receive a fellowship until October, 1667, then what
was he doing at Cambridge in summer of 1665? The fact that he was there in summer, 1665, implies to
me he didn't graduate in January. And if classes were dismissed during that summer, that implies he
was dismissed before getting a degree. Regardless, it is strange to see Newton elected as a fellow
immediately after obtaining a Bachelors. We are led (by omission) to believe Newton was a stellar
student, but there is actually no evidence of that. Just the opposite. His bio admits he was a poor
student up to that time; and even after his fellowship, he continued to do strange things. A few weeks
after his election to fellow in October 1667, he left Cambridge and went to Lincolnshire, not returning
for four months. This after having a forced vacation of over two years due to the plague. Just so you
know, fellows are normally expected to teach, so I don't understand how he was allowed to fly the coop
for four months.

We are told he received his Masters in March of 1668, but at that point he had been back at Cambridge
for only a couple of weeks. I will be told he worked on his Masters in private during the plague, which
is certainly possible, but we are given no idea how that worked. Colleges don't normally award degrees
for private study, since it makes the college system look superfluous.

Even the editors at Wikipedia are unimpressed by the history being sold here, since they have littered
their own pages with “citation needed” and “according to whom?” These pages are very poorly written
and sourced, which—considering their subject—is very surprising. Do you think there haven't been
any books about Newton they can quote?

The strangeness continues, since in 1669 Newton wrote his paper On Analysis by Infinite Series.
Neither Cambridge Press nor the Royal Society were impressed with it, rejecting it for publication [it
wasn't published until 32 years later by William Jones], but for some reason it was promoted by John
Collins, “mathematical intelligencer”. Intelligencer can mean “someone who spreads news”, but it can
also mean intelligence agent or spy. At this distance in time, you would expect they would just call
Collins a “private scientist” or something, since there is no need to create intrigue. But they
conspicuously tell you Collins was an intelligencer, even italicizing it in case you missed it. I see this
as a clue. And indeed, any study of Collins throws up the usual red flags. Although he was only a
teenage bookseller's apprentice in 1642, he was hired by the Prince of Wales' clerk to do. . . what? We
aren't told. He spent some time as a sailor working for the Venetians, our next red flag. Later he
wrote some treatises on navigation, including the use of quadrants, for the East India Company.
Somehow, he was elected to the Royal Society in 1667, less than two years before promoting Newton.
This is strange because he had done nothing to merit such election at that point. Nonetheless, within
about two weeks, on November 11, 11/11, he had already presented a theorem to the Society by the
Jesuit Jacques de Billy.
Anyway, we are told that Newton gave the paper to his department head Isaac Barrow, and Barrow
gave it to Collins with no name on it. Only after Collins expressed interest did Barrow admit it was by
Newton. This makes no sense: the cloak and dagger is unnecessary. We are led to believe this paper
was Newton's springboard to take over Barrow's position as Lucasian professor at age 25, but again it
makes no sense. Barrow himself was only 38, so why would he give up his chair to a 25-year-old
Newton? And Newton couldn't just be given the chair by Barrow: he would have to be elected to it.
Why would he be elected to this prestigious chair at age 25 based on a paper Cambridge had rejected
for publication? As you are seeing, this entire history looks manufactured. It looks even more
manufactured when you realize how many years Newton was Lucasian professor: 33. He was the
second recipient of that honor, and Barrow, the first, had only occupied the chair for six years.

The position had been created in 1663 by politician Henry Lucas, MP. Lucas had been secretary to
Henry Rich, the Earl Holland. Holland was of course the son of Robert Rich, Earl of Warwick, and
Penelope Devereux, who we have seen before. These Riches were previously Reichs of Germany,
crypto-Jewish bankers and thugs brought over to England by Henry VIII to help him loot the
monasteries. So we find more red flags everywhere we look. The Lucasian professorship was
officially established by Charles II on January 18, 1664. Yes, that is 1/18, aces and eights, Chai.

Isaac Barrow was also Jewish, of course, being the son of a linen draper. Meaning, his father was a
wealthy and influential linen merchant, probably connected to the East India Company. Barrow's half-
brother ended up in Barbados, which confirms this. Isaac Barrow went to Trinity College with the
support of Sir Edward Walpole, father of Robert Walpole. Walpoles' father-in-law Edward Barkham
was Lord Mayor of London in 1621, and had previously been Master of the Worshipful Company of
Leathersellers. In 1622 he became Master of the Worshipful Company of Drapers. So there is your
connection between Barrow and the East India Company. Walpole's brother-in-law became the 1st
Baronet Barkham, of Kings College, Cambridge.

These Barkhams were closely related to the Garrard baronets, and this links us back to Newton.
Newton was a Gerard, and Gerard=Garrard. That tells us that Barrow and Newton were related. The
Barrows also later become baronets (after 1784), but in the time of Newton they were marrying into the
Knight and Pope families. Thepeerage.com scrubs the Barrows before that, but Geni tells us something
interesting. Isaac Barrow's father came over to Virginia in 1654, again probably as part of the East
India Company. He remained there the rest of his life. Isaac lived with his grandfather, who owned
Spinney Abbey, Wales. This was a Benedictine monastery stolen in 1538 by Henry VIII and given to
Sir Edward North in 1545. Oliver Cromwell's son Henry lived there at the time of our story, up to
1674. In the 1620s Spinney Abbey was owned by Sir Edward Peyton, 2 nd Baronet. Barrow was there
in the 1630s.

So how and why did this Abbey get passed around so much in the 1600s? Well, the clue is Peyton's
grandmother, Elizabeth Rich, daughter of Richard Rich, 1 st Baron of Rochford Hall and Leigh's Priory.
He is the Rich who actually stole the monasteries for Henry VIII, later being the Lord Chancellor of
Henry's son Edward VI. So Peyton got the Abbey because he was a Rich. And Barrow? How did he
get it? He must have been a Rich as well.

Which of course explains why a Rich's secretary, Henry Lucas, created the Lucasian professorship. He
created it just so he could give it to a Barrow, who was a relative. Barrow was then instructed to step
aside for an even higher ranking relative—Isaac Newton. You see how this all begins to come
together.
Just so you know, I am now shaking my head and saying outloud, “I never expected this!” I came into
this expecting only to do Newton's genealogy, but as usual this is digging itself into another rabbit's
hole.

Here is what they want you to think Newton looked like:

They lead with that portrait in most places, including Wikipedia and Geneanet. But there is a big
problem. The artist is given as Godfrey Kneller, but it isn't in his style. Compare it to his self-portrait
from four years earlier.
I knew the portrait of Newton was a fake at first glance, since it not only doesn't match Kneller's style,
it doesn't match the style of the time. Plus, it is garbage, and was obviously painted in the 20 th century,
after people forgot how to paint portraits. It is the work of a poor amateur, with the brushwork being
exceedingly clumsy. I guess they want us to think Newton was blond, or maybe prematurely gray, but
here is how he really looked young and old:

Dark hair, long nose, small mouth, heavy-lidded eyes. I see some resemblance to the Fiennes brothers
in the first, especially Ralph. Not surprising, since they are related. We will see a Fiennes below.

Next, the historians admit no one came to Newton's lectures in the early years. So we are supposed to
believe that this 26-year-old phenom, Lucasian professor, promoted by intelligencers and the East India
Company, generated no interest from actual students? Something doesn't add up there. He either had
atrocious body odor or the history has been finessed.
On January 11, 1672, he was elected to the Royal Society. Yes, that was 1/11. He was only 29, and
was elected based on his reflecting telescope, which we are told he invented. But, as with others we
have studied (see Ben Franklin and Buckminster Fuller), the history is again finessed. We are taught
that Newton invented the reflecting telescope, but that isn't true. Niccolo Zucchi built the first
reflecting telescope in 1616, 55 years earlier. It didn't work well, due to the reflecting material chosen,
but the design was already in place. Mersenne designed a reflecting telescope in 1636 based on the
work of Descartes from 1634, Traite du monde ou de la lumiere, which set out the aspheric properties
of the necessary paraboloid mirror. Wikipedia doesn't even mention this on Mersenne's page. In the
1660s, James Gregory, preceding Newton, updated Mersenne's designs in several major ways, and even
made a serious attempt to build it. But his technicians were not up to the task. We are told Newton
solved this problem with a 45-degree mirror reflecting the image to an eyepiece to the side, but he also
borrowed that idea from Zucchi. So Newton didn't actually invent much of anything. He simply had
access to better technicians. He used the plans of Descartes and Mersenne to update Zucchi's design,
and found someone to build it. We are told Newton built it himself, but they admit that the telescope
demonstrated at the Royal Academy was not the one Newton built. It was a “duplicate” of better
quality, so we may assume Newton or his overseers hired professionals to “duplicate” it.

In defense, I will be told that Newton's theory of prism refraction allowed him to explain chromatic
aberration, and to thereby invent the achromatic objective. But just the opposite is true. Newton
thought that refraction and chromatic dispersion were explained by the same linear function, and he
attacked anyone that claimed otherwise, actually preventing the solution to that problem for over half a
century.

Newton also sat on the advances proposed by Cassegrain just a year later, pooh-poohing his hyperbolic
secondary as unbuildable, while missing (or burying) the great telephoto advantages of the design. But
in fact the Cassegrain design was much more important, and it is now used in optical and radio
telescopes. For this reason, Newton's oversimplified prototype was actually a disaster in the early
history of telescopy, impeding design and manufacture of Cassegrains for many years. Most people
don't know that Newton's telescope—whether his lost original or the duplicate—was made with a
spherical mirror, not a paraboloid. It was eight inches long. So it was almost as naive as Zucchi's old
telescope.

As I was reading the page on Newton's youth at Wikipedia, I also noted that every communication
from him seems to be dated with some variation of Chai. For instance, they quote from his letter of
January 18, 1672, to the Royal Society. A few paragraphs later they quote from his November 18,
1676, to Oldenburg. Further down the page, we find Oldenburg reading a letter to the Royal Society on
January 11, 1672. Didn't Newton or his pals ever write letters on days that weren't aces and eights?

None of this bodes well for our upcoming assessment of Newton's quarrels with Hooke, Leibniz, and
others. We have already seen that Newton was promoted from the beginning by some very
unscrupulous people, and finding the Riches and Walpoles at the back of this is the worst possible red
flag. This bad feeling is confirmed by any study of Newton and Hooke. It is admitted that as head of
the Royal Society, Newton used his position to bury Hooke, going so far as to destroy his portrait and
hide his papers. Hooke's papers at the Royal Society “disappeared” under the tenure of Newton, and
weren't discovered until 2005!** Hooke's Diary wasn't published until 1935! Given that, we may
assume that Hooke's first biographer Richard Waller had been instructed to blackwash Hooke to favor
Newton. Many other authors followed suit, including Berry, Sullivan, Manuel, More, and Andrade.
Not until Gunther and Espinasse's research in the early 20 th century was Hooke partially rehabilitated
from centuries of slander and abuse at the behest of Newton's agents. But by then it was too late:
Newtonolatry had been set in stone for over two centuries. History had been written by the Phoenician
Navy, and no one had the inclination to rewrite it.

We are told Newton discovered the inverse square law, but that, too, is false. Newton himself admits it
isn't true, since he gives explicit credit to not only Hooke, but also Wren and Halley (see Principia,
Book 1, Scolium to Proposition 4). We are told that it is his mathematical analysis of this problem that
Newton is famous for, which is true in a way. But it worth pointing out that the Principia actually
contains almost no math, at least in the form of number equations. These sections contain none. I
know since I have already pulled them apart in detail in previous papers. This is precisely the section
that a=v2/r comes from, and I have shown his math is actually riddled with basic errors. Newton also
gives credit to Huygens in this section for the idea that gravity is like the centrifugal force of revolving
bodies (like those swung by a string). Wrong again, though the idea persists up to the present time. All
celestial bodies are in a dual (unified) field that includes charge, so the analogy does not hold. I have
shown that the orbit cannot be described as a compound of the centrifugal force and a tangential
velocity, so it really doesn't matter who Newton credits or does not credit. They were all wrong.

Besides, the analysis Newton does in these sections is mostly a copyjob of Kepler's earlier writings on
the orbit, and Wiki even admits that. We are told there that Newton's addition to the problem was
universalizing the treatment, treating the Moon's orbit around the Earth like the Earth's around the Sun,
and so on. But do you really think no one had ever thought of that before? Kepler wasn't capable of
making that simple analogy? In fact, he already had, explicitly, in Epitome Astronomiae Copernicanae
[1621].

Here is the sort of misdirection we find at Wikipedia on this subject today:

In January 1684, Sir Christopher Wren, Halley and Hooke were led to discuss the law of
gravity, and although they probably all agreed[according to whom?] on the truth of the
inverse square law, yet this truth was not looked upon as established. It appears[ according to
whom?] that Hooke professed to have a solution of the problem of the path of a body moving
around a centre of force attracting as the inverse square of the distance, but Halley declared
after a delay of some months that Hooke "had not been so good as his word" in showing his
solution to Wren and started for Cambridge, in August 1684, to consult Newton on the subject.
Without mentioning the speculations which had been made, he asked Newton what would be
the curve described by a planet around the Sun on the assumption that the Sun's force
diminished as the square of the distance. Newton replied promptly, "an ellipse", and on being
questioned by Halley as to the reason for his answer he replied, "Why, I have calculated it."

No, Kepler had already calculated it decades earlier [Astronomia Nova, 1609], and they just admitted
that a few paragraphs before. Are we really expected to believe Wren didn't know that? It is amazing
to witness this kind of lying salesmanship 336 years after the fact. What most people don't know is that
Newton even stole his title Principia from Kepler, who had given his Epitome the subtitle Principia
Doctrinae.

By the way, although it can be shown Newton borrowed heavily from Kepler, Kepler was also a Jewish
spook. His mother was a Guldenmann (Goldman), known to be a witch (spy). His father was a
mercenery (spy) and his grandfather had been Lord Mayor. Kepler was a member of the Lincean
Academy, or the academy of the Lynx. But we will have to do him another time.
Yes, Newton's analysis and synthesis was perhaps a necessary step in the history of this problem, but
Newton's style—and even more the levels of his promotion—was another disaster, since his authority
and fame prevented a fresh look until I hit the question about 20 years ago. Only Einstein—also of the
Families—was allowed to tinker with these equations, and even Einstein was only allowed to add time
separations. Neither Einstein nor anyone else ever pulled Newton's assumptions apart like a watch and
put it back together in more logical order. We are now seeing why: Newton was a ranking Phoenician,
and therefore was above reproach. You were simply not allowed to analyze him. Doing so was (and
still is) professional suicide.

Does this mean Newton was a fraud? No. Unlike current theorists, he was a very smart guy who did a
lot of real work in his field. But the example of his promotion has persisted up to the present day, only
getting worse. His descendants are promoted at even greater levels, but with them the promotion is all
that exists. Back of the promotion is only an empty room with lights blinking on and off, like a modern
art exhibit.

Wikipedia has an entire subsection devoted to “Newton's poverty”. You have to laugh. All they do is
tell us Newton's dues to the Royal Society were forgiven, but show no evidence this was because of his
poverty. In fact, they show evidence to the contrary, since they admit he donated £40 to the building of
the new library at Trinity at that time—a considerable sum. Even without reading beyond the gloss
here, we can tell that Newton's dues were ended not from his poverty, but because he was special. He
probably thought they should be paying him, and likely they were. We see the same thing in a similar
line, when at the same time he received a patent from the Crown, waiving his requirement to take holy
orders as part of his fellowship agreement. Again, he was special, even more special than the other
special people at Trinity. Newton no doubt balked at this requirement he pretend to be Christian, much
less holy, so they let him slide.

As for the calculus controversy, the Newton bias exists to this day in almost all accounts in the English
language, including the one at Wikipedia. From the extensive review there, it is impossible to find any
firm evidence, which is evidence itself of a cover-up. However, we do find this admission:

In any event, a bias favoring Newton tainted the whole affair from the outset. The Royal
Society set up a committee to pronounce on the priority dispute, in response to a letter it had
received from Leibniz. That committee never asked Leibniz to give his version of the events.
The report of the committee, fnding in favor of Newton, was written and published as
"Commercium Epistolicum" (mentioned above) by Newton early in 1713. But Leibniz did not
see it until the autumn of 1714.

That admission, by itself, is fatal to the Newton side. The committee never asked for any testimony
from Leibniz, which of course means its finding was worthless. Even worse, Newton wrote the finding
in favor of himself! And he didn't think that was a case of conflict of interest? As I am showing you,
Newton was special. The rules didn't apply to him, including any basic judiciary rules. Bernoulli said
as much in his letter, though he later denied writing it when pressed by Newton. Which just proves the
point: Newton was so special Bernoulli was afraid to tell the truth—that Newton was special.

I could wade more deeply into this controversy, and my guess is I would find in favor of Leibniz. But
it isn't really worth it, considering what I have proved about the calculus. The notation of both men
was a disaster. More than that, their basic assumptions about how the calculus worked were dead
wrong. Solving with decreasing differentials was unnecessary, unwieldy, and so confusing it cold-
cocked all mathematical analysis for 350 years, up to the present time. This should have been solved
as I solved it: with an updated version of the calculus of finite differences, using a constant differential
of one. If that had been done, history could have avoided any number of meltdowns, including
renormalization, borrowing from the vacuum, virtual particles, and many more. A large part of the
mania in physics and math in the past few centuries, peaking in the 20 th, was caused by this daffy
“infinitesimal” calculus, since it drove everyone mad. In their madness they could no longer see the
possibility of a cleaner solution, a simpler notation, and a more intuitive grounding.

Now let us look at the claim that the Principia is full of Newton's calculus. At Wikipedia, we find:

His work extensively uses calculus in geometric form based on limiting values of the ratios of
vanishingly small quantities: in the Principia itself, Newton gave demonstration of this under
the name of "the method of frst and last ratios"[25] and explained why he put his expositions
in this form,[26] remarking also that "hereby the same thing is performed as by the method
of indivisibles."[27]
Because of this, the Principia has been called "a book dense with the theory and application of
the infnitesimal calculus" in modern times[28] and in Newton's time "nearly all of it is of
this calculus."[29] His use of methods involving "one or more orders of the infnitesimally
small" is present in his De motu corporum in gyrum of 1684[30] and in his papers on motion
"during the two decades preceding 1684".[31]

Those footnotes go to Putnam, Truesdell, L'Hospital, and Whiteside. But L'Hospital and the rest must
have read a different book than I did, since I found almost no calculus in it. Calculus is a math of rate
of change, not just of vanishing quantities. In most instances, Newton's use of vanishing quantities is
just a trick, and doesn't even work. For example, I have pulled apart his early lemmae, including
lemmae VI, VII, and VIII. In them, Newton has his lengths approach zero, yes, but that isn't calculus.
He pushes them to zero only to claim they are therefore equal, which isn't even true. He says the
ultimate ratio of arc, chord, and tangent is equality, which is not only absurd, it doesn't even allow for a
solution. If they are equal, no ratios can be calculated and no equations come by. Only if they are
unequal can solutions be found. Besides, if anything vanishes, time also vanishes, and you can't find a
derivative at a zero time interval or a zero length interval. The derivative has to be found at a real, non-
zero, interval, as I have shown, so having things vanish in a physical treatise is just a magic act. It
should never have been accepted for even a moment.

We are told, “Newton had been reluctant to publish his calculus because he feared controversy and
criticism”. But does that sound believable to you? This guy who was promoted by the masters of the
universe was worried about critics? This guy who has been sold as the smartest man in history didn't
think he could answer criticism? In hindsight, we can see what he feared most was ridicule from
someone like me, who could see through him. He obviously knew his method was slipshod in the
extreme, and so he kept it hidden as much as possible until later in life, when he had the power to
simply crush anyone who made a peep. The infinitesimal calculus has existed in that form ever since,
you know, and still exists only because the powerful crush anyone who looks closely at it. Not to
mince words, it is garbage and always been, in both Newton and Leibniz forms. Both its proofs and its
daily use are heavily fudged, and I have shown that most working physicists are so confused by it they
use it upside down about half the time. As with relativity, they can't even figure out how to apply it to
most real problems. This would all be solved if they started using my calculus instead.

We are told that Newton made “substantial contributions” to the theory of finite differences, but that is
pretty hard to believe. If he had had any clarity about finite differences, he would have realized his
infinite calculus resolved to it, and thrown the latter in the trash.

We are told that Newton is generally credited with the generalized binomial theorem, but that is again
a fudge. It is like the claim that Bucky Fuller invented the geodesic dome (when it was really invented
by Bauersfeld decades earlier). All you have to do is go to the Wiki page for binomial theorem, where
they admit it appears in Euclid in the 4th c. BC. Halayudha knew about Pascal's triangle in the 10 th c.,
and Bhaskara expressed it as a quotient in the 12 th c. Al-Karaji proved proved both the binomial
theorem and Pascal's triangle in the 10th c. But Indians and Persians don't count, you know.

As for Newton's Identities, they now put it this way:

These identities were found by Isaac Newton around 1666, apparently in ignorance of earlier
work (1629) by Albert Girard.

Apparently? As I say, you have to laugh. Do you really think Isaac Newton, who was a
Gerard/Garrard himself, didn't know about Albert Girard? Only recently have they begun to call them
Girard-Newton Identities, though no one in English speaking countries does so, of course. See Girard's
page at English Wiki. It is about ten sentences long.

What about the Newton Method? All you have to do is go to the page for that, where they admit the
method had been known since ancient times, as the Babylonian method. In around 1400 the Iranian
Al-Kashi had refined the method, and Vieta used the same method before 1600. But I guess Newton
“apparently” didn't know about Vieta, although Vieta was a world-famous fellow noble and privy
councillor to Henry IV of France. Descartes had already promoted and republished Vieta, but I guess
Newton “apparently” didn't know that either. Furthermore, Newton applied his method to polynomials
only and made no connection to his calculus (which is exceedingly odd). Even in this stripped-down
form, Newton was again beaten to the punch by Joseph Raphson, who published it 46 years before
Newton. His method is far simpler than Newton's and is the one that has always been used. Which is
why some now call it the Newton-Raphson method. At least they admit Raphson was Jewish.

What about the gravitational equation? F ~ Mm/R 2. Again, Newton was only a collector and
synthesizer, since all parts of the gravitational equation were known before him. The inverse square
law was known by Galileo and before him by Albert of Saxony [about 1380]. That gravity was a
function of mass goes back even further, since the Persians knew this in the 11 th century. It was also
known that the equation was only a proportionality, since it didn't give the correct force or weight
without a constant. Newton attempted to calculate the constant G, but didn't have much luck. His
calculations were no better than those before him. In about 1645 Grimaldi and Riccioli had calculated
G using pendulum swings.

As far as the cause of gravity goes, most people don't know that both Hooke and Newton proposed
aether theories. Hooke proposed that bodies were emitting waves in the aether, and Newton proposed
that aether streams attract bodies to one another. Newton thought that the aether was less dense near
matter, which is of course upside-down to the truth. Duillier, Le Sage, Bernoulli, Euler and even
Lorentz proposed similar theories, with Lorentz using the EM field as his aether. We now know that
was a step in the right direction. He needed charge, not EM, but he was on the right track. Given that,
it is amazing the amount of effort expended in the 20th century burying those facts of history. No one is
ever taught that Newton, Euler, or Lorentz proposed an aether. Anyone who now as much as whispers
the word aether is pounced upon as a rube and crackpot. Any mechanical theory of gravity is treated
like a theory of unicorns.
Why? Wiki tells us it is because “most” mechanical theories led to unobserved drag or to lack of
conservation of energy. However, all historical theories of gravity have led to non-conservation of
energy, since the force seems to come from nowhere. Has the current mainstream given us any theory
of gravity that explains where the force comes from? Of course not. We have been existing with NO
THEORY for hundreds of years. . . just a big hole. So why forbid work on the subject? I can only
suppose it is to prevent any competition for the ridiculous quantum gravity theories which are allowed,
but only from top theorists who happen to be from the families. Since they admit these theories are not
mechanical—being no more than flights of fancy—it is no wonder they can't countenance any
competition from real theories.

Since the time of Newton, the standing and default theory of gravity has been his hypothesis non fingo.
In other words, “we supply only the equations and don't ask the cause”. This fallback position has also
been a disaster in the history of physics, since it seemed to give prestige to a refusal to theorize. In the
20th century this refusal to theorize was taken even further, and most theorists not only refused to
theorize, they refused to allow anyone else to theorize. Mechanical theorizing in all subfields was
forbidden. Those such as Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, and Feynman, ridiculed mechanical, visual, or
physical theories as being somehow backward or otherwise uncool. Yes, physical theories were
forbidden in physics. That attitude remains up to the present time, when graduate students in many
subfields are strongly warned not to question and not to theorize. They are expected to learn the
equations and parrot them, no more and no less.

As far as drag goes, I have shown how using the charge field solves this problem. One, they know
there is unaccounted drag in the field equations—that is what is causing the galactic rotation problem,
which only I have solved. Two, since photons are so small, this drag doesn't come up in most
problems, explaining why it wasn't seen before the 20th century. Three, since photons recycle through
matter, this drag is again negated in most terrestrial situations. Four, I have shown the amount of drag
can be easily calculated straight from the photon density, using simple mainstream numbers, proving
not only the existence of charge drag, but its size.

What about Newton's three laws of motion? Well, Newton himself gave credit to Galileo for the first
two. He admits he has only “laid down such principles as have been received by mathematicians”.
The second law is a restatement of Galileo, and like Galileo, Newton makes no mention of
acceleration. Both men use the word “motion”, not velocity or acceleration. So it is not clear from the
law itself how compounded motions are compounded. Newton does not provide the equation F=ma,
since he also does not mention mass in that law. The third law was also know by many before him,
including Leonardo.

OK, let's now look beyond Newton's physics and math. In 1689, at age 46, Newton became MP for
Cambridge, a post he held for 12 years. We are told he did nothing in Parliamnet but complain of the
cold, but that is highly unlikely. More likely is that his various projects have been suppressed. We
know he began working in religious disputation in these years, which now looks to me like a project to
damage Christianity. We know he was an Arian, which is strange enough: why would a physicist—
especially one who refused to take holy orders—go out of his way to deny the Trinity? And he was at
Trinity College, remember? Just 150 years earlier, John Calvin had (allegedly) been burning alive
Arians. So why would Newton wish to get involved in that?

Which demands a divertissement. Miguel Serveto, the one allegedly burned by Calvin, was another
spook from a noble family, so the event was probably another hoax. Arianism looks to me like another
invented schism. In support of that, they now admit that Serveto was a Zaportas through his mother,
making him a wealthy crypto-Jew. The Servetos called themselves Reves, which we are told is a
nickname. Very strange, but we can link this to Keanu Reeves, who I showed was descended from
Marranos of this area and time. At age 21, Serveto was already working for the Holy Roman Emperor
Charles V, as secretary to his confessor Juan de Quintana. Quintana had known Serveto as a boy, so
they may have been lovers. In their service to Charles, Serveto and Quintana were inquisitors, and
Quintana had taken part in suppressing the Alumbrados and the Moriscos for heresy. So it is very
suspicious to see Serveto later being burned for heresy. We are told Serveto left the service of
Quintana and Charles after only a year, and immediately began publishing against the Trinity. At age
22 he published On the Errors of the Trinity. Really? After just leaving the service of the inquisitor?
Does that make any sense? Or do you think that maybe he was on assignment? How else could he find
a publisher for that? Servetus later became personal physician to the Archbishop of Vienne, but I guess
we are supposed to believe this Archbishop couldn't read. He didn't realize he had hired a heretic. At
that time, Serveto and Calvin became friends. Calvin eventually discovered Serveto's anti-
Trinitarianism and broke with him, but Serveto wasn't accused until about six years later. . . by a rich
merchant in Geneva named Guillaume de Trie.

Surely you are smelling smoke by now. The de Tries were an ancient family of Jewish merchants with
strong ties to Palestine. They were descended directly from Charlemagne. They were Counts of
Dammartin, related to the Bourbons, so de Trie was a cousin of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, who
was also a Bourbon. This indicates that Serveto was still under contract to these people, and that this
entire event was manufactured. Calvin was part of the hoax, since he was also related to all these
people. Among the other Counts of Dammartin was Manasses Calvus, of the house of Montdidier. He
was the first count. The Calvins had been involved in this stuff for centuries: John's father Gerard had
himself been excommunicated for heresy, though we may assume that was another fake.

That's John Calvin, or Jehan Cauvin. His face tells you everything. No genealogy is available for him
and his bio is mist. According to the pages at Wiki, he began studying law at age 16 and was a lawyer
by age 23. Somehow, in the next year (1533) he was a friend of the rector of the College Royal,
Nicolas Cop. The College had just been founded three years earlier by King Francis I, a big supporter
of religious schisms, since they allowed him move easily against his enemies. Cop's father was
Francis' personal physician, just so you know. So Cop was obviously an agent of the King.

On All Saints Day, November 1, 1533, Nicolas Cop as rector delivered his inaugural address,
in which he revealed himself as being in sympathy with Luther.

That doesn't seem suspicious to you? That the King would install a new rector, who immediately
delivered a heretical speech? And this same King would later allegedly burn many heretics? Just two
days later, Cop was accused in the Parlement de Paris of heresy, and the King mysteriously did not
come to his aid. Cop fled to Freiburg, where he holed up with Erasmus. The King used this
manufactured event to curse the Lutherans. But at the same time the King's sister Marguerite of
Navarre supported Cop. She was probably funneling money to him from the King, for a job well done.
Calvin fled with Cop, beginning his role in this creation of controversies.

I will have to hit Calvin in more depth another time, but this divertissement was necessary to show you
how these things were done at the time (and now). Maybe now you can understand where I was going
with Newton. Newton didn't get heavily involved in exploding the Catholic Church, but he did get his
feet very wet. Had he published his views, he could have caused major controversy, though Rome was
no longer the force it had been in England a century and a half earlier. Newton also rejected the
immortal soul, and was said to be more a Socinian than an Arian. Newton refused last rites, indicating
he was not a believer (in Christ) at all. Even without publishing a full account of his religious views,
Newton was able to sow discord and cause lasting harm to the Church. His followers used his theories
to promulgate a mechanistic view of the cosmos, one that displaced not only Christ but God himself.

But Newton was not an atheist. He was a believer in intelligent design and was mainly a deist. His ties
to millenarianism once again betray his Jewish links, but we have already established those. In this
way, Newton is once again preferable to his descendants in physics, who believe in nothing but their
own petty-godlike powers to determine Nature, via such absurdities as the Observer Principle.

As Newton put it:

Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so

His descendants and idolaters didn't learn that lesson from him. For we should change it to, until the
20th century, atheism never had many professors. Atheism wasn't just a quiet default stance for most
scientists in the 20th century, it was the noisy and obnoxious stance for many, and the all-but-required
stance of the rest. Like the arcs in Newton's lemmae, the number of prominent living scientists who
will admit to a belief in God or gods is vanishing.

As for his studies in prophecy and revelation, I lump these in with his disputation project. Many at that
time (as always) were hired to sow religious discord, and Newton's writings look like just more of the
same. He predicted the world would end or change drastically in 2016, and that of course didn't
happen. But you have to ask yourself why any serious person would get involved in predictions of that
sort. I can find no other answer than, he was paid to.

More evidence of that can be found. Newton claimed to believe that Jesus dominates both Old and
New Testaments. He claimed to believe that all appearances of the Lord in the Old Testament are to be
read as appearances of Christ: it was Jesus who walked in the Garden of Eden; it was Jesus who gave
Moses the Ten Commandments; it was Jesus who appeared to Abraham as an Angel; it was Jesus who
fought with Jacob; it was Jesus who gave the prophecies to the prophets. Not only was that heretical at
the time, it was guaranteed to anger both Christians and Jews. No one not pushing a project of chaos
and schism would ever propose such things, but especially not a famous scientist being promoted as the
greatest of all time. Plus, if Newton actually believed any of that, then why did he refuse last rites?

[Also remember that we are told Newton learned Hebrew so that he could read old documents in the
original language. Yes, that is a possibility. Another possibility is that he learned it as a child at home.
More evidence in this line is that Newton based his age of the Earth from creation—4000 years BC—
on the Masoretic text, not the Septuagint. Most or all of those famously pushing this date and using the
Masoretic text were Jewish, including of course Kepler, Maimonides, Pereira, and Henry Fynes Clinton—
who was probably a cousin.]

Which is precisely why this part of the Newton project later had to be buried. Someone realized soon
after Newton's death that these projects were mutually exclusive. Newton couldn't be promoted as the
greatest physicist of all time while at the same time admitting he had been involved in such outlandish
disputation. Someone might figure out what I have, and the whole Newton project would collapse
under the weight of these absurdities. So when a large cache of Newton's Biblical writings were
auctioned in 1936 at Sothebys, most were bought by Professor Abraham Shalom Yahuda.

This requires another pause. Yahuda, Jewish of course, was also a spook. He attended the First Zionist
Congress. . . at age 17. He later ended up at the New School in New York, a gigantic red flag.
Yahuda died in 1951, and after an 18-year court battle over his will, the papers ended up at the Jewish
National Library in Jerusalem. That is your next clue. I say Newton's religious papers were a Jewish
project of division, so it is no accident they ended up in Jerusalem. Those at the Jewish Library
couldn't have wanted the collection because it replaced Abraham's Angel with Jesus, right? Do you
really think any Jews are thrilled about that theory? So why did they want it? I am telling you: they
wanted it because they knew the actual theories weren't to be taken seriously. Not even Newton took
them seriously. Jerusalem wanted the papers because they were from one of their own, promoting one
of their very own projects.

Should we lump his alchemical studies into the same project of misdirection and schism? I don't think
so. These were considered genuine scientific studies at the time, and why not? We now know
transmutation of elements is possible, though not, we think, in beakers over normal flames. It requires
high heat and pressure in stars, or very high-energy bombardment in large machines. But there may be
other methods, and it is remotely possible Newton created gold from baser elements. Remember, he
worked during these years at. . . the Mint. What better place to hide newly created gold? Plus, Newton
moved England from the silver standard to the first gold standard:

This inadvertently resulted in a silver shortage as silver coins were used to pay for imports,
while exports were paid for in gold.

Nothing like that is ever inadvertent. Why would England want to switch to a gold standard? Maybe
because it had an endless supply of gold?

Besides, Newton didn't just pretend to work on alchemy, he actually did, to the great detriment of his
health. Hair samples taken from his corpse later showed heavy poisoning by mercury, lead, antimony,
and arsenic, all used in the transmutation to gold. Already by 1692 he was showing signs of this
poisoning, and spent two years of that period trying to detoxify. His nervous system almost collapsed,
and he spent 18 months in convalescence. He had 108 documented experiments with these metals, and
probably many more undocumented.

Which brings us to that, the last sign of his spookiness I will hit in this paper. In 1696, Newton became
Warden of the Mint, a position obtained for him by Charles Montagu, 1 st Earl of Halifax. Halifax was
the Chancellor of the Exchequer under William III and later head of George I's cabinet. You might
want to ask yourself why Newton would accept this position. You will say it was a well paying
sinecure, but Newton didn't treat it like that. He retired from Cambridge in 1701 and pursued his new
duties with a very strange zeal. Why would the smartest man in the world waste his time chasing
forgers and counterfeiters? Newton actually dressed in disguise and went undercover in bars and
taverns to pursue counterfeiters, we are told. And you believe that? He was almost 60 and not in great
health.

For myself, I believe he may have dressed in disguise and been involved in intrigue, but not this petty
intrigue of counterfeiting. I believe Newton was always an agent, but as is common, the assignments
change. His early assignment, chosen by himself, was as a physicist/mathematician. He took that
part/assignment very seriously, as we know. After about 25 years, he had done all he could do there, so
he asked for a reassignment. They needed more talented people in religious disputation, so he got
involved there for a while. But after a few years that got old, so he asked for something more
interesting. By then he had the rank to do just about anything, so they installed him at the Mint. But
that was just a cover. Possibly it was, in small part, a cover for his creation of gold, but if so, he no
longer needed to be involved there as a lab guy. Once the formula was known, they could hire others
to do the dangerous work with Mercury and so on. So I think something else was going on. The
primary clue there is that Newton was knighted in 1705 by the Queen, and he was only the second
scientist to ever be knighted, after Sir Francis Bacon. Strangely, the histories admit Newton was not
knighted in recognition of his scientific work. That admission should leap from the page at you. So
Newton was knighted for some other reason, not given. Well, what did we find out about Bacon in my
paper on the Occult? We found that the torch had been passed to Bacon by John Dee, and this torch
was the torch of British Intelligence. I suggest that torch was passed to Newton in these years, and that
he then became the head of British Intelligence, with the Mint as his cover.

As the next clue in that direction, remember that Newton was involved in the South Sea Company,
allegedly losing $3 million when it collapsed in 1720. But you can be sure that never happened. These
people never lose in such scams, they only win. The South Sea bubble was created on purpose, to scam
money from small private investors. Part of that is now admitted:

The founders of the scheme engaged in insider trading, by using their advance knowledge of
the timings of national debt consolidations to make large profts from purchasing debt in
advance. Huge bribes were given to politicians to support the Acts of Parliament necessary for
the scheme. . . The expectation of profts from trade with South America was talked-up to
encourage the public to purchase shares

So in this sense it was like the Titanic insurance fraud, where smaller members of the syndicate were
robbed in a fake collapse, while the larger members were shielded. Being a larger member here, we
can be sure Newton was shielded.

Another clue is that Newton lived at Cranbury Park, a gigantic mansion in Winchester.
We are told that house was owned by John Conduit, but as with Newton, we are not told Conduit was
in the peerage. He was. He is listed with no parents, which is suspicious. His only link is to Catherine
Barton, whom he allegedly married in 1717. But she was the previous mistress of. . . Charles Montagu,
Earl of Halifax. Remember him? We just saw him above, Chancellor of the Exchequer who got
Newton his job at the Mint. Well, Catherine Barton is the pin here, since she was a relative of Newton.
Her grandmother was Hannah Ayscough, mother of Isaac Newton. So she was Newton's adopted
niece.

Still, none of these people except Halifax should be listed in the peerage. Barton should not be listed in
connection with him, since she was just a mistress, and therefore Conduit should also not be listed. If
what we are told by the mainstream were true, Isaac Newton should not be there either, since knights
are not listed as peers. So we have more proof the Newtons are peers.

As for Halifax, he comes from the Montagus, Earls of Manchester, linking us immediately to the
Spencers. If we take these Spencer baronets forward again to the time of Newton, we find the 3 rd
Baronet Sir Thomas Spencer marrying Jane Garrard, daughter of the 2nd Baronet Sir John Garrard. We
have already seen the Garrards, haven't we? Not only was Newton a Gerard/Garrard, but the Garrards
were related through the Barkhams to the. . . Walpoles.

Robert Walpole, Earl of Orford, was involved in the South Sea bubble as well, and he had already been
convicted of “notorious corruption” in 1712. He was expelled from Parliament and allegedly spent six
months in the Tower of London. But somehow he was re-elected to Parliament the very next year and
started all over again. Make sense of that if you can. When George I came in as King in 1714, he took
a liking to Walpole, no doubt needing the most venal people around him he could find. Another of
these was Halifax, who became the head of his cabinet. I tell you all this to remind you of Newton's
real family connections. He was closely related to both Halifax and Walpole, which may make it easier
for you to believe he became head of the most covert part of British Intelligence.

In 1715 Halifax died and Walpole became Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer. In
other words, Thief #1. The South Sea scam was Walpole's baby, and it was his plan to have the South
Sea Company “assume the national debt of Great Britain in exchange for lucrative bonds”. No,
seriously, that is what it says on Walpole's Wiki page. A private company, with no royal charter, was
going to assume the national debt! Oivay caramba. They admit Walpole sold at the top of the market
and made 1000% profit. Although there was an investigation, all the top dogs, including Walpole,
Stanhope, and Sunderland (all Earls, of course) skated. The fall guys were James Craggs the Elder
(Postmaster General) and his son the Younger (Southern Secretary), who conveniently died as soon as
they were indicted. You can be sure they faked their deaths and retired in huge wealth to the Caribbean
or somewhere.

Here is your next clue:

That's Newton's coat of arms, chosen by himself. He is supposed to have borrowed it from the Newton
family of Great Gonerby, but I found no evidence of that. We do know that is a sign of Intelligence
and other spooks, see Skull and Bones, the Jolly Roger, military use, secret societies, various fraternity
and sorority emblems, and many peerage coats of arms. That is basically Newton admitting he was a
spook. If you don't believe me, you tell me why a famous physicist would choose that as his coat of
arms. If you were a famous physicist, would you choose that as your coat of arms? I wouldn't. Those
doggy bones are about the last thing I would choose.

So what projects was Newton working in those years? Hard to guess, since they still haven't
declassified those projects. But as the equivalent of head of MI5, Newton may have been working on
local cases tied to the War of the Spanish Succession. Spies would have entered England on that
project, and Newton's job would be intercepting them or nullifying them. Starting in 1714, Newton
probably had his hands full with the Jacobite uprisings. He may have been involved with Deborah
Churchill in 1708, since her story looks fake. Given her name and upbringing, she was probably a spy
in the service of England, the story a cover, and her death faked. Newton may also have been involved
in the Christopher Slaughterford case, since this also has all the signs of a fake. What it was covering I
cannot say. Possibly the person he allegedly murdered, Jane Young, was a spy who needed to
disappear. So her murder was faked and he took the rap. They sent him to France and staged a
hanging with a planted audience. Things like that were done all the time, and still are. We have seen it
many times. If the execution had been real, you wouldn't still be reading about it 300 years later.

Newton may also have been involved in the Sacheverell, Coronation, and Rebellion riots, which were
obviously staged by the government. The histories all but admit that, when they say the first riots

were a reaction to perceived grievances against the Whig government, in regard to high
taxation resulting from the War of the Spanish Succession, the recent sudden infux of some
10,000 Calvinist refugees from Germany,[3] and the growth of the merchant classes, the so-
called "monied interest".
Yes, but why would this reaction be aimed at Presbyterians? Were they to blame for high taxes? We
are told it is because they tended to support Whigs, but that makes no sense. Why not attack Whigs
then, instead of Presbyterians? As usual, the government, either Whig or Tory, wanted citizens
attacking eachother rather than attacking them. So they provocateured some riots to create division and
divert attention from the real culprits.

Henry Sacheverell allegedly started the first riots by preaching against the Whigs. He was an obvious
spook from a family of spooks. This is easiest to see by his patron, Thomas Thynne, Viscount
Weymouth, also a fellow of the Royal Society with Newton. Weymouth had been a fellow for almost
40 years. He was also a Privy Counsellor. So we see a Privy Counsellor supporting riots.
Sacheverell's other major supporter was Sir William Trumbull, who was a top Whig. So why would
Trumbull underwrite Sacheverell's firey sermons against Whigs? Now you know. And who was the
Lord Mayor of London at this time? It was none other than Sir Samuel Garrard, 4th Baronet, and he is
the one the appointed Sacheverell to deliver the famous sermon. So we get that name one last time,
bringing this full circle. As we have seen, Garrard was also related to Newton.

I will be reminded that the Tories won a landslide victory that year (1710) in part due to this riot. But
why would people like Trumbull, a Whig, promote that? Because the Whigs and Tories were
pretend opposition, like the Democrats and Republicans now. Both were fronts for the fascist
peerage, and the important thing was to keep the public's eye away from that fact. Public opinion was
therefore manipulated back and forth from one to the other, making them think change was always at
hand. When in fact nothing ever changed, and still hasn't. The important thing was to keep the public
from ever seeing the truth: it wasn't a matter of Whig or Tory, left or right, Democrat or Republican. It
was always a matter of the peers against the rest, the few privileged families against the masses. The
masses therefore had to be constantly divided against themselves, diverted by manufactured events, and
confused by a constant string of fantastic lies. Such people can never find the footing for a revolution,
or even for a meaningful counter-movement. They are so disempowered they can barely remember
how to get out of bed in the morning, and without an alarm clock to drum them awake and the TV to
remind them of their daily tasks, they probably never would.

*John Constable's father was Golding Constable, a wealthy corn merchant and shipowner. His mother was a
Watts. Constable's cousin was tea merchant Abram Newman, one of the wealthiest men in England at the time,
whose tea was thrown into the Boston Harbor in the Boston Tea Party. Newman's great-uncle Rawlinson was
Lord Mayor of London in 1706. The Constables were Viscounts Dunbar and also Baronets, related to the
Howards and Haggerstons. John Constable the artist is listed in the peerage, though we aren't told why. He
links to no peers, since both his parents are scrubbed. His grandfather is not listed, probably to break the link to
Newton and to the Viscounts Dunbar. Geni tells us he was Hugh Constable, b. 1667. This helps because we can
take the new information back to Newton's pages at Geneanet, where we find his Constables move forward
through Marmaduke Constable to an Anne Constable who married a Haggerston. Her daughter married a
Middleton. This links us to the Baronets Constable. Through another Marmaduke Constable we link forward to
Rhodes and Pilkingtons. See above, where we found Newton was a Pilkington. We can also link Constable to
Newton through Constable's grandmother Garrad. We saw both the Gerards and Garrards above, and this is just
a third spelling. So Newton and Constable were cousins, maybe fifth cousins twice removed.

**They still aren't saying where Hooke's papers were found. We are supposed to believe they were found in
someone's cupboard in Hampshire. The Royal Society allegedly had to pay over £1 million to get them back.