Brit-Am Now no. 1271
December 18th 2009, 21 Kislev 5768
1. Henry Rhea: Conspiracy = "Special Understanding that Elevates"
2. David Jackson:  "Brit-
Am..irrelevant or ..too controversial "
3. Weekly Portion:
VaYashayv Genesis 37 to 40
4. Joan Griffith: Thomas
Plantard de Saint-Clair
5. History: Were the
Picts-Cruithin Newcomers After All?
Interesting Explanation


Discussion Group
Contents by Subject Research

Site Map
Contents in Alphabetical Order
This Site

Khazars Cover
Tribe 13

Pre-Publication Offer

 Click Here 

1. Henry Rhea: Conspiracy = "Special Understanding that Elevates"
RE: Brit-Am Now no. 1269

Hello, Yair. 

One more response to your question of Brit-Am no. 1269. 

I think it possible that your question "Are Ephraimites turning their Back on Brit-Am Ancestral Identity?" is also directly related in a way that you may not have considered to your observations concerning 1) being "chosen" and 2) Ephraimites being overly "conspiracy theory" conscious.

I was a member of Herbert Armstrong's following back in the early 80's, as well as some of his offshoots during the 90's and up to '02. And during my time as one with them, I noted as you have done a high incidence belief in conspiracy theories among them, by comparison with people not a part of that organization nor privy to the "special knowledge" that they prided themselves in having concerning both their identity as modern Israelites, and in the special knowledge of biblical things attributed to God that they believed (and believe) were known to them only be reason of being chosen.  For the New Testament does say, "Many are called; few are chosen."
What you may not have recognized is that the concept of the hidden identity of the lost ten tribes being revealed in its proper time is itself of the nature of conspiracy theories; that is, they each are systems of a special type of understanding by which those who hold them as beliefs believe themselves to be in possession of special understanding that elevates them in understanding above the vast majority of people around them.  In other words, whether they believe themselves to be "chosen" or not, they may as well be, were they right, as they are therefore unique among people in terms of higher understanding.

So it is natural for you, as a believer in the Israelitish hidden Ten< Tribes now being revealed theory to naturally become likewise aware of a tremendous number of conspiracy theorists, because the very nature of your belief attracts not only yourself, but countless conspiracy theorists likewise attracted to any incredible body of "special" and "hidden" knowledge or systems of belief, because they want to feel "special"; i.e. "chosen."  And you therefore think that those whom you call Ephraimites are disproportionately taken by and steeped in Conspiracy Theories, and while it might be so to an extent, it is not nearly so widely spread as you might think.  You are simply immersed in a peculiar body of thought that attracts those who are and are prone to be conspiracy theorists.

The point I wanted to make is that because you are so immersed in such a specialized system of belief perceived to be of such a higher understanding that it attracts to it and thus to your awareness an inordinately high percentage of conspiracy theorists, you therefore think those you believe to be Ephraimites to be universally prone to conspiracy theories; while perceiving at the same time an almost universal lack of response among the wider body of people to your message because in fact the vast majority are not as responsive to such thinking as they would need to be in order to be attracted to what you are teaching, as people prone to conspiracy theories in general are. 

You need the witness of God to attract the attention of the vast majority who simply are either unaware or who are unresponsive to your message.

Henry Rhea

2. David Jackson:  "Brit-Am..irrelevant or ..too controversial "
RE: Brit-Am Now no. 1269

The few Christians I have discussed the Brit-am viewpoint with by email, and this includes a couple individuals well known in Creationist circles, are not openly antagonistic toward its views per se. They rather see Brit-Am as either (a) irrelevant or (b) too controversial because of the connotations of genetic exclusiveness.  In the US, to be even remotely associated with any movement that believes there are inherited differences in ethnic groups is extremely taboo.  If some organization were to be so identified, access to it on the Internet would be blocked at any large US company, for example.

They often see it as irrelevant because they see Christianity as a religion of universal inclusiveness and therefore transcendent of any postulated Israelite ancestry whether such a lineage is true or not.

Note that these believing, fundamentalist Christians are almost always pro-Israel and anti-Islam.  My observation is that they are generally not taken in by Conspiracy Theories.
I think believing Christians, especially those who accept Scripture as literal truth, may be among the most reachable of people for Brit-Am's message. 

But I don't have any great insight as to how to reach them.  Your continued efforts to connect the lost 10 tribes by both biblical references and secular research would seem to hold the most promise. 

Dave Jackson
Keller, TX

3. Weekly Portion: VaYashayv Genesis 37 to 40
COAT OF MANY COLOURS = Cotonet Pasim also translatable as coat of stripes. Possibly similar to a tartan design. Egyptian illustrations and statuettes sometimes depict individuals from the Israelite-Canaanite area wearing tartan-like coats or kilts.
David Rohl in A Test of Time on the coverpiece has a color photograph of the statuette of a Hyksos prince. He is wearing a robe of colored stripes similar in design to tartan. The person concerned has red hair and Rohl suggests that the statuette is actually intended to depict Joseph himself. I personally would not go so far but you never know. If it is not Joseph maybe it is one of his descendants. [Rohl has also been accused in this case of taking a statuary fragment and reconstructing it in a way that may not necessarily reflect the original].
The Hyksos were a people from Canaan who settled in Egypt and greatly influenced Egyptian culture. There were expelled about 1550 BCE according to conventional dating. Josephus appears to identify the Hyksos with the ancient Israelites. We agreed with Josephus in our work Lost Israelite Identity. One of the many reasons we justified this identification was the fact that the Hyksos used names such as Jacob and Joseph.
Immanuel Velikovsky and Herman Hoeh identified the Hyksos with Amalekites.
Rohl takes both approaches and says that there were two groups of Hyksos: One replaced the other in the land of Goshen in Egypt: Rohl claims that the first were Israelites, the second from Amalek. 
Like nearly all Brit-Am beliefs so far latest discoveries and researches seem to confirm our conclusions. The Hyksos were Israelites or at least associated with them.
Nowadays Joseph is found chiefly amongst the USA and Britain and in some small part also amongst the Jews (who are mainly Judah and other tribes). There is a great deal of resentment and hatred directed towards Joseph today. Some of it may be justified in part but a great deal is pure jealousy and spiteful inclinations.
The most hated nations in the world today after the Jews are probably the USA and UK even though these three have done more good overall for the world than anyone else.
Dreams reflect a persons subconscious. Problems and conflicts are often resolved in dreams. Most of the times we forget our dreams. Sometimes we act consciously in certain ways because of dreams we had which we have forgotten. The future is an outcome of the present.  Everyone has a certain degree of premonition, a kind of sixth sense. We are all potential prophets in a sense. In the Messianic Era this gift will be freely given. Sometimes in our dreams we foresee things that will happen to us afterwards. We usually forget these dreams. Perhaps it is better that way. The more we try to act as we should the more spiritual and beyond the natural do our lives become.  The better we are the more does Divine Providence make itself felt in our lives.

New BAMBI Recording:
(contains extra material not in the written text)
Genesis chapters 37 to 40 (ca. 57 minutes)
 Joseph Sold into Egypt; Judah and Tamar

4. Joan Griffith: Thomas Plantard de Saint-Clair

You will no doubt get scads of email over this guy. Here is one web site: 
He is also supposed to be since 1989 the Grand Master of the Priory of Sion, which supposedly does not exist... That is how it is in the Conspiracy world.

I may not be remembering correctly, BUT: As I recall from the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail, by Lincoln, et al., this is the guy who planted the Merovingian bloodline in the Paris historical depository. Later he admitted this and it was removed... it was the basis  for some people thinking that they could follow today's descendants and figure out who would be the leader of the end-time Beast, as described in Daniel. (Beast=country leader as opposed to the "little horn," a religious leader usually assumed to be the Pope). Specifically, some in Worldwide Church of God supposed this Beast- a fierce leader-- was Franz Josef Strauss, who of course is now deceased. However, there are still heirs... [One heir, interestingly, was the French king who was insane and was forced to abdicate in favor of the bloodline that finally ended with the execution of Marie Antoinette and her husband and child. The Spanish royalty also are heirs, and Queen Juana, who was mad, was related to the mad French king...]

The basis of the bloodline story is that Jesus did not die, but married Mary Magdalene and they had a daughter and she was taken to France. She married and had a child, and the secret of her parentage was carried on thru the years among her descendants. At some point, a descendant must inherit his patrimony, the European kingdom ruled by Charlemagne *(also in the bloodline). There are now dozens of books about this stuff.

If you start investigating THE Conspiracy... you have a LOT of reading to do. I investigated it, oh maybe 30 years ago, and for one thing, the US Council on Foreign Relations members (and all who join the party annually at the Bohemian Grove, like Pres. Bush) were supposed to be part and parcel of it. I said to someone once, well, if they are all in the Conspiracy, we are already taken over, aren't we? [The look I got!] "Of course."

One thing that is often mentioned in connection with the conspiracy and Jewish bankers etc. is how the bankers sent funds to Russia instead of to England in World War I. I was surprised to do a little, a very little study and found that it was no wonder! The actual instigators of Communism were Jews! There are few Jewish names "at the top" now, so they must have been taken down quickly by the ethnic Russians, who also were Eastern Orthodox Christians. But this money lending can be seen as Jew supporting Jew, not Jewish banker supporting our future enemies.  The early 1900s is a period when the young Jews were leaving the farms and small shtetls in the "Jewish Pale" and going to the big cities to get jobs and make money. They fell in with the Communist rabble rousers, naturally, and saw a chance to bring about some justice, to be on top, to topple the very super-wealthy and equalize things for everyone--Freedom. Of course, all such attempts seem doomed to failure. But they tried, and the result of their efforts can be seen by the fact that more than 70,000 Russian Jews emigrated from Russia to Israel and other places as soon as they got a chance to leave, even tho they could only take out 2 suitcases apiece and a small amount of money, leaving everything else behind.

Do I believe in a conspiracy? Well, it certainly keeps people busy writing books, like the Da Vinci Code, and web pages. Just Google "Conspiracy". Do you think that if someone comes along and sees an opportunity to be the leader of the world that they will not take it? What happens then is anyone's guess, but the saying is, Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Pearls of Wisdom - "Because no one suspects the BUTTERFLY!" - Bart Simpson (The Simpsons)

5. History: Were the Picts-Cruithin Newcomers After All?
Interesting Explanation
The impression is that:
On the one hand.
The Picts of Scotland were related to the Cruithni who dwelt in Northern Ireland  and to the Cruithni in Munster in the southwest of Eire.
These Cruithni were subjects of the Milesians (ruled by the Connachta family of Niel) and are assumed to have been in Ireland before the
Milesians arrived.

On the other hand:
We have a very strong tradition that the Picts were relative newcomers who came from Scythian, went to Ireland and from there were sent off
again to Scotland.

Both these assumptions have something strong going for them, i.e. (1) the Picts were related to the Cruithni of Ireland.
and (2) the Picts were relative newcomers.
Since however the Cruithni have usually been assumed to be "oldcomers" the two assumptions jar with each other.
One explanation is that the Picts actually consisted of a mixture of different peoples so differing origins could be
applied to them. This is also true but then we would need to suppose that two of the different elements had been in
Ireland before coming to Scotland. This too is not impossible.

Along comes another possible  explanation presented in the extract below:
This suggests.
The Picts were indeed relative "newcomers". They conquered the others (i.e. the Milesians)
who after a while re-conquered them and expelled part of them to Scotland.

Explanation of terminology:
P-Celtic is the type of Celtic spoken by the Welsh and Cornish,  in Lowland Scotland, and
one of the languages used by the Picts in Scoltand.

Q-Celtic is spoken in Ireland and amongst the Gaels (Scots) of West Scotland who actually
came from Scotland. Q-Celtic is considered to be older than P-Celtic though we disagree.
The source below assumes that the Cruithin spoke P-Celtic which ties in with them becoming the Picts.
From: Alan R
Subject: Re: [DNA] DNA] The Origin of L21
I am not sure that the idea that P-Celtic was widespread in Ireland is still thought likely. I think that was an O'Rahilly and McNeill thing but that was a long time ago and I am not aware that linguists still support it.  I would be interested to know if any new evidence of this has emerged. 
However, I believe that the contacts shown by material cultures indicate elite spheres of interaction and this might be reflected by the spread of dialects.  I think it is entirely possible that the La
Tene culture that is known mainly north of the Galway-Dublin line (but with some stray finds as far south as Cork etc) indicated a reemergence of contacts (after 300+ years of isolation of an essentially Bronze Age population) with Britain and Gaul.  I believe these were probably the people called Cruithin, a word that means 'people of designs' (which is exactly how people bringing La Tene art may have seemed) or implies some sort of British contact/identity (which is also how they might have appeared) or both.  However, it is possible they may not even have been immigrants but rather locals who adopted the main west European warrior culture of the time for prestige reasons.
People tend to think of them as Ulster based but I think there are records of them dominating in
Connaght and places like Laois and there is an uncanny correlation between La Tene finds and where the Cruithin are meant to have been before they were overtoppled by Connachta etc.  That is certainly what the finds indicate.  It is possible that P-Celtic was briefly known among the elite of the northern two-thirds of Ireland for a while but maybe the contacts were too weak to shake the older dialect.  I believe that the pre-La Tene Irish were essentially Bronze Age origin peoples and that Q-Celtic was the language of Ireland in the Bronze Age. 
What happened in Ireland was that the La
Tene peoples were eventually over-toppled by resurgent old Bronze Age Q-Celtic peoples in the early centuries AD or perhaps there was a civil uprising that toppled them like the revolt of the Aithech Tuatha in Irish legends.  This changed the elites again and perhaps the La Tene elites had either gone native anyway and were speaking Q-Celtic. Their La Tene material does quickly take on a very local character and looks relatively weak and 'gone native'.  Whatever happened, I think old Bronze Age peoples overtoppled the La Tene element. 
So the prevalence of Q-Celtic in Ireland was down to the maintenance of an archaic late Bronze Age form of Celtic.  This was down to 300 years of cultural isolation c. 600BC-300BC followed by a rather weak La
Tene phase which was weak and may have not been strong enough to alter the locals old Q-Celtic dialect.



Pleased with what you read?
Did you benefit from it?

We do this because we believe in it and enjoy doing it.
Your benefit and wellbeing are goals of ours and worthwhile to us in themselves.
Brit-Am depends on contributions alongside purchases of our publications

Click Here to make an offering.
Click Here to view our publications.

'It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God or the Bible.'
  George Washington

Brit-Am is the "still small voice" that contains the truth.