"Brit-Am Now"-618
1. Thanks
2. Questions on Ptolemy and Brit-Am Tour
(a) Ptolemy
(b) The Tour
(c) Meeting Yair in Israel
3.  Alexander Klienforth and Robert Munro: More Strong Evidence Justifying Brit-Am.
New Proof Vindicating Brit-Am: Manasseh, Scotland, and the USA

1. Thanks
(a) Thank you.  Your website and research is very fascinating and insightful into a subject dear to our hearts.  Thank you again.
Bob Himango

(b) Greetings
I have been reading much of your site and have enjoyed much of it.
I am a descendant of the Irish and Scotts and I suppose I am an Israellite. R.

2. Questions on Ptolemy and Brit-Am Tour
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 14:31:33 -0800 (PST)
From: Robert Jones <rjones100k@yahoo.com>
Subject: Ptolemy Maps

Mr. Davidiy,

I was wondering about a couple things.  Those maps by Ptolemy, who provided, or what source provides those maps.

The other question is the tour package.  My family and several other friends of mine are planning trips to Israel next year.  Being able to meet you and doing the tour of Samaria, would be great!!

At any rate, thanks for all that you provide, you are great inspiration, and I look forward to hearing from you.

Rob Jones

Answer: (a) Ptolemy
Reproductions of the maps of Ptolemy may be found on the web and also in most major libraries.
Below are extracts from an Encyclopedia entry:


Claudius Ptolemaeus (Greek: ; ca. 100 ca. 178), known in English as Ptolemy, was an ancient Greek geographer, astronomer, and astrologer who probably lived and worked in Alexandria, off the coast of Egypt.

Ptolemy was the author of several scientific treatises, two of which have been of continuing importance to later Islamic and European science. One is the astronomical treatise that is now known as the Almagest (in Greek , "The Great Treatise"). The other is the Geography, which is a thorough discussion of the geographic knowledge of the Greco-Roman world.

Ptolemy's other main work is his Geography. This too is a compilation of what was known about the world's geography in the Roman Empire during his time. He relied mainly on the work of an earlier geographer, Marinos of Tyre, and on gazetteers of the Roman and ancient Persian empire, but most of his sources beyond the perimeter of the Empire were unreliable.

The maps in surviving manuscripts of Ptolemy's Geography however, date only from about 1300, after the text was rediscovered by Maximus Planudes.

Maps based on scientific principles had been made since the time of Eratosthenes (3rd century BC), but Ptolemy improved projections. It is known that a world map based on the Geography was on display in Autun, France in late Roman times. In the 15th century Ptolemy's Geographia began to be printed with engraved maps; an edition printed at Ulm in 1482 was the first one printed north of the Alps. The maps look distorted as compared to modern maps, because Ptolemy's data were inaccurate. One reason is that Ptolemy estimated the size of the Earth as too small:

It must be added that his original topographic list cannot be reconstructed: the long tables with numbers were transmitted to posterity through copies containing many scribal errors, and people have always been adding or improving the topographic data: this is a testimony to the persistent popularity of this influential work.

(b) The Tour
Concerning the tour I understand that I am to give at least two lectures and also meet with all members of the tour.
For details contact Shalom Polack:

(c) Meeting Yair in Israel
Concerning people in general who wish to meet me privately on their trips to Israel.
In principle I can meet up with anybody in Jerusalem.

3. Alexander Klienforth and Robert Munro: More Strong Evidence Justifying Brit-Am.
New Proof Vindicating Brit-Am: Manasseh, Scotland, and the USA
Brit-Am Comment: We traced clans of Manasseh to areas of the North and west in the British Isles i.e. esp[ecially Scoltand and Ulster (Scots-Irish country) and we said that people from these areas determined the character of the USA. The following article emphasizes this point. Brit-Am also said that the principle of RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATION is embodied in the very Hebrew meaning of the name MANASSEH. The following artilce emphasizes that the USA received this principle from Scottish Precedent. The primary source for this Brit-Am explanation is to be found in our work "Joseph". http://britam.org/bkjoseph.html
See also:

Is the USA Ephraim or Manasseh?
Questions about Joseph
Questions about the USA

Brit-Am (in "Joseph" and the above sources and also in
showed how the USA embodied the principle of popular responsible representation and
of the capitalist free-enterprise principle (all of which characterize Manasseh) whereas the British
embody "Ephraim" and the Ideal of innate aristocracy. The article below illustrates the points
that Brit-Am made and elaborates upon them.
The article below does all this without consciously intending to do so but rather in the
course of an academic discussion of constitutional philosophy!

From: Wayne Laurence <wayne@bydand.co.nz>
Subject: Scottish Invention

An Historic Research Group eNewsletter
Hello every one - I am sure you will find this interesting, especially our American readers - Wayne Laurence

Scottish Invention of America, Democracy and Human Rights

This is two chapters of a very important book that shows that the Declaration of Arbroath, the Scottish Declaration of Independence, was signed on April 6, 1320, and the American Declaration of Independence was modeled on that inspirational document.

Alexander Klienforth and Robert Munro have presented a revolutionary alternative to the traditional Anglocentric view that freedom, democracy and human rights descend only from John Locke and England of the 1600s as well as the Magna Carta.

Chapter 25

A Comparison of the Arbroath Declaration (1320)

and the Declaration of Independence (1776)

April 6 has a special significance for all Americans, and especially those Americans of Scottish descent, because the Declaration of Arbroath, the Scottish Declaration of Independence, was signed on April 6, 1320, and the American Declaration of Independence was modeled on that inspirational document.

U.S. Senate Resolution 155, March 20, 1998

Archie Turnbull in his essay, "Scotland and America, 1730-90" (1986), noted that the Declaration of Independence stated that, to secure their unalienable rights, "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government." Turnbull noted that this view would have been heretical to those who supported the divine right of kings, but it would not have been to any Scot. Before the American Declaration, the Scots had said the same in the famous Letter of the Barons of Scotland to Pope John XXII drawn up at Arbroath in 1320 . Writing of Scots King Robert the Bruce, the Declaration said:

Him, too, divine providence, his right of Succession according to our laws and customs ... and the due consent and assent of us all, have made our King. "To him ... we are bound both by law and by his merits, that our freedom may be still maintained.... Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England.... We should exert ourselves to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man ... our King for, so long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no good man gives up but with his life. [Italics supplied]

Four hundred and fifty-six years before the Declaration of Independence, the Arbroath Declaration made an explicit statement about life, liberty and the rights of a people to choose who will govern them. The Declaration of Arbroath, the noblest statement in the constitutional history of Scotland," was in a direct sense a source of the 1776 Declaration.

 According to Bruce, Jefferson and the founding fathers who drafted the Declaration of Independence relied upon two antecedent Scottish documents: the Arbroath Declaration (1320) and the National Covenant (1638). The Arbroath Declaration declared Scotland's independence from England. Like the American Declaration, it was signed by the people's representatives, enumerated many grievances against the English King, declared the nation's independence and the right of the people to choose their own government. "The National Covenant of 1638 was another declaration of the independence of Scotland and was signed by the whole people of Scotland."'

Bruce argued that Jefferson and the influential delegates were very familiar with the Declaration of Arbroath and the National Covenant. Wilson and Witherspoon would have studied them as students in Scotland.

... it was Wilson who convinced Congress that "all power was originally in the People - that all the Powers of Government are derived from them - that alI power, which they have not disposed of, still continues theirs." This was "the Revolution Principle." As he wrote, "this truth, so simple and natural, and yet so neglected or despised, may be appreciated as the first and fundamental principle in the science of government." The sovereignty of the people was a principle to which he unwaveringly adhered throughout his life, and it is, of course, an idea that is implicit in the Declaration of Arbroath....

Bruce's comparison of the Arbroath Declaration (1320) and the National Covenant (1638) against the Declaration of Independence (1776) revealed how the Americans used the words and concepts of the older Scottish documents as models for the American Declaration .2' First, Bruce noted that the most well-known phrase of the American document, "all men are created equal," was the equivalent to "nor distinction of Jew or Greek, Scots or English" in the Arbroath Declaration, both statements attesting to equality under the law. The liberty that was sought was precious and considered by the Founding Fathers part of "certain unalienable rights, among those life, liberty." The Scots were equally forthright, insisting that they "fight for liberty alone which no good man loses but with his life." The importance of such freedom was underscored by statements clearly demonstrating the lengths both the Americans ("we mutually pledge... lives") and Scots ("we will maintain even to the death") would go to in securing it."'

As a result of all the actions and injuries, both documents announced the refusal to be ruled by the English. The American document declared "that these United Colonies are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown." The Scots took a more dramatic and striking vow: "For so long as a hundred remain alive, we will never in any degree be subject to the dominion of the English." If the British king was trampling the rights of the people, he was not fit to be their ruler. It was time for a new government."

Having made their case, the writers of each document turned to a higher authority to support their positions. The Americans announced that they were "appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions." The Scots summed their case by turning "to Him, as the Supreme King and Judge we commit the defence of our cause." To underline the seriousness of the matter, the Americans stated that their actions were taken, "with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence." The Scots also sought the approval of "Divine Providence firmly trusting that He will bring our enemies to nought.""

The Declaration of Arbroath was not the only forerunner to the words, phrases and concepts in the Declaration of Independence. The National Covenant, signed in Edinburgh in 1638, shared many of the phrases and statements.

The Declarations of the Scots and the Americans were about forty lines long and signed by similar numbers of people: fifty-six at Philadelphia and thirty-nine at Arbroath."' The family of Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, claimed descent from Thomas Randolph, a blood nephew of King Robert I the Bruce, who had signed the Arbroath Declaration 456 years before 1776.

Chapter 27 The Controversy:

The Controversy: The Comparative Influences of the Celtic-Arbroath Philosophy and Scottish Enlightenment Versus English Philosophy and Law on the Creation of the Declaration of Independence and the American Republic

American historians supported for decades the position that John Locke was the critical factor in the intellectual history preceding the American Revolution.

We have already noted that the influence of John Locke and other English writers was secondary in the formation of the American Republic and that the main influence came from the Scottish and Scotch-Irish thinkers.

There was, however, actually more to the so-called "Lockean cause" than just John Locke. British and American historians often traced Lockean thought through English legal history back to the Magna Carta and an "ancient constitution." Ellis Sandoz in the Introduction to The Roots of Liberty: Magna Carta, Ancient Constitution, and the Anglo-American Tradition of Rule of Law (1993) presented a summary of this position:

The position of writers such as Sandoz, Bailyn, Howard and others that the Magna Carta, common law and English Whig theory provided the foundation of modern liberty and American Revolutionary thought assumed that liberty was largely equivalent with the rule of law, common law and due process of law."' There is no question that the rule of law is critical to liberty in a free society but their definition of liberty and freedom is too legalistic and narrow and ignores the larger cultural and historical forces. The liberties defined in the Magna Carta and the common law were granted from royal authorities down to individuals and the people, not up from the people. This is a radical difference. The philosophy of the Arbroath Declaration is radically different from that of the Magna Carta. The Declaration of Arbroath, which represented cultural and philosophical thought of the Scots for centuries prior to the Declaration, spoke of complete human freedom, not of special legal rights granted by the rulers. This is why the Scottish King was called the King of the Scots and not the King of Scotland, a description lacking in English and British custom."`

Hanna in The Scotch-Irish (1902) found this difference in a comparison of the British and American constitutions: "In short, the difference between the British and the American Constitutions is a fundamental one. The former is a concession of privileges to the people by the rulers; the latter, a grant of authority by the people to the rulers.""

The English conception of rights was bound internally by the English class (or caste) system in contrast to the Arbroath Declaration's of "nor distinction of Jew or Greek, Scots or English" and externally by the English concern principally for the rights of the English against the world, whether it be the world of the Irish, Scots, Americans or the members of the British Empire.

If there is any one characteristic that distinguishes the Englishman more than another, it is his persistent assertion - and, where he is able, the maintenance - of his own rights. This is doubtless a consequence of his Teutonic nature. It comes from the realization of his own intrinsic excellence, and from that spirit which prompts him to go out and subdue the earth. Unless constantly held in check, however, it is very easy for him to overstep the line between his own rights and the rights of other s; and so far as he is free to act upon his own ... instincts, he does overstep this line.... If the Englishman did not do so unto others it might be so done unto him. We see manifestations of this encroaching spirit, in all aspects of English life or history.... It is this aggressive spirit which proudly points the way to the universal dominion of the so-called Anglo-Saxon race; and is the one attribute without which the Anglo-Saxon's further ... progress, according to his own view, would be impossible. Hence, to repeat, the Englishman has a greater regard for his own rights than for those of others. So truly is this the case, that the rights of his weaker neighbor are invariably sacrificed, whenever the two clash together. As a result, there can be no real equality among the English.

Buckle well says, in speaking of his own English race, "If we compare our history with that of our northern neighbors, we must pronounce ourselves a meek and submissive people." There have been more rebellions in Scotland than in any other country, excepting some of the ... South American republics. And the rebellions have been very sanguinary, as well as very numerous. The Scotch have made war upon most of their kings, and put to death many. To mention their treatment of a single dynasty, they murdered James I and James 111. They rebelled against James II and James VII. They laid hold of James V and placed him in confinement. Mary they immured in a castle, and afterwards deposed. Her successor, James VI, they imprisoned; they led him captive about the country, and on one occasion attempted his life. Towards Charles I they showed the greatest animosity, and they were the first to restrain his mad career. Three years before the English ventured to rise against that despotic prince, the Scotch boldly took up arms and made war on him. The service which they then rendered to the cause of liberty it would be hard to overrate.... their material accomplishments as adventurers, pioneers, and traders, in statesmanship, in science, in metaphysics, in literature, in commerce, in finance, in invention, and in war, show them to be the peers of the people of any other race the world has ever known.

It was this rebellious people, the Scots and Scotch-Irish, who came to America largely in the period 1707-1776 and were critical in the Revolution. Many of the American men at the Battles of Lexington and Concord were Scots and Scotch-Irish, who stood faithfully by General George Washington at Valley Forge while others deserted.

Hence, they [the Scots and Scotch-Irish] entered the American Revolutionary contest with a deep-seated hatred of England inherited from the past, with a passionate desire for vengeance, and with that never ceasing persistence which is their chief characteristic as a race; and in tracing their history down to this point it would seem as if we could see the working of some inscrutable principle of Divine compensation; for without the later presence in America of these descendants of the martyred Scottish Covenanters - doubly embittered by the remembrance of the outrageous wrongs done their fathers and the experience of similar wrongs inflicted upon themselves and their families-the Revolution of 1776 would not have been undertaken, and could not have been accomplished.

Wills correctly noted in Inventing America (1978) that the empire of Great Britain was descending because her philosophy has crossed the ... Atlantic. Wills however failed to note that not only the ideas for the Revolution came largely from the Scottish Enlightenment at this critical time but that the Scots and Scotch-Irish men and women who came to America and fought in the Revolutionary War were the descendants of the Celts and Scots who had successfully fought for their freedom against the Romans, Vikings and then the English through the centuries. They were the "descendants" of Braveheart's William Wallace.

The Scots were undoubtedly centuries ahead of and cultures distant from the English in regard to the rights of mankind. Indeed, the Scots were centuries ahead of all of mankind. Europe's first international human rights treaty, Cain Adomnain, "The Law of Innocents," was ratified in 697 AD, 1,251 years before the United Nations' The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). Cain Adamain was penned by;

Adomnan, an abbot of Iona and a nobleman of the Cenel Conaill dynasty. This law, which protected women, children and clergy from the ravages of warfare, was ratified in 697 by the kings of the Picts, of the Dal Riatic Scots, of the Strathclyde Britons, and of many Irish kingdoms, and the law took effect in both Scotland and Ireland. "It is singular testimony to the widespread common Celtic (and now Christianized) culture extending from Ireland across Dalriada and Pictland to Lindisfarne ..."

The Scots were centuries ahead of and cultures distant from the English in regard to the "consent of the governed," individual liberty and the rights of mankind and yet historians, both English and American, have failed to distinguish the Scottish tradition from the English.