# British Israelite Theory is no Theory!!!



## Moebius Tripper (Mar 18, 2007)

For those of you who would like to read a free book on the British Israelites 
who are some of the "Lost Tribes of Israel, there is a free book on the subject called: "Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright," and you can get your free download at:

JUDAH'S SCEPTRE      and also at:

Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright by J.H. Allen (the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel)


----------



## The Ace (Mar 18, 2007)

Well, yeah, but everyone in Perth knows the story, how the decks of Noah's Ark became covered in the 'Nervosness,' of the animals on board, so Noah and his sons shovelled it up, tipped it over the side and called it Dundee.

   Some time later, the lost tribe of Israel settled there, but couldn't make themselves understood, so they bought every 'Broons,' and 'Oor Wullie,' book they could find and copied the accents.


----------



## Urien (Mar 18, 2007)

To lose one tribe is unfortunate, to lose ten looks like carelessness.


----------



## Pyan (Mar 19, 2007)

No, they're living in the Hollow Moon, with the Mayans.


----------



## gigantes (Mar 19, 2007)

at the last board i was passing through there were a couple national socialists debating other people so i jumped into the debate to see if there was anything worth learning.

one of the things i was pretty surprised to learn about (and this was something which actually held up under review) is that a large proportion of jewish people are apparently not descended from the semitic region at all (people inside and outside of the 12 tribes), but from a kingdom in the caucasus region that mass converted to judaism and was later conquired and scattered around the 12th century IIRC.

other than the intermarriage factor, this would be one reason why a lot of jewish people don't have noticeable semitic features... because their ancestors were never semitic in the first place.  racially they may even be in the general aryan group, which would make the events from last century more bitterly ironic.


----------



## Dave (Mar 19, 2007)

gigantes said:


> ...a large proportion of jewish people are apparently not descended from the semitic region at all (people inside and outside of the 12 tribes), but from a kingdom in the caucasus region that mass converted to judaism and was later conquired and scattered around the 12th century IIRC.


There was a large population of Black Ethiopian Jews that moved to Israel in the mid-1980's, and suffered a fair amount of rascism when they did too!


pyanfaruk said:


> No, they're living in the Hollow Moon, with the Mayans.


Is there room enough for all of us?


----------



## Pyan (Mar 19, 2007)

Dave said:


> Is there room enough for all of us?



I don't know, but I bet I know who will!


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Mar 19, 2007)

andrew.v.spencer said:


> To lose one tribe is unfortunate, to lose ten looks like carelessness.



I wonder if handbags and railway stations were in any way involved.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Mar 19, 2007)

You do realize, don't you Tripper, that some white supremacists use the British Israelite theory to justify their racism.

Just thought I'd mention it for complete disclousre purposes.


----------



## Moebius Tripper (Mar 19, 2007)

gigantes said:


> at the last board i was passing through there were a couple national socialists debating other people so i jumped into the debate to see if there was anything worth learning.
> 
> one of the things i was pretty surprised to learn about (and this was something which actually held up under review) is that a large proportion of jewish people are apparently not descended from the semitic region at all (people inside and outside of the 12 tribes), but from a kingdom in the caucasus region that mass converted to judaism and was later conquired and scattered around the 12th century IIRC.
> 
> other than the intermarriage factor, this would be one reason why a lot of jewish people don't have noticeable semitic features... because their ancestors were never semitic in the first place.  racially they may even be in the general aryan group, which would make the events from last century more bitterly ironic.


*********************************************************

Yes you are quite correct about this...The book about this is called: "The Thirteenth Tribe: The Khazar Empire and its Heritage," by Arthur Koestler....He also wrote the novel: "Darkness at Noon."

You can read the whole book, "The Thirteenth Tribe," for free at this website:     The Thirteenth Tribe by Arthur Koestler


----------



## Moebius Tripper (Mar 19, 2007)

By the way, the word "British" means in Hebrew, if you write it like this: "B'rit'ish," .... "Covenant Man,"   and the word: "Britain,"  when you write it like this:  "B'rit'ain,"  means:  "Land of the Covenant....You also have one of the flags of Ireland having the "Harp of David," in it...Read the book,  "Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright," and find out why, as well as why "Jacob"s Pillow Stone," or what it is also known as, "The Stone of Scone," ended up in Scotland by way of Ireland and before that, Israel...


----------



## Dave (Mar 19, 2007)

If you were wondering the direction where all that is leading there is an explanation here:  THE ORIGIN OF BRITISH ISRAELISM
Though that website seems to have it's own agenda too.

Anyway, everyone knows that the British Monarchy is not descended from the House of David and Solomon, because they are really alien Reptiles:
David Icke Website - Home


----------



## mosaix (Mar 19, 2007)

Moebius Tripper said:


> By the way, the word "British" means in Hebrew, if you write it like this: "B'rit'ish," .... "Covenant Man,"   and the word: "Britain,"  when you write it like this:  "B'rit'ain,"  means:  "Land of the Covenant....You also have one of the flags of Ireland having the "Harp of David," in it...Read the book,  "Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright," and find out why, as well as why "Jacob"s Pillow Stone," or what it is also known as, "The Stone of Scone," ended up in Scotland by way of Ireland and before that, Israel...



Also, Hoagland, if you write it like this: "Hoaxland", reveals the real truth behind the man. Spooky or what?


----------



## The Ace (Mar 19, 2007)

The Stone of Destiny myth is as old as the hills.  What sat beneath royal bums in Westminster is a chunk of the local red sandstone, (many buildings in Perth, including a bridge, schools, the old library and countles tenements are all made from it). Unless Jacob wandered by way of Perth, this story has little credence.


----------



## mosaix (Mar 19, 2007)

Dave said:


> If you were wondering the direction where all that is leading there is an explanation here: *THE ORIGIN OF BRITISH ISRAELISM
> Though that website seems to have it's own agenda too.
> 
> Anyway, everyone knows that the British Monarchy is not descended from the House of David and Solomon, because they are really alien Reptiles:
> David Icke Website - Home



That's a circular argument Dave. Many people think that Icke's references to reptiles are a thinly disguised anti-semitic attack. i.e. for reptile read Jew.


----------



## mosaix (Mar 19, 2007)

The Ace said:


> The Stone of Destiny myth is as old as the hills.  What sat beneath royal bums in Westminster is a chunk of the local red sandstone, (many buildings in Perth, including a bridge, schools, the old library and countles tenements are all made from it). Unless Jacob wandered by way of Perth, this story has little credence.



Ace "little credence" doesn't come close. Try "no credence".


----------



## The Ace (Mar 19, 2007)

I wanted to break it to him gently.


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 19, 2007)

And I'm afraid we know far too much about the genuine etymologies of the words for these to have any weight. *sigh* These are old chestnuts that have been refuted time and time again, with plenty of good, solid scholarship to prove their flimsiness.

As for the Khazars... yes, it's a very interesting case, but they were of the Turkic peoples, and there were other cases similar in various parts of the world... and not a one of them has any relation to the British being one of the lost tribes bit; any more than they do the various ancient sites in New England, which for the longest time the descendants of Europeans swore couldn't possibly have been constructed by the Indians; I mean, savages just didn't build like that.... 

You're right, mosaix... no credence at all. Sheer moonshine, this, and not even particularly good moonshine at that.....


----------



## gigantes (Mar 19, 2007)

thanks, moebius... yea, i had remembered "khazars" after i wrote that message and later had my memory refreshed by WP that they were a turkic peoples.

in my conversations with the national socialists they were trying to make the point that jewish people had no rights to the 1948 re-creation of israel because the khazars comprised such a large stock of their background, therefore israel "wasn't really their ancestral home anymore".

that argument didn't impress me very much for a number of reasons, starting with the fact that it had been 800 years since the khazars were dispersed and about 1900 since the semitic jews were dispersed, meaning that by this point in time the amount of genetic dilution would seem to make the issue mostly irrelevant.

so in that vein, my question would be- what real difference would it make whether or not there was a jewish link to britain?  or is it simply of interest in the academic sense?


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 19, 2007)

gigantes said:


> so in that vein, my question would be- what real difference would it make whether or not there was a jewish link to britain? or is it simply of interest in the academic sense?


 
Well, there's still a lot of that "chosen people of God" element to it, for one thing -- oddly, even by people who are otherwise anti-Semitic... I don't pretend to understand how they manage that one, but they do; I've seen it done, and I still couldn't figure out how that snake could swallow its own tail all the way up to the neck....

Yes, there is an academic point of interest -- especally anthropology -- but also tracing how cultures are transmitted as well. Were such a thing true, an awful lot of history would have to be overturned, really. But the evidence, again points in the opposite direction -- the legendary lost tribes have always been -- like Atlantis, Mu, Camelot, any mythical or legendary trope -- used for all sorts and kinds of agendas... but without some decent basis, we're dealing with just that: myth and legend, not reality.


----------



## Dave (Mar 19, 2007)

mosaix said:


> That's a circular argument Dave. Many people think that Icke's references to reptiles are a thinly disguised anti-semitic attack. i.e. for reptile read Jew.


Thanks for the education, I just thought he was a rather sad fruitcake, and not following the recent developments of this 12 foot tall Reptoid story too closely, I haven’t read those claims before. To be fair, Icke protests that he is not anti-Semitic. This is from Wikipedia:


> Icke has strongly denied that his reptiles represent Jews, calling it "friggin' nonsense." "I am not an anti-Semite!” he told _The Guardian_, "I have a great respect for the Jewish people." He maintains that the reptilians are not human, and therefore not Jewish, but are "extra-dimensional entities" that enter and control human minds. "This is not a Jewish plot. This is not a plot on the world by Jewish people," he told Jon Ronson.


However, if you see the people he now associates with, especially in Canada and the USA, and the right-wing, neo-fascists who support him financially, his protests seem less sincere. I learn something new here every day!


----------



## gigantes (Mar 19, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> Well, there's still a lot of that "chosen people of God" element to it, for one thing -- oddly, even by people who are otherwise anti-Semitic... I don't pretend to understand how they manage that one, but they do; I've seen it done, and I still couldn't figure out how that snake could swallow its own tail all the way up to the neck....


eheh, i'm still waiting to discover the historical peoples somewhere, anywhere, who _didn't_ feel they had a special relationship with god(s).



> Yes, there is an academic point of interest -- especally anthropology -- but also tracing how cultures are transmitted as well. Were such a thing true, an awful lot of history would have to be overturned, really. But the evidence, again points in the opposite direction


i guess that would depend on the mechanism for the english link.  it's hard for me to muster up the willpower to read some long theory however.  instead, this kind of thing comes to mind all too easily:
Prophesy



> the legendary lost tribes have always been -- like Atlantis, Mu, Camelot, any mythical or legendary trope -- used for all sorts and kinds of agendas... but without some decent basis, we're dealing with just that: myth and legend, not reality.


just as a point of interest, i see some significant differences between atlantis and camelot (last i heard, "mu" was a greek letter)-

AFAIK historians feel fairly confident of what the historical basis was in each case.  arthur was apparently a notable war leader who later got combined with older celtic myths and his story considerably embellished over time, but was never much more than a national legend, not unlike robin hood.

atlantis, however, was intriguing because it might have represented the first significant case of a 'superculture' towering above all other cultures before passing into history, leaving the world much as it was before it came along.  also it might have served as a high-tech seeder of other ancient cultures, not unlike greek or western civilisation much later.  instead, it's been fairly well established (again AFAIK) as being a minoan culture which made some high-tech innovations for its age, such as types of water-distribution and plumbing, but hardly lived up to the towering myths that came along later.  yet a lot of the ruins are still intact and available for intensive analysis, unlike the camelots and so forth.


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 20, 2007)

gigantes said:


> eheh, i'm still waiting to discover the historical peoples somewhere, anywhere, who _didn't_ feel they had a special relationship with god(s).


 
No argument there... simply that this theory -- as noted elsewhere -- has been used to bolster prejudice and hatred on those grounds.



> just as a point of interest, i see some significant differences between atlantis and camelot (last i heard, "mu" was a greek letter)-
> 
> AFAIK historians feel fairly confident of what the historical basis was in each case. arthur was apparently a notable war leader who later got combined with older celtic myths and his story considerably embellished over time, but was never much more than a national legend, not unlike robin hood.
> 
> atlantis, however, was intriguing because it might have represented the first significant case of a 'superculture' towering above all other cultures before passing into history, leaving the world much as it was before it came along. also it might have served as a high-tech seeder of other ancient cultures, not unlike greek or western civilisation much later. instead, it's been fairly well established (again AFAIK) as being a minoan culture which made some high-tech innovations for its age, such as types of water-distribution and plumbing, but hardly lived up to the towering myths that came along later. yet a lot of the ruins are still intact and available for intensive analysis, unlike the camelots and so forth.


 
Yes, most of these had some sort of historical basis, I agree. My point being that -- whatever the basis for each, they have become mythical, leaving the reality far behind ... and usually done so to bolster some form of ethnocentrism, or a religious or mystic agenda (or, as with Plato, as a model to make some philosophical points, as with Moore's Utopia). 

As for Mu:

Mu (lost continent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

I'm most familiar with Mu through the fantasy writers who ran with the idea, usually as taken from Churchward & Co. As a fictional theme, I find it fascinating, and quite a few of the stories are very good. But as something based in reality... no, I'm afraid not. Still, there have been some absolutely wonderful stories told using it, from Merritt's *The Moon Pool*, to HPL's "Out of the Eons", to... well, let's just say it's a very common place-name in fantasy and science-fantasy, often used in the same way as Atlantis.


----------



## gigantes (Mar 20, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> Yes, most of these had some sort of historical basis, I agree. My point being that -- whatever the basis for each, they have become mythical, leaving the reality far behind ... and usually done so to bolster some form of ethnocentrism, or a religious or mystic agenda (or, as with Plato, as a model to make some philosophical points, as with Moore's Utopia).


i understand, but i wanted to run with your examples a little since there is still common misunderstanding about them.  a lot of people prolly don't know that there's an actual arturius and / or that the search for atlantis is effectively over.



> I'm most familiar with Mu through the fantasy writers who ran with the idea, usually as taken from Churchward & Co. As a fictional theme, I find it fascinating, and quite a few of the stories are very good. But as something based in reality... no, I'm afraid not. Still, there have been some absolutely wonderful stories told using it, from Merritt's *The Moon Pool*, to HPL's "Out of the Eons", to... well, let's just say it's a very common place-name in fantasy and science-fantasy, often used in the same way as Atlantis.


ah, thanks!  woot... learned something today. 

anyway yea, it's a pretty sexy theme and it's just too bad that plate tectonics render it unfeasible.  i really like the idea of 'lost, advanced civilisation' myself, altho at this point humanity itself looks like an excellent candidate for the award.


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 20, 2007)

gigantes said:


> i understand, but i wanted to run with your examples a little since there is still common misunderstanding about them. a lot of people prolly don't know that there's an actual arturius and / or that the search for atlantis is effectively over.


 
Hmmm. Considering the amount of popular press that's come out on the subject -- including numerous television pieces -- I'd have thought that the basis for Arthur and Camelot would be fairly well known. Perhaps I overestimate there.... 

Anyway, I agree: it's a fascinating theme; and certainly for fictional purposes, most of these act as templates innumerable stories, of just about any kind you want. Some of the best writers using them, of course, also used these stories to get across their worldviews, or to address concerns, or to ask questions, to get the reader to think... all while telling very entertaining stories... Merritt's, for instance (despite some flaws in geography and history) is not only a very good yarn, but his pseudo-poetical style makes a lot of the book just a very lush and delightful read -- the original novelette even more so, as it also works very effectively as a genuinely eerie piece.

And yes... we do.....


----------



## gigantes (Mar 20, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> Hmmm. Considering the amount of popular press that's come out on the subject -- including numerous television pieces -- I'd have thought that the basis for Arthur and Camelot would be fairly well known. Perhaps I overestimate there....


the problem is that people need to have read the press or seen the television pieces to know. XD

still, it's not like too many people prolly care at this point... and if they do care they can find out easily enough.

i had a guy living next door recently who had no idea where south america or canada were.  i was dumbfounded, but i guess those humorous clips of TV hosts with camera crews going out into the streets of the US and asking people basic geography questions are more typical than i thought.


----------



## nawlfawlk (Mar 27, 2007)

The true children of Israel are The So called Negroes, Yes its true. Just do the research for urself. I know the first thing people think when they hear that is, Niggers are not the children of israel but we are. You see the all mighty has hide us from the rest of the world, its all apart of the curses. Yes one of the curses was that we would completely loose our identity. Yes every one else thats claiming to be israel are knowingly lying. The Jewish people know they are not Israel, they are Khazars. And the British royals know for a fact they arent Israel they are completely lying. These people know who Israel is and they intend to keep it a secret for a reason. Now lets get to a little evidence. We know from the historical, scriptual, and archeological evidence that the children of Israel were a black skinned people. Also the ancient Egyptains, Persians, Babylonians, Ethiopians, and Cannanites were all black skinned people. This is what Roman historian Cornelious Tacticus said about Israel ''Many again say that they were a race of Ethiopian origin,who were driven by fear and hatred of their neighbors to seek a new dwelling place''. We all know what Ethiopians look like. But the question is how did we loose our identity. Well when our people made the covenant With YAHWEH, in the wilderness we were put under blessings and curses. Yah said if we were to obey his laws (Torah) he would bless us but if we didnt he would curse us forever. These are the two choices our people were given by Yah, and he said that the curses would be on us for a sign and wonder(indicater) of who his people were. Remember, one of many curses was that he would take our identity away. Now when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and took over, as Yahshua(Jesus) prophisied would happen, our people fleed to the continent of Africa. That is where we were sold into the slave mines by the Native Africans. Then the Native Africans sold us to the Arabs, Then the Arabs and Africans sold us to the Europeans. We need to know that all black skinned people are not the same people. The ancient Egyptains were a completely different people from the ancient Baylonians, they both were just black skinned. In facy seperation by color of skin was invented during the trans atlantic slave trade. Before that people were seperated by their nationality not there skin color. So when people Say black Africans sold black africans into slavery, thats a lie. Black Africans sold black Israelites into slavery. And then we get into the curses, one of the curses was that Israel will return to slavery in ships and sold to our enemies. Another curse is that we would be called scornfull knicknames,name like nigga, negro, African American, Afro American, coons.... And another curses is that we would be the poorest most down trodden people every where we would be held captive. Go to any country on earth and if the poorest most hated people in that country are black skinned chances are thoughs people are Israel. Now i cant speak for all the children of israel scattered to the four corners of the earth but i speak for Israel thats scattered in the western hemisphere. The so called Hatians, Jamaicans, African Americans, Black latinos, and Black west indians. We are all children of Israel brought here on slave ships to the land of our enemies to fullfill the curses. When Yahshuah talks about All that is written must be fullfilled he is talking about the curses and prophisies of the law books and the prophets. And after the destruction of Jeruselum that begain the fulfillment of all the curses and all of what the prophets spoke of. Yes this is the truth. You dont have to believe me, but a smart person would do the research and see the truth. Now if you want more truth visit (Hebrewisraelites.org)


----------



## mosaix (Mar 27, 2007)

"You don't have to believe me......"

Thanks for that I was just on the point of being convinced. 

BTW a really smart person would read up on genetics and find out just who comes from where.


----------



## Dave (Mar 27, 2007)

mosaix said:


> ...a really smart person would read up on genetics and find out just who comes from where.


You can begin here:
YHRD.org [worldwide]
Y-DNA Haplogroup Descriptions
Compare populations using Y Chromosomal markers.

You can also use linguistic classifications, archaeology and anthropology.

I've done my research already, but thanks for the tip nawlfawlk.

Here is the proof: 
Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes -- Hammer et al. 97 (12): 6769 -- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences


----------

