[CTRL] IMPERIAL BRITISH-ISRAELISM: JUSTIFICATION FOR AN EMPIRE

[eric stewart]

-Caveat Lector-

http://www.revneal.org/Writings/british.htm


IMPERIAL BRITISH-ISRAELISM:
JUSTIFICATION FOR AN EMPIRE

A Thesis in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Masters of Divinity Degree
Duke University Divinity School

By:
Gregory S. Neal
May 12, 1987

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Precis'

I. Introduction

11. British-Israelite Theory

111. British-Israelite Historiography and Biblical Hermeneutics

IV. Justifying the Empire

1. Birthright
2. Division of Birthright
3. Sin, Punishment, Displacement, and Christians in the Wilderness
4. The Great Trek and the Wilderness Place in the Isles Afar Off


V. Justifying the Royal Family

1. Scepter and Lawmaking
2. The Lineage of the Scarlet Thread
3. The House of David
4. The Call of Jeremiah


VI. Imperial British-Israelite Applications

1. Manasseh: The United States of America
2. Lord Admiral Fisher: The Anglo-Saxon League and the World War
3. The British-Israel World Federation and the End of the Empire


VII. Conclusion: The Mandate of Imperial British-Israelism




BRITISH-ISRAELISM


"British-Israelism" is the theory that the Ten Lost Tribes of
Israel comprise the bulk of the population of Great Britain, the
British Commonwealth of Nations, and the United States of America.
The movement, which began in the 1850s, can be divided into three
basic periods: Millennial, Imperial, and Neo-millennial. The first
and third periods are similar to each other in that, while they
accepted the initial postulate of the theory as stated above, the
focus of the movement during these years can be found in their
strong eschatological Christology. The Imperial period, on the
other hand, had, as its primary goal, the justification of both the
British Empire and the British throne. The purpose of this paper is
to show how Imperial British-Israelism did this through Biblical
hermeneutics and the use of pseudo-historical and archaeological
sources. As a movement locked in history, we will discover that the
Imperial period was a dynamic religious/political response to the
decline of the Empire which began in 1901.

IMPERIAL BRITISH-ISRAELISM:
JUSTIFICATION FOR AN EMPIRE

INTRODUCTION

The sun never set on the British Empire. This was once, quite
literally, the truth. From 1850 to the fourth decade of the
twentieth century, Great Britain's overseas holdings spanned the
globe--from the Isles to Palestine, from India and Australia to
Canada and the Caribbean . . . all around the earth, if the sun was
in the sky a piece of the British Empire sat, somewhere, underneath
it. Such was only fitting, some would say, for the descendants of
the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel--God's chosen people and the
birthright nation in the Isles afar off.

This was the claim of British-Israelism during the early years of
the twentieth century, a time in which the Empire stood at the
pinnacle of world achievement and, yet, upon the brink of decline.
The imperial period of the British-Israelite movement lasted from
1901 to 1947, its initiation being marked by the death of Queen
Victoria and its demise coming with the independence of India. As
the middle stage in a constantly evolving movement, Imperial
British-Israelism inherited much from the preceding millennial
phase, and would bequeath much to the neo-millennial stage which
would follow. The Imperial period, however, distinguishes itself
from her two sister eras in that during these years the movement
stood on the crest of popularity, at the high point of its
influence and with a singleness of purpose. Essentially, Imperial
British-Israelism had one goal above all others: the justification
of the Empire.

Unlike the splintered years which preceded and antedated it, the
middle period presented a focus any loyal subject of the Crown
could take to heart and proudly support. The royal family, they
claimed, was directly descended from the tribe of Judah through
both Zerah and Perez. This focal point was just one of many
elements which made the movement nationalistic in nature, thus
providing for a political as well as a religious appeal. In stark
contrast, the millennial phase, which stretched from 1840 to 1890,
focused on the long-awaited Second Coming of Christ, with a firm
understanding of the British people as both spiritual and
biological heirs of Abraham. The neo-millennial era, which has
lasted from 1950 to the present time, redefined these old
millennial doctrines while adding dominant racial and anti-semitic
overtones. Neither millennial era gave much importance to the
political applications of their theories, and even though they
might accept the royal postulate, this galvanizing doctrine never
served them as it did the imperial period.

While Imperial British-Israelism claimed followers from all levels
of English and colonial society--from commoners to the royal family
itself--the millennial periods found support from less prominent,
powerful, and diverse sections of the population. The early
millennial period found followers within evangelical portions of
the Anglican Church, as well as inside American Methodism. The
later period of millennialism finds its primary proponents among
fringe Pentecostal groups, as well as in the teachings of Herbert
W. Armstrong and the White-Supremacist Identity Movement of Richard
Girnt Butler. These groups rarely agreed on doctrinal specifics or
methods of scriptural interpretation, but they did hold one belief
in common: the Celtic-Anglo-Saxon peoples of northwest Europe were
descended from the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. The Imperial years,
however, took this focus and honed it especially toward national
identity, finding within this doctrine a justification for the
continued existence of the British Empire during the twilight years
of world domination. In essence, during the Imperial period
British-Israelism was, to a very great degree, a political
movement.

Our examination of Imperial British-Israelism will focus on the two
primary branches of their doctrine: the identity of the British
people with the House of Israel and the identity of the British
Royal family with the House of Judah. We will do this by looking at
the two dominant ways by which they attempted to prove their
claims, primarily, their body of pseudo-historical literature and
the particulars of their Biblical hermeneutic. Following this, we
will proceed to look at the ways in which the British-Israelite
understanding of their place in history and in the world affected
their view of the United States of America, the decline of Great
Britain's imperial realm, and the rise of the British Commonwealth
of Nations.

BRITISH-ISRAELITE THEORY

It is impossible to begin an examination of Imperial
British-Israelism without first addressing the key postulates of
their doctrine. In doing so one must keep in mind that what is
being presented is, in fact, only a rough sketch of the most
readily accepted positions of the movement. Indeed, even within the
limited confines of the following overview, a few proponents of the
imperial period would probably find points with which they might
argue. Although I have reduced the beliefs to a core of common
agreement, I have attempted nevertheless to present
British-Israelite theory with as much honesty and accuracy as
possible.

In its simplest form, British-Israelism claims that the British
people are the descendants of the Northern Kingdom of Israel,
deported, initially, by Tiglath Pilezer III, king of Assyria, when
he launched an invasion of the Kingdom of Israel in 740 B.C.E., and
later by the successor of Shalmaneser V, Sargon II, who destroyed
its capital city, Samaria, in 721 B.C.E. While this is the most
important "article of faith" to be found in all British-Israelite
movements, it is almost always followed by these subordinate, but
crucial, points:

1. The English throne is the throne of David

2. The English royal family is of lineal descent from David, King
of Israel, and from Zerah, brother of Perez, son of Judah

3. The British Empire and the Church of England are the modern-day
manifestation of the true Kingdom of God

4. The British people are chosen by God to rule the earth.

In addition to these key points, it is possible to identify a
number of critical, paradigmatic positions within British-Israelite
theory which help to define and characterize the movement. The
concept of the "birthright" is one of these auxiliary themes. By
"birthright" is meant the promises given by God throughout the
Hebrew Bible to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jacob's descendants.
Among the more important of the birthright promises were those
which spoke about the descendants of Abraham as being both a great
nation and a multitude of nations, while also being as numerous as
"the dust on the sea shore and the stars in the heavens." These
promises were also seen as including references to the quality of
the birthright people, identifying them as powerful, invincible,
and superior to all other nations and races.

These promises were passed, virtually intact, from Abraham to
Isaac, and from Isaac to Jacob. Then Jacob, due to the sins of
Reuben, his first born, split the birthright promises between his
two most prominent sons, Joseph and Judah. The recognition of this
division in the Birthright is of paramount importance in
British-Israelite ideology, for it allows them to trace the
Birthright away from Judah and to the Northern Kingdom of Israel.
Joseph did not get everything, however, for from the body of the
birthright Jacob took the rights of kingship and lawmaking to give
to Judah in perpetuity. The House of Joseph, primarily his son
Ephraim, later became the nucleus around which the "ten tribes" of
the Northern Kingdom, Israel, would rally. The House of Judah would
rule over the United Kingdom, as well as being the major part of
the Southern Kingdom, Judah, following the political split after
the death of Solomon.

Israel and Judah existed as separate kingdoms for two hundred-years
until, after a long war with the Assyrian Empire, Israel finally
succumbed to the forces of Sargon II in 721 B.C.E. With this begins
the British-Israelite themes of Punishment and Displacement, which
state that because Israel worshiped idols God allowed the Assyrian
Empire to defeat and relocate them just south of Lake Van, along
the border between Assyria, Urartu, and the Median Empire.

This is not only an important point in their theory, it is an
essential junction for all forms of Celtic-Anglo-Saxon Israelism.
Israel, descended from the House of Joseph and possessor of the
birthright promises, is re-settled by Assyria. She subsequently
vanishes from the pages of Scripture and history, initiating the
themes of "the Great Trek", and "the Wilderness Place in the Isles
Afar off". These themes follow the displaced tribes of the Northern
Kingdom through the Caucasus Mountains and then west, across
Europe, to settle in Scandinavia, other areas of northwest Europe,
and, finally, in the British Isles. Here, the theme of "Christians
in the Wilderness" comes into play, claiming that these Lost Tribes
would become Christian in these very same Isles. Through these
basic paradigms, the people of Great Britain, and their descendants
across the globe, are discovered to be the direct, lineal
descendants of the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel, recipients of the
birthright promises, true holders of the name of Israel, destined
rulers of the Earth.

At this point British-Israelite theory must return to the division
of the Birthright between the Houses of Joseph and Judah, where the
themes of "Scepter and Lawmaking", the "Lineage of the Scarlet
Thread", the "House of David", and the "Call of Jeremiah" can be
found. Until this point, the brunt of the theory has focused on the
Northern Kingdom, Israel, and the birthright promises given to it
by Jacob. From here, the theory turns its focus to the kingly role
of the House of Judah, the division of the kingship between Judah�s
twin sons, Zerah and Perez, and the eternal establishment of the
Throne of David over both Judah and Israel.

British-Israelism�s line of argument is fairly straightforward,
though its weaving back and forth between scriptural and
psudo-historical texts is often confusing. Essentially, however,
the course of events is easily told, and begins with the Themes of
Scepter and Lawmaking, and of the Scarlet Thread. Following the
death of Joseph in Egypt, and in accordance with Jacob's splitting
of the birthright, the descendants of Judah--Zerah and his sons,
the children of the Scarlet Thread--began to rule in northern, or
Lower Egypt. Eventually, the Zerahite Kings were overthrown by a
Pharaoh of Upper Egypt who "knew not Joseph", and the descendants
of Judah through Zerah, were forced to flee. They left, by ship,
north through the Mediterranean Sea to settle in Greece, Troy, and
on the Iberian peninsula. Eventually, in multiple waves and through
many different routes, the House of Judah through Zerah would
establish itself in the British Isles as the High Kings of Ireland,
the royal family into which the Davidic dynasty would be grafted at
a later date. Meanwhile, back in Egypt, the rest of the Hebrews are
made slaves, and would eventually leave under Moses.

Following the establishment of the tribes in the Promised Land, the
period of the Judges, and the kingship of Saul, David, King of the
United Empire of Israel, is promised by God that his dynasty would
be in existence forever and that a descendant of his would rule
over the House of Israel in a place other than Palestine. This is
the beginning of the "House of David" theme, which would dominate
not only later British-Israelite theology, but certain earlier
forms of Jewish and Christian Messianic expectation. After Sol mon,
the kingdom is divided, Israel going its own way while Judah
continues to be ruled by David's descendants until Nebuchadnezzar
takes Jerusalem and has their last king, Zedekiah, and his sons
killed. He, however, misses Zedekiah's daughters, and it is through
this opening that British-Israel finds its route into the House of
David.

Tea Tephi, a daughter of Zedekiah, was given as a ward to Jeremiah
not long before the fall of Jerusalem. We are told that Jeremiah
and his party would survive the stay in Egypt, not to be killed but
to prosper. Then, they vanish from scripture. Within five years of
their disappearance from the Biblical narrative, an old man shows
up in Ireland with a daughter of a king, named Tea Tephi. This old
man, known to the Irish histories as 0llam Folla, marries Tea Tephi
to Eochaid, the High King, or "heremon", of all Ireland and himself
a descendant of Zerah, thus reuniting the two Judah lines of Zerah
and Perez. When the Celts, the House of Israel--the "lost ten
tribes", finally arrive in the British Isles sometime before 400
B.C.E., their royal family of the House of Judah, through the
Scarlet Thread of Zerah and the Throne of David, is awaiting them.

BRITISH-ISRAELITE HISTORIOGRAPHY AND BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS

British-Israelite teaching, as stated in the preceding sections of
this paper, centers around an understanding of the origin of the
British people, their monarchy, and their Empire within the
Biblical period. In order to support their beliefs they seized on
the legendary histories of the Mediterranean civilizations and
their own native lands. They also looked to the Old Testament
Scriptures, searching them for references to themselves, their
national and racial situation, and their destiny as a people and an
Empire.

British-Israelite Biblical hermeneutics can be defined within the
context of modern fundamentalism. Like its evangelical brethren
early in the Twentieth Century, British-Israelism clung tightly to
the fundamental doctrines of Biblical inerrancy and the
premillennial return of Christ. Additionally, they believed in the
"Gospel of Grace":

. . . which is the Gospel of salvation for all mankind; that
personal salvation by faith in the atonement of Jesus Christ is
mandatory for all, whether Israelite, Jew, Gentile or heathen.

Since the proponents of the movement came out of a multitude of
different Protestant denominations, no single set of doctrinal
beliefs which might be easily identified with a major, or even a
minor, denomination can be found within their "articles of faith".
Instead, they were:

. . . Christians of many denominations . . . banded together to
proclaim the national message of the Bible, upholding the
authenticity and accuracy of the whole Scriptures from Genesis to
Revelation.

The only outstanding point they stressed was the identity of the
Israel of the Scriptures with the British Empire of the
post-Victorian era. To do this, they adopted a series of key
postulates which served to define the major guidelines of their
hermeneutic. These were, as already discussed, the inerrancy of the
Scripture, the nature, division, and recipient of the birthright,
and the meaning of "Isle" in the King James Translation of the Old
Testament. In addition to these, British-Israelite hermeneutics
placed a great deal of importance on dichotomies such as: House of
Israel vs. House of Judah, Birthright vs. Scepter, Grace vs. Race.
Through these, and other interpretive devices, Imperial
British-Israelism developed its understanding of scripture. They
read with a literal eye, avoiding spritualizations and metaphorical
structures while maintaining a clear sense of reality and, in some
places, a great deal of continuity. They rejected incompleteness,
striving to find significance in every verse of scripture through
either interpretation or historical argumentation. This utilization
of pseudo-historical midrashim produced an interesting and unique
view of the "Holy Writ", one which gave rise to the split between
British-Israelism and their evangelical brethren.

The differences between the hermeneutics of Imperial
British-Israelism and the interpretive methods of other
fundamentalist groups become clear when sources outside the
scriptures are sought and quoted as though they were as
authoritative as the Bible. For the vast majority of fundamentalist
commentators, only the Scr iptures have the validity to warrant an
uncritical, literal reading; British Israelites, however, often
treat such spurious documents as Geoffrey of Monmouth's "The
History of the Kings of Britain" and the writings of Homer as
co-equal in authority with the Bible. By accepting the truth of
these stories at face-value, British-Israel can trace the origin of
the royal family back to the Troy of Homer, from where it is
possible to follow the line even farther back, through the
histories of early Greek writers, into Egypt and to Hebrew
forebears.

With their use of pseudo-history as a form of Jacob Neusner's
"Midrash as Paraphrase" to explain those portions of the Bible
which either do not agree, or fail to go far enough in legitimizing
their interpretations, British-Israelism produced a dynamic union
of Scripture with historical mythology. This melding provided them
with a clear story of their origins, a Biblical justification for
their Empire and their Royalty, and the promise of a future,
eternal greatness.

JUSTIFYING THE EMPIRE

BIRTHRIGHT


The beginning for all British-Israelite approaches to the
Scriptures is found in those verses comprising the birthright
promises given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. While the bulk of the
promises were given to Abraham, amplifications and minute
modifications were added with each confirmation of the birthright
on the descendants. By the time Jacob was ready to bestow the
promises on his sons, the following points are understood by
British-Israel as having been established as part of the
birthright:

1. Abraham's descendants would be a great nation. Those that
supported them would be supported by God. Those that opposed them
would be opposed by God. From them would come blessing for all the
Nations.

2. They would be as numerous as the dust of the Earth.

3. They would inherit a grant of land.

4. Multiple nations, kings, and peoples would come from Abraham's
descendants.

5. They would "posses the gates of their enemies."

6. No weapon or military force would ever defeat them.

7. They would control the Earth, "pushing the people to the ends of
the Earth."

As understood by British-Israelites, these promises were
established, eternally, through dual one-sided covenants--covenants
in which "God has assumed all responsibility, and to his integrity
alone must we look for [their] fulfillment." Since God is made the
sole responsible party in these covenants, the behavior of the
people about whom they refer does not come into question. This
allows the birthright recipients to maintain their status as God's
chosen people, even though they might be exiled in the wilderness.

The children of Abraham would, according to British-Israelite
exegesis, receive two "land grants". The first one is found within
the text of Genesis 13:14-15,17, and encompasses that region in the
Middle East traditionally known as the "Promised Land". The second
"land grant" is located in the wilderness, to the north and in the
west, and is understood as being given to Israel through a later
promise to David.

They would repossess the gates of their enemies, meaning that they
were to be in

. . . possession of great strategic positions in different parts of
the world, dominating [their] enemies' lands. These strategic
positions in a wonderful manner respond [or are equivalent to] to
the Scriptural term 'Gate' . . . .

This promise combines with the final two promises of the birthright
paradigm to produce the image of a world spanning, world
controlling Empire--much as the British Empire was perceived as
being during its peak years, and as the proponents of the Imperial
period wished to see confirmed and perpetuated indefinitely. While
this represents the totality of the first covenant, as understood
within British-Israelite circles, it does not even touch on the
second covenant, which is more in line with traditional readings of
the scriptures.

While accepted by those of the Imperial period, the second covenant
is not, in and of itself, considered intrinsically more important
than the first covenant. Indeed, they are often viewed as
co-covenants, with the second being inbedded in, and indelibly
linked to, the first. It is found in the promise that a descendant
of Abraham would bring blessings, by which is understood salvation,
to all humanity. This covenant is eschatological in nature, and is
thought to be a foretelling of the future coming of Christ.
Consequently, while being a part of the later promises given to
Judah, this is still an incredibly important promise for both
British-Israelism and Christianity. As the nucleus of the second
covenant, it also provided the first with a firm foundation upon
which to stand. As J.H. Allen states in his pivotal book, Judah's
Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright:

It is evident that one of these covenants is Messianic; that one*
is multitudinous; that each is contained in the other; that in them
there is no contracting party of the second part; and that both
alike do stand on the integrity of God.

Because British-Israelites opposed the spiritualization of
scripture, both covenants were viewed as actual. Indeed, if the
Christ covenant is actual, then the multitudinous seed covenant
must also be actual. In this way the veracity of British-Israel�s
claims, as viewed in their understanding of the first covenant, is
based upon the same authority as the promise of Christ in the
second covenant. Hence, if their birthright thesis is false, then
Christ's initial coming must also be viewed with skepticism. In
addition, the eventual return of Israel to the "family of God" will
be tied to this promise and the original coming of Christ which it
predicts. By the combination of these factors, and with the
perspective of historicity in prophecy which British-Israelites
gave to these promises, another tenet of British-Israelite biblical
hermeneutics is maintained--that "God's will has been, and forever
will be, perfectly fulfilled according to the letter of the
scripture."

DIVISION OF BIRTHRIGHT

Jacob received the birthright from his father, Isaac, as a single
blessing. God confirmed this blessing, making additional remarks
and bestowing a few refinements such as the name "Israel", but it
had basically remained the same since the days of Abraham. With
Jacob, however, the simple passing of the birthright, as a single
package, from one descendant to the next would end; instead, a
division occurred.

According to the ancient law of primogenitor Reuben, Jacob's
first-born son, should have received the birthright promises.
However, like the two preceding generations in the line from
Abraham, the elder son failed to meet the qualifications and was
passed over for a younger son--indeed, thanks to Reuben's sins with
his father's concubine, Bilhah, the birthright was re-directed to
two of Israel's younger, but more prominent sons, Joseph and Judah.
This division is an important point for Br itish-Israelism because
much of their terminology, and thus their hermeneutic, stems from
their conception of the identity of Israel in opposition to the
nature of being a Jew. Put succinctly:

When the term Israel was used in contradistinction to Judah it
referred to the northern kingdom of the ten tribes only. The people
of the ten-tribed northern kingdom were never called Jews: the term
Jew referring exclusively to people in the small southern kingdom
of Judah . . . Thus every Jew was also an Israelite, but every
Israelite was not a Jew, in the same way as every Scotsman is a
Briton but every Briton is not a Scotsman.

Hence the important dichotomy of Israel and Judah is established,
one which will make greater sense once the terms of the division
are clarified.

As British-Israelite doctrine indicates, God directed Jacob to
bestow the birthright promises upon Joseph and his sons, Ephraim
and Manasseh. He began by adopting them, making them equal with his
other sons in terms of secular inheritance, following which he
gives them the name "Israel". Ephraim, the younger son, is then
blessed over and above Manasseh, the older son:

Jacob preferred Ephraim before Manasseh; and he is called the
firstborn of God, not as the individual, but as the federal head of
the Ten-tribed House of Israel . . . . Jacob predicted that
Manasseh should become, in the 'latter days', a 'great people', but
Ephraim was to become 'a greater [people] than he'. Is it, or is it
not, a fact of modern history that the United States of America are
a 'great people', and yet are a branch that ran over the wall of
our own vineyard? And is it not a fact that, as a 'nation and
company of nations', Great Britain and Greater Britain [the British
Empire] are greater even than the 'great people' of the United
States?

In this way, the birthright is bestowed on the House of Joseph,
specifically to Ephraim. Both sons are named "Israel" by Jacob, but
Ephraim is promised to be a "multitude of nations", or, more
accurately, a "company of nations", Manasseh, on the other hand, is
understood as becoming a powerful, crowded country which would, as
Jacob later says to Joseph and as Isaiah would illustrate, "run
over the wall, breaking away from Ephraim-Israel."

British-Israelite theory understands the division of the birthright
as a two stage event. Above is the first stage, in which the
birthright itself is divided between the two sons of Joseph, with
Ephraim being understood as the ancestor from which the people of
Great Britain, and hence her Empire, descended, and Manasseh as
being the ancestor of the United States of America. The Second
stage of their exegesis comes with the dispersion of the rights of
kingship and law making to Judah. We shall come to this later; for
now, suffice it to say that "the birthright was Joseph's", and that
Ephraim was understood as the British Empire and Manasseh as the
United States.

SIN, PUNISHMENT, DISPLACEMENT, AND CHRISTIANS IN THE WILDERNESS

The themes of Israel's sin, punishment, and displacement in the
wilderness are of great importance in British-Israelite thought.
Not only do they actually exist, in one form or another, within the
Old Testament text, but they also serve British-Israelism by
providing the impetus needed to push, and follow, the Ten Lost
Tribes of Israel out of Palestine and into their other promised
land, the "appointed place". Their hermeneutic for this draws
extensively from the Latter Prophets, including all three of the
Majors, and from the Minors: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Micah,
Zephaniah, and Zechariah. Our examination will draw on only a
limited selection of scriptures from the three majors, as well as
from Hosea and Micah.

No passage of Scripture more graphically demonstrates the sin of
Israel and Judah which precipitated their punishment than the
"Parable of the Two Sisters", which is found in Ezekiel 23 and, in
a different form, in Jeremiah 3. For British-Israelism this is the
proof-text of Israel�s failure to live up to God's standard, and
the point from which the bill of divorce from God extends.

British-Israelism understands God as having been married, from the
separation of the birthright onward, to two wives: Israel and
Judah. As in the Ezekiel text, these two peoples are often
characterized as two sisters, and/or daughters, who engaged in acts
of prostitution with the men of other nations. This was an allegory
for the practice of Baal worship in the Northern and Southern
Kingdoms, and it is for this sin--idolatry--that Yahweh will punish
both sisters. Israel, at first the worse of the two, is "given a
bill of divorcement", and "delivered . . . into the hand of her
lovers [Assyria]". Judah, who observed this, failed to take heed
and "went and played the harlot also". God, responding to Judah's
failure at repentance, does not divorce her but, instead, sends her
into captivity in Babylon. In this way Israel is now understood as
the divorced wife, the "widow", while Judah is perceived as God's
only remaining spouse.

British-Israelism looks to Hosea for an interpretation of the
events in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. It is indeed strange that they
would find some of the key verses for the propagation of their
movement in Hosea; after all, it is here that we find God passing
judgment upon the Kingdom of Israel through the naming of the
prophet's children.

Hosea�s first son is named Jezreel, a name that has two meanings:
"may God scatter" and "may God sow". The first definition of the
name is amplified by the text itself, with the statement that God
would "put an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel", as the
means by which the scattering would occur. The second definition of
the name is required, however, "for, when the purpose of the
judgement upon the House of Israel was accomplished, there was to
be a future deliverance." The second child, a daughter, is named
"not pitied", which is understood as meaning that "God would no
longer have any compassion for Israel." The third child, another
son, is named "not my people", which is God's declaration that the
children of Israel would not be viewed as his people because He had
divorced them.

Following this series of judgments, in which God puts Israel
completely away, we find the following set of key verses in
British-Israelite thought:

Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of
the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered; and it shall come to
pass, that in that place--in the Isles afar off--where it was said
unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them,
Ye are the sons of the living God.

Here, British-Israel finds a reconfirmation of the original
birthright with an additional promise which they interpret to mean
that "the House of Israel would be Christianized and under the New
Covenant in the Isles afar off." The theme of a Christianized House
of Israel in the wilderness can be found, expounded upon in
Jeremiah 31: 33-37. Here, British-Israelism identifies the Ten Lost
Tribes being made a Christian nation, with God implanting His
glorious laws into the hearts of the children in the wilderness,
and making them His people once again. The Christianizing of Israel
is viewed as a pivotal point because this allows for their return
to the marriage covenant with God and the subsequent fulfillment of
the birthright promises.

Yet another characterization of Israel, the divorced wife, as a
Christian people comes in Isaiah 54, with an unusual interpretation
of what must be one of the most important portions of Messianic
prophecy within the Christian hermeneutical tradition. Christian
exegetes understand Isaiah 53 as a foreshadowing of the life and
death of Christ on Earth. British-Israelite interpreters, however,
do not give the first application of the benefits of this event to
all Jews and Gentiles in general, as in the traditional Christian
hermeneutic, but instead they apply it firstly and most importantly
to the House of Israel. Isaiah 54:1-8 are the crucial verses in
which Israel is identified as the "barren one", "the wife of
youth", and the one under the curse of "widowhood". Because the
Lost Tribes of Israel are to be restored to God through the death
and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and since reference is made to
them immediately following Isaiah 53 as being the primary
recipients of this event, British-Israelism comes to understand the
Anglo-Saxons as nothing short of first-class citizens in the
Kingdom of God. As stated by Commander L.G.A. Roberts, a prominent
proponent of the Imperial period, in his commentary on Isaiah:

The promise here is that the children of the then desolate one
(Israel) are to be more in number than the children of the married
wife (Judah) who were still in Judaea and were never divorced . . .
. She [Israel] is to enlarge her tent and stretch forth the curtain
of her habitation. Here is represented the colonization of Israel
into all the world, wherever they could find a footing . . . . Here
is a picture of Israel as the Christianizer of the world, for as
she was the first to receive the Gospel, so she is the primary
source for world evangelization.

The length of the punishment phase was understood as being a period
of 2520 years. British Israelites arrived at this figure by first
establishing that during at least half of the 765 years from the
time of the Exodus to the capture of Samaria in 721 B.C.E.,
idolatry (the worship of Baal) flourished in the Northern Kingdom.
These are understood as Hosea�s "days of Baalim", one of which
being 360 years in length. When identified as the period known as
"a time" in Leviticus 26:27-28, where God is interpreted as
promising seven times of punishment for Israel's sins, a lengthy
span of punishment is established. In other words:

The judgment that was to be visited upon them under the law was to
be according to the days they served Baal multiplied by
seven--Seven Times, i.e., 2520 years!

And so, according to this method of calculation, from 721 B.C.E. to
the end of the punishment phase would put Israel's birth as a
powerful Empire in circa 1800 C.E.. Most British-Israelites explain
the delay in the ascendancy of Great Britain to the pinnacle of
world achievement following the death and resurrection of Jesus by
appealing to the nature of Roman Catholic Christianity in the
British Isles. Indeed, it was during the Protestant Reformation,
through the publication and distribution of the Bible in the
language of the people (indeed, with the printing of the KJV), that
the building of the British civilization and their colonization of
the world began. As for the seven times method of calculating the
punishment phase, it is viewed as applying to this too, for:

By counting 2520 years from the establishment of idolatry at Dan
and Bethel by Jeroboam I in the early 900s B.C., we come to the
late 1500s and, most especially, 1611. With the publication of the
King James translation of the Holy Scriptures, God's times [of
punishment] began to end and Israel was pushed forward on the
anointed road of world dominion.

The sin of the House of Israel was idolatry, the punishment was
divorce from God and displacement at the hands of the Assyrians,
their fate in the wilderness was to become known as the "sons of
the living God". The punishment phase is understood by
British-Israelites as the process by which the Ten Tribes were
purified of their rebellious nature while being placed in the
wilderness. Here, they were left to become Christian, returning to
God as they came to know their identity as God's birthright nation.
As a Christian nation they were authorized to spread the Gospel of
Jesus Christ, and as the birthright nation Britain was
authorized--indeed, enjoined--to rule the world.


THE GREAT TREK AND THE WILDERNESS PLACE IN THE ISLES AFAR OFF


The Biblical account tells us that the House of Israel was
relocated by the Assyrians to the cities of Halah and Habor, near
the river Gozan, "and in the cities of the Medes." Here, Scripture
loses track of them and, consequently, British-Israel finds its
mandate for claiming that the Ten Tribes are "lost". The question
of their "lostness" has concerned many commentators over the
centuries, but it has never been an issue for debate among
British-Israelites. As they understand it, from the defeat of
Samaria in 721 B.C.E., and following their resettlement along the
Assyrian border with Urartu and the Medes, the people of the
Northern Kingdom were lost to both Scripture and history. Those
rare, isolated verses which appear to have some reference to the
Lost Tribes in the wilderness are plucked out of their context and
given a meaning within an apocryphal framework which attempts to
make sense, but which has very little relation to their original
meaning within the text. In solving this problem, and in direct
opposition to the prevailing hermeneutical attitudes of most
fundamentalists toward the Apocrypha and extra-Biblical sources,
British-Israelism turned to a portion of II Esdras, modern
archaeological research, and pseudo-historical texts to sketch a
picture of the Lost Tribes outside the Biblical account. In this
way they were able to follow them north and west, across the plains
of Europe to Scandinavia and the British Isles where, after the
completion of the 2520 years of punishment, they would finally rise
to claim their inheritance: the world. In turning to extrabiblical
sources to prove their theory, they unknowingly created something
of a modified midrash . . . one which has many affinities with
Jacob Neusner's "Midrash as Paraphrase". Essentially, these
midrashim interweave foreign material with the original Biblical
text to produce new, original stories and interpretations which
bear little or no resemblance to the original scriptures. In our
examination of their beliefs on the wanderings of the Lost Tribes
we will find scripture and non-Biblical sources used, freely, as
both primary and secondary elements with little or no critical
assessment of the validity of the picture each paints. For the most
part, the apocryphal, scientific, and historical materials are
viewed as equal in authority to the Biblical accounts. They also
make up the bulk of the British-Israelite argument in this section.

The people of the Northern Kingdom were relocated to the border
between Assyria and Urartu, and along the border between eastern
Assyria and the Median Empire. Here, they were meant to act as
buffer states between the Assyrians and those outlying marauding
tribes and rebellious political entities in both Media and Urartu.
Resettled here, they fall out of the Biblical narrative and
British-Israel turns to the many archaeological finds in Assyria,
Babylon, and Media to find and trace these displaced tribes.

One of the most revealing methods for identifying Israel in
extra-Biblical literature is through the names given them by those
who either displaced or opposed them. Prior to and during the time
of displacement, Assyria used the term "House of Omri" to refer to
the Northern Kingdom by naming them after their sixth King. In the
Assyrian cuneiform script, the name is transliterated into "Beth
Khumri". This usage is found in the annals of King Tigiath-Pileser
III concerning his invasion of Israel when he removed the first
Israelites to Assyria in 740 B.C.E. Additionally:

Sargon II (722-705 B.C.) also makes mention of the �Khumriu� in his
record of the capture of Samaria. He refers to himself as the
conqueror of �Bit-Khumri.� Apparently this is the last mention of
the Israelites by the name �Khumri.� However, a study of the
Assyrian cuneiform tablets known as the "Royal Correspondence of
the Assyrian Empire" reveals the history of the Israelites in
Assyrian captivity!

>From these "letters", British-Israelite scholars have been able to
identify the various names and movements of the Lost Tribes through
a multitude of border conflicts in the last days of the Assyrian
Empire. The names derive logically from "Khumri" and include the
well known "Gimiri" and "Cimmerian" tribes of Asia minor and
Armenia. The Gimira are identified as being exiles from another
land and appear in the very areas where the Israelites had been
previously placed by the Assyrians. According to the Royal
Correspondences, they are continuously being caught in the midst of
battle between the armies of Urartu and Assyria, and many of them
are eventually displaced from their resettlement towns to the east,
into Media, and west, to the gap between Lakes Van and Umira. Here,
many stay until the fall of the Assyrian Empire.

Other groups of the Lost Tribes join forces with the Urartians
against both Assyria and Media. Known as "Iskuza", they lived among
the Manni tribes in Media and west, in Asia Minor. They are clearly
identified in Esarhaddon's prayer texts, which �tell us that the
Iskuza invaded the lands of the Medes and competed with the
Assyrian expeditions sent into Media to collect tribute." According
to E. Raymond Capt, "Iskuza" is just another Assyrian name for lost
Israel, apparently referring to another group of Israelites
originally in Asia Minor whereas "Gimira" referred to those along
the border with Media. As to the derivation of the name, he
explains that Isaac could have easily taken the form of "Isaaca"
which, in turn, became "Iskuza" when the Assyrians heard it. From
Iskuza it is possible to follow Israel even farther for,

It is universally accepted by modern historians that the Iskuza
were called �skuthaen� by the Greeks and "Sacaem" (also "Saka" and
"Sakka") by the Persians. Herodotus further tells us the Persians
called the Sacae, "scythians". Essentially, the name "Gimira" was
strictly an Assyrian name and not one the Israelites would have
used.

Additionally, from "Sacae" also came the name "Sacasene", which
lengthens over the years in the wilderness into "Sacsooni" and,
eventually, "Saxon". Capt demonstrates these derivations by
appealing to the writings at Behistun. Much like the Rosetta Stone
of Egypt, the inscriptions here were in three languages: Akkadian,
Susian and Persian, each arranged parallel one to another. The
breaking of the Persian text by Henry Rawlinson lead the way to the
final deciphering of the other two languages, and this event opened
up the history of Assyria and Babylon. The Behistun wall
inscriptions provide British-Israel with two different names for
the Lost Tribes in three languages. In both the Persian and Elamite
(Susian) versions the original word is "Sakka", but in the
Babylonian (Akkadian) version the same people are called "Gimiri".

This proves that the Assyrians and the Babylonians called the
Israelite exiles "Gimiri" regardless of where they lived. It also
indicates that by this time (about 517 B.C.) a branch of the Gimiri
(called "Sakka" by the Persians) had already migrated a long way
beyond Bactria and dwelt on the eastern extremity of the Persian
empire.

By the fall of Nineveh, and hence the Assyrian Empire, in 610
B.C.E., the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel were scattered all over the
Middle-East and Asia Minor. From Phrygia and Lydia in the west to
Bactria east of the Caspian Sea, they were known as "Cimmerian",
"Kimmeroii", "Scythian", "sakka", and "Sacasene". The route to Asia
Minor is found in II Esdras 13:39-45, where the Ten Tribes are
spoken of as deciding to pass through the headwaters of the
Euphrates River, heading north and west, along the southern shore
of the Black Sea, to a region known as "Arsareth". Here, as
discovered in the Royal Correspondences of the Assyrians, the
Israelites are known as Cimmerians and can be followed from Asia
Minor to the Carpathian Mountains, northwest of the Black Sea, a
region British-Israel identifies as "the City of Seth". Here, they
reside while their brothers, the Scythians, catch up.

>From Urartu the Sacasene navigate the Dariel Pass through the
Caucasus Mountains, an event which is claimed to have been alluded
to in Micah 2:13, and then over the northern coast of the Black Sea
to press against the eastern flanks of the Cimmerians. These
Scythians pushed the Cimmerians north and west, across the plains
of Europe, where the Cimmerians become known as the Celts. The
Scythians would soon follow, while continually pushing these Celts
to the northwest coast of Europe, where they (the Celts) became
known as the Frisians, Chauci and Cimbri--the last of these names
being the key link to their ancestry as the Cimmerians. According
to British-Israelite figures, these Celtic peoples crossed the
English channel to the British Isles no later than 300 B.C.E. to
join the Tuatha De Daanan in Ireland, who had crossed over from
Iberia many centuries earlier.

While British-Israelism identifies some of the Lost Tribes with the
Cimmerians, and the Cimmerians with the Celts, they also trace the
rest of the House of Israel, through the Scythian line, to the
Germanic Anglo-Saxon tribes. They do this by looking to Russian
archaeological finds in the steppes of the southern Ukraine. From
here they follow the Scythians north, through present-day Poland
and East-Germany to the Baltic Sea. Tracing the Scythians in their
transformation into Germanic tribes, British-Israel turns to
further archaeological evidence from burial mounds, arrowhead
construction, and the writings of Roman historians. The reason for
difficulty in tracing the Scythians in classical history was
because their name was changed in the time of Pliny the Elder and
Strabo. Essentially,

It was to distinguish between the Sarmatian inhabitants and the
true Scythians, that the Romans dropped the name "Scythian" and
substituted "Sarmatae" and "Germani"(Germans), "Germanus" being the
Latin for "genuine".

In this way, the Scythians lost their identity, becoming Germans
and, on into Scandinavia, Norsemen.
The Anglo-Saxon conquest of Britain was divided into two phases:
the first, between C.E. 280-450, when the Saxons periodically
raided the coast of Britain and returned home. The second was
between C.E. 450-600, when the Angles and Saxons, after the
withdrawal of the Roman garrisons from Britain, landed and settled
in various parts of the country.

One group of Saxons, under the rule of Cerdic, (founder of the
famous Saxon dynasty which produced, in later years, King Alfred)
landed with five ships somewhere west of Solent. The historical
King Arthur is believed to have organized the British defense which
was able to keep Cerdic from gaining a decisive victory for
thirteen years.

Eventually, the Celts of ancient Britain and the invading
Anglo-Saxon and Scythians merged to form one people in time to
combat the invading Norman Scythians in 1066 C.E. Over time, the
Normans were absorbed by the Celtic-Anglo-Saxons and, in this way,
the House of Israel was re-united in the British Isles!

British-Israelites found many various descriptions in the Biblical
text of the lost tribes in their trek across Europe. Among these
are directional clues and other hints which point to the location
of the Lost Tribes in the "latter days". Lost Israel, according to
their interpretation of Isaiah 49:12, would return to the Promised
Land from the north and the west. This northwest location is
understood as being on islands because, thanks to the King James
translation of the Bible, Isaiah makes multitudinous references to
"the isles afar off."

The Scriptures lead us to Isles of the sea beside the great waters,
North and West of Palestine, in our search for Israel. You can take
a map of Europe that includes Palestine, scribe yourself a line
from Palestine, Northwest to the Isles in the sea beside great
waters (The Atlantic Ocean), and there my friends you will find
Israel in the Isles.

British-Israel also identifies, in Hosea 12:1, a confirmation of
the direction of the wanderings of the Ten Tribes, with Ephraim
being described as having been driven west by "the east wind all
day long".

We have seen how British-Israelite theory takes the Northern
Kingdom into bondage under the Assyrians, tracks them through many
name changes, then north and west, across Europe, to the "lsles of
the sea beside the great waters". This trek, which brings the
birthright people to the British Isles, is the fundamental basis
upon which the British-Israelite justification of their Empire is
built. If the Celtic-Anglo-Saxons of Great Britain are to be
understood as the descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel,
their world-spanning Empire would be the natural out-growth of the
birthright promises to Abraham. A Christian people could never hope
for a more sound, Biblically based rationale for their political
establishment and world empire.

In Micah 2:13 the sons of Jacob, which are understood as being lost
Israel, are promised that , although they would go many "days"
without a ruler from the House of Judah, one would be sent ahead of
them to the appointed place in the wilderness to be their King when
they arrived. This, the justification of the British royal family,
is the subject of the following pages.

We have already observed that the British-Israelite use of secular
history and archaeological evidence is most extensive when the
availability of Scripture is sparse. This midrashic appeal to
extra-Biblical material for the interpretation and clarification of
the Scriptural account is essential if their theory is going to be
maintained. The same will be seen to be true in our examination of
the Royal Line of Judah. Next, we turn to that portion of
British-Israelite theory which encompasses the promises to Judah,
David, and Solomon, the saga of the Lineage of the Scarlet Thread,
and the Mission of Jeremiah.


JUSTIFYING THE ROYAL FAMILY

SCEPTER AND LAWMAKING


While Joseph and his sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, were given both
the name �Israel� and the birthright promises, Judah was given the
right to be the King and make the laws for all the tribes. As
British-Israelites read the Scriptures Jacob, in Genesis 49:10,
promises the following to Judah:

The Scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the right to establish
the laws, until Jesus Christ returns, whose right it is to reign,
and unto him shall all the people come.

Judah is promised that a descendant of his would rule over the the
children of Israel until, as British-Israelism understands it, the
second coming of Christ establishes Jesus as King. And, since Jesus
is known to be of the House of David, in reality the Scepter is
given to Judah for all eternity. This is an interesting
interpretation on a number of counts since it does not allow the
first coming of Christ to be the one at the end of verse 10. There
are a multitude of reasons for this interpretation, not the least
of which is British-Israelism's opposition to the spiritualization
of anything understood to be literal. This very issue will take on
an even greater importance when the throne of David is addressed
shortly.


THE LINEAGE OF THE SCARLET THREAD

With the birthright promised in perpetuity, the Judah line then
proceeds to divide into two streams through the birth of his twins,
Zerah and Perez. As in the birth of Jacob and Esau, where the twins
were born with one grabbing at the other's heel, so in the birth of
Judah's twin sons, Zerah's arm appears first. The midwife tied a
red ribbon around it to mark the first-born child, but the hand
retreated unexpectedly into the womb. Then, a boy without a scarlet
thread around its arm is born. Perez, in actuality the first-born,
is followed, a moment later, by the baby with the thread--Zerah. No
reason for this event is given in the Scriptures, and most
traditional commentators tend to be fairly silent as to its
meaning. British-Israelites, unable to accept the possibility that
a whole chapter of Biblical text might not have a divinely inspired
purpose, embark on what must be the best and most interesting
example of midrashic interpretation in their entire hermenutical
tradition. They accept the Biblical account through the end of
Genesis, simply adding a whole extra story before Exodus 1:8 by
drawing from ancient histories, various chronicles, and the legends
and myths of Homer and Geoffrey of Monmouth.

Following the death of Joseph a fight broke out among the
descendants of Jacob as to who should rule in Lower Egypt. Judah
claimed pre-eminence since Israel had promised him the right to
hold the scepter and make the laws, but which of his two sons would
rule? This question was especially difficult to answer due to the
issue of the Scarlet Thread. The argument is easy to anticipate:
While Zerah's arm might have come out first, it was Perez who was
first to be full-born; which credentials for first-born status
would be honored, the Scarlet Thread of Zerah or the full-birth of
Perez? While the British-Israelite midrash does not describe how
the tribes came about their answer, we are told that it was Zerah
who gained the right to rule over Lower Egypt and the twelve
tribes, with his descendants continuing to rule after him for at
least a century. Eventually, a Pharaoh in Upper Egypt was born and
grew up not knowing of the great and mighty deeds of the long-dead
governor of Lower Egypt. Instead, all he saw in the the north was a
weak kingdom ruled by "Shepherd Kings", or the Hyksos, which
British-Israel identifies as the sons of Zerah. He waged war and,
when Lower Egypt fell to Upper Egypt, the rulers of Lower Egypt
fled. According to the legends, Zerah's descendants packed up
everything, including vast stores of gold and silver, and sailed
north into the Mediterranean Sea, never to be seen in Egypt again.
The descendants of Perez, and of most of the other tribes, remained
behind to be enslaved by the Egyptians.

According to a major British-Israelite historical argument, long
before Moses led the twelve tribes out of Egypt there had been
continuous migrations of Hebrews to Greece and other parts of Asia
Minor and Europe:

There are numerous references by the classical writers to the
"Egyptian" origin of the Greeks. Hecataeus of Abdere (6th century
B.C.) quoted by Diodorus Siculus (50 B.C.) tells us that the
Egyptians "expelled all the aliens gathered together in Egypt. The
most distinguished of the expelled foreigners followed Danaus and
Cadmus into Greece: but the greater number were led by Moses into
Judaea."

Further appeals to classical historians abound, including numerous
quotations from Diodorus on the origin of Troy and Greece from
migrations out of Egypt. Additionally, from Herodotus they quote:

If we ascend from Danae, the daughter of Acrisius, we shall find
that the ancestors of the Dorian princes were of Egyptian origin.
Such is the Grecian account of their descent.

The migrations out of Egypt led by Danaus and Cadmus, who are
identified as descendants of Zerah, are not the only ones
referenced by British-Israel. Another important Grecian colony was
founded by Cecrops, also identified as a descendant of Zerah, who
became the first legendary king of Attica. British-Israel was most
interested in the Zerah-line exodus of Calcol and Darda because
they supposedly lead to the British Isles. Calcol, who is
identified with the descendant of Zerah listed in I Chronicles 2:6,
and with the Chalcol of I Kings 4:31, was said to be the founder of
the ancient Kings of Ireland. Calcol's brother Darda, who is
identified as the Dardanus of Homer, is claimed to be the founder
of Troy. Both, it is said, had migrated from Egypt before the
Exodus under Moses.

Cecrops (or Calcol) was the mythological founder of Athens, its
first king, and was thought to have been the leader of a band of
Hebrew colonists from Egypt. For British-Israelite theory, he was
not mythological at all but, in fact, very real . They trace the
westward migration of the descendants of Calcol along the shores of
the Mediterranean Sea through the founding of �Iberian,� or hebrew,
trading settlements:

One of these settlements, which is now called 'Saragossa', in the
Ebro (Hebrew) Valley in Spain, was originally known as
'Zarah-gassa', meaning "The stronghold of Zarah", until as late as
330 A.D. The Iberians continue on to the British Isles, where the
Iberians gave their name to Ireland, calling the island 'Iberne',
which was later abbreviated to 'Ernen' and subsequently Latinized
to 'Hibernia', a name that still adheres to Ireland.

Drawing liberally from Geoffrey of Monmouth's "History of the Kings
of Britain", British-Israelism follows yet another, and somewhat
more famous line of Troy to Ireland. The descendants of Darda, or
Dardanius, ruled Troy for several hundred years until the city was
destroyed in the famous seize described by Homer. Aeneas, who is
understood as the last of the royal blood of Zerah, collected the
survivors of his devastated city and lead them to Italy. There, he
married the daughter of King Latinus, founding the Roman Republic
in the process. Aeneas' grandson Brutus, accompanied by a large
group of Trojans, migrated to "the Great White Island" (an early
name for Britain due to its chalk cliffs). Tradition says that on
the way to the "White Island" Brutus came across four other Trojan
colonies upon the coast of Spain and persuaded them to join him.

At Totnes on the River Dart, twelve miles inland from Torbay (the
oldest seaport in South Devon) is an historical stone that
commemorates the coming of Brutus to Britain (cir. 1103 B.C.). The
stone is known, today, as the "Brutus Stone", the tradition being
that the Trojan prince set foot upon it when he first landed. The
Welsh records state that three tribes of his countrymen received
Brutus and his company as brethren and proclaimed Brutus king at a
national convention of the whole island. Brutus� name heads the
roll in all the genealogies of the British kings, preserved as
faithfully as were those of the kings of Israel and Judah.

British-Israel�s tracing of the multiple lines to Ireland, through
both Troy and Iberia, produces an interesting situation because,
through this series of historic-mythological acrobatics, one half
of the Judah line is placed in the appointed place long before the
Lost Tribes were even taken into the Assyrian captivity. The other
half of the House of Judah, descending from the line of Perez, must
also be brought to the Isles before the arrival of the
Celtic-Israelites. This other half is "the House of David, the
throne which would never end."


THE HOUSE OF DAVID

David was a descendant of Judah through Perez, initially a shepherd
boy born of Jesse. Exceedingly important in almost all Jewish and
Christian interpretations of Scripture, the line of David is often
viewed as that from which the Messiah would eventually come.
British-Israelism looks upon the Davidic dynasty as not only the
one from which Jesus Christ would issue, but also as the source
from which their own monarchy draws its authority and mandate. By
establishing a connection between the Royal family of Great Britain
and the House of David, Imperial British-Israelism sought to root
their monarchy in the most ancient antiquity, within the Biblical
era, and with an assurance of eternal longevity.

In II Samuel 7:11-13,16 David is promised, by God through the
Prophet Nathan, that his House and his throne would last forever
and that, even though his descendants might not be worthy of it,
they would rule over the everlasting Davidic dynasty. Unlike the
nominal Christian interpretation, which tends to spiritualize these
promises and see them fulfilled in Jesus Christ, British-Israelites
maintain their staunch disregard for anything other than a literal
interpretation:

It is not the spiritual throne, the spiritual sceptre, the
spiritual house, nor the heavenly kingdom, which are therein spoken
of, but that it is the literal throne, the earthly kingdom, and the
lineal house of the Judo-Davidic family which are the subjects of
this prophecy; and that all these are to endure FOREVER!

A confirmation of these promises can be found in Psalm 89:29-37,
where it is said of David: "His line shall endure for ever, his
throne as long as the sun before me." This covenant is understood
as being unconditional, eternal, and containing one additional
clause--the Second Land Grant.

British-Israelite thought identifies two land grants in the
Scriptures. The first was given to Abraham, and includes Palestine
and those adjoining regions known as the "Promised Land". The
second was given to the people of Israel through a promise of
David's continued kingship in II Samuel 7:10. David is promised
that the Ten Tribes of Israel would be given a place of their own
to live, that there they would not be bothered by their age-old
enemies, and that a descendant of David would rule over them in
this place! This place, however,

. . . cannot be Palestine, for the people were already dwelling
there and, during the years following David�s reign, the
surrounding Gentile nations continued to afflict Israel. . . The
ten tribes (not the Jews) were to be allured into the wilderness .
. . to find �grace� and �rest� and while there they were to be
restored to God's favor again!

With the Second Land Grant, which promised that his descendants
would rule over the Northern Kingdom in their "appointed place",
and the promise that his House and Throne would continue forever,
the Davidic dynasty is set into a mold which cannot be broken. From
David to Zedekiah, the line continues and, though far from
righteous, God maintains them in power until the final fall of
Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar's forces in 586 B.C.E. With the
Babylonian captivity, the Royal House of David is viewed as
ending--an event which is clearly impossible if God's promises to
David are to be understood as literal pronouncements.

This dilemma is solved by British-Israelites through a clever
series of connections in Biblical history, interpretations of
prophetic utterances in Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, and an
appeal to extra-Biblical mythologies and pseudo-historical sources.


THE CALL OF JEREMIAH

Jeremiah must be one of the most interesting characters in all
British-Israelite literature. Not only is he viewed as the most
important Old Testament prophet to both Israel and Judah, he is
also understood as the prime human motivator which brought the
Davidic Dynasty to the British Isles, reuniting the David-Perez and
Zerah lines while establishing the Royal House of Judah in Ireland.
In this capacity he is identified as the 'righteous man from the
east' of Isaiah 41:2, the instrument of the Lord in the 'Riddle of
Ezekiel 17', and the custodian of 'Jacob's Pillar' as viewed in
Ezekiel 21:25-27. Finally, while traditional Judeo-Christian
interpretations leave Jeremiah to die in Egypt at the hands of his
enemies, British-Israelism follows him out of Egypt and into
Ireland as Ollam Folla, the great law giver of the ancient Irish
chronicles.

The reason for the attention given to this dynamic prophet has more
to do with the perceived failure of Jeremiah's calling than with
anything he might have accomplished in the Biblical narrative. The
Lord sent Jeremiah,

. . . with a mission to root out, tear down, and destroy, on the
one hand; but--hear it!--he was also Divinely commissioned to BUILD
AND PLANT!

British-Israel has little difficulty in locating where and how
Jeremiah destroyed both the Kingdom of Judah and the Throne of
David in Palestine. But, as the original text indicates, and as
they read it, Jeremiah fails to finish his Divine calling. He does
not 'build and plant' the House of David anywhere. This is the
problem which British-Israel struggles with and finds an answer for
through their use of extra-Biblical sources in yet another, this
time much more interesting, series of Midrashic interpretations.

Traditional Christian exegetes read Jeremiah's mission as having
been completed with the coming of Christ and the passing of the
scepter away from the House of Judah to the Messiah. In some forms
of British Israelite thinking, this is viewed as a form of building
and planting, but it is not a literal interpretation and is
therefore rejected by most British-Israelite interpretations:

The most charitable construction which can be put upon such
accommodating, mollifying, weak and abortive efforts to vindicate
the truth of God, is that the persons are ignorant of just some
such vital point as the fact that Jeremiah was called and
commissioned of God to build and plant anew the plucked-up kingdom
of David in Israel--in the ten tribes, that is, not in Judah!

As understood by British-Israelite exegetes, the first coming was
not the Shiloh event for: �the people did not gather to him, as the
promise in Genesis 49:10 indicates!� Instead, the Scepter is
destined to depart from the human King and transfer to the eternal
King, Jesus Christ, at the second coming. Until then, a descendant
of the House of David must rule over the House of Israel in the
wilderness. Jeremiah's task is to transfer that descendent from
Judah to the House of Israel in the Isles afar off, a duty which is
understood as at least being alluded to in both Scriptural and
extra-Biblical sources.

The Riddle of Chapter 17 is interpreted as an allegorical sketch of
Jeremiah's mission in building and planting. The text speaks about
two great eagles, one being Nebuchadnezzar and the other being the
Pharaoh of Egypt, and a young cedar: Zedekiah. First,
Nebuchadnezzar is depicted as coming and establishing Zedekiah as a
puppet king in Jerusalem, following which this "vine of low
stature", goes to the Pharaoh of Egypt in hopes of gaining aid in
throwing off the Babylonian yoke. The Egyptians send a force to the
assistance of the King of Judah, but it is defeated by
Nebuchadnezzar's army. As a result, Zedekiah and all his sons are
taken to Babylon and Jerusalem is destroyed.

This was the dreadful fulfillment: the "roots" of the plant were
torn up, and its fruit was "cut off". Zedekiah saw his sons slain
in his sight, and then his own eyes were put out. The House of
David is apparently at an end, but the allegory in chapter 17 is
not finished. God Himself proclaims that He would take a "tender"
twig of this same cedar, Zedekiah, and plant it in the "mountain of
Israel". The term "tender one" in verse 22 is understood as
denoting a female descendant, and within the already established
allegorical structure it could only mean the daughter, or
daughters, of Zedekiah. This is the salvation of the throne of
David as viewed by British-Israelism for, although Nebuchadnezzar
had killed all the male heirs to the throne of David, he had failed
to exterminate the daughters of Zedekiah. According to Numbers
27:8-11, any one of these daughters could carry on the line if they
married into their own House--in this case, into the House of
Judah.

Jeremiah's call to build and plant involved taking the daughters
Zedekiah, the last king of Judah, to the only place where they
could marry back into a still thriving portion of the House of
Judah and, in this way re-establish the Throne of David over the
House of Israel. This, Jeremiah is claimed to have done in Ireland.

To follow the movements of Jeremiah and the daughters of Zedekiah
outside the Biblical narrative is extremely difficult for
British-Israel to do due to the lack of traditions about them
beyond the British Isles. The local traditions of Ireland, however,
are extensive and the British-Israelites drew heavily upon
pre-Christian myths and folk legends for sources on this topic. The
choices were selective, as might be expected, and center around
those stories focusing on Tea Tephi, Simon Barech, and Ollam Folla.

The most widely accepted British-Israelite version of Jeremiah's
arrival in Ireland says that in about 584 or 583 B.C.E. an old man
arrived in the Isle of Erne with the daughter of an eastern king,
Tea Tephi; also with him were his aid, Simon Barech, and three
items of immense wealth: a stone, a gold chest, and a harp. The
stone is said to have been the stone upon which Jacob had laid his
head at Bethel in Genesis 28; the gold chest was said to be none
other that the Ark of the Covenant; and the harp was the one upon
which David had played for the benefit of Saul in I Samuel 16:23.
The stone, as we shall see, is believed to have survived and is
still in use, but the Ark of the Covenant and David's harp are both
missing. In Ireland, this old man marries Tea Tephi to the High
King of Ireland, Eochaidh, and exacts a dowry which makes him the
great law-giver of all the western isles. As the British Israelists
tell the story:

The stone, known as the "Stone of Destiny", came from Spain and,
before that, from Egypt. It came in the company of an aged
guardian, who was called �Ollam Folla". Eochaidh, the Eremhon of
Ireland, with his Queen Tea Tephi was re-crowned King upon the
Stone which remained at the Palace of Team-hair Breagh. It was the
Coronation Stone of every High King of "Eireann" for a period of
about 1040 years.

This event is known in British-Israelite hermeneutics as the "First
Overturn". According to their understanding of Ezekiel 21:25-27,
they identify three Overturns in the Throne of David before the
second coming of Christ. The first was the transfer of the line of
David to Ireland, as represented in both the daughter of Zedekiah
and, symbolically, in the "Stone of Destiny", also known as
"Jacob's Pillar". Here, the House of David-Perez was joined with
the House of Zerah, reuniting the two branches of the House of
Judah! The second Overturn came in about 500 C.E. when Fergus Mor
McEre, the King of the Irish Gaelic Kingdom of Dairiada, invaded
the western coasts of Scotland and the land of the Picts.
Establishing Scottish Dalriada, Fergus brought the Stone of
Destiny, by then known as "Lia Fail", over from Ireland and had
himself crowned King of Scotland upon that Stone. The third
Overturn occurred in 1296 C.E. when Edward I of England defeated
Scotland and took the stone to Westminster Abbey. There, it became
the coronation stone of the successors to the English Throne. The
two kingdoms were united when King James VI of Scotland was crowned
on the Stone in Westminster Abbey, becoming James I of England . .
. "today, Britain's lovely Queen is Scottish." The Scriptures are
not entirely silent about the actual trip across the Mediterranean
sea to Spain and Ireland. British-Israel finds Jeremiah in Isaiah
41 where, as it is interpreted, islands are told to be quiet about
their heritage until they "renew their strength". Meanwhile, a
"righteous man from the east" is called by God and given the
nations of Israel to rule over, like a king. He is a powerful man
who follows after the Lost Tribes "by the way that he had not gone
with his feet." Traditional and academic exegetes identify this
"righteous man" as Cyrus, the King of Persia who allowed the Jews
to return to Palestine after the Babylonian captivity;
British-Israelites identify this same man as Jeremiah. In their
hermeneutic Cyrus cannot be "righteous" by sheer definition of
being something other than a Hebrew. Additionally, there are no
Islands in Palestine, so the target of this chapter cannot be
anywhere in the "promised land" of Abraham. Instead, the Islands
spoken of are the British Isles, the people who are to "renew their
strength" are the descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, and
the "righteous man" is Jeremiah, who came to the Isles "by ship, a
way his feet had never trod."

"Lia Fail" plays a special role in this entire story because it is
the only tangible object, other than the believed descendants of
Tea Tephi, left over from Jeremiah's trip. Today, it sits in a
cavity built into the Coronation chair in Westminster Abby. As
believed by British-Israel, "Jacob's Pillar" (or "Lia Fail") had
been carried by the Israelites into Egypt during the days of
Joseph, then brought out in the Exodus under Moses. It had gone
before them to Mount Sinai, was the rock which Moses struck to get
water, it produced steam in the day and a fire at night for the
Israelites to follow, and had served as the stone upon which the
kings of Judah were crowned up through Zedekiah. Jeremiah had taken
it with him when he fled to Egypt with Tea Tephi, and then took it
to Ireland from where it migrated, in two successive leaps, to
England and Westminster Abbey. The Monarchs of the Great Britain
are crowned upon (or over) it, just as their ancestors had been in
Palestine. In this way the line of continuity in the House of David
is maintained, the House of Judah is reunited, and the Ten Tribes
of Israel are given their promised monarch of the House of David.
According to British-Israelite doctrine, the royal house of Great
Britain will never be deposed from the British Throne thanks to the
promises of the Davidic Covenant--it is everlasting,

. . . even unto the day of the Lord's return, when a descendant of
David on the English Throne will step aside for the Almighty to sit
down, in the chair containing Jacob's Pillar, and take His rightful
place as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, with our mighty Empire as
the foundation of the Kingdom of God.

This eternal quality of the royal house of Britain, combined with
the divine ordination of the British Empire to rule the world,
provides British-Israelism with its mandate for continued
existence. It also provides for certain applications of the theory
within British society. Next, we turn to examine the ways in which
those within the Imperial period viewed the United States of
America, the League of Anglo-Saxon nations, and the end of the
British Empire.


IMPERIAL BRITISH-ISRAELITE APPLICATIONS


MANASSEH: THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

The United States of America plays a unique role in
British-Israelite theory, and especially within the Imperial
Period. The many Anglo-Israelite movements in the United States
both inherited and carried forward much of what British-Israelism
promoted, but they are not our focus in this paper. Instead, of
much more immediate importance for the Imperial movement was the
way in which Britain's brother country was perceived by the Empire.

As might be expected, British-Israelism found Scripture which they
interpreted to refer to the United States of America. Indeed, more
than just a few verses were identified as having direct relevance
for the United States and their relations with the British Empire.
Fundamentally, these passages are understood as stressing not only
the relatedness of America to the British people but also their
subordinate and supportive role. We will begin by reviewing the
promises to Ephraim and Manasseh, then follow Manasseh through the
British-Israelite interpretation of Genesis 49:22, Isaiah 49:20 and
18:1-4.

We have already seen how British-Israelism relates the United
States of America and Great Britain: they are Manasseh and Ephraim,
the sons of Joseph and heirs to the birthright promises. To
reiterate the particulars about these promises, Jacob indicated
that Ephraim would become a "great multitude" or "company of
nations" while Manasseh would become simply a "great nation". The
interpretation of "multitude", as "company", and finally as an
"Empire of Nations" is characteristic of early Imperial
interpretations, and an understanding which would eventually change
as the Empire gave way to the Commonwealth in 1946. As for the term
"great nation", most British-Israelites would have little or no
trouble applying it to the United States just so long as it was
remembered that Ephraim was promised pre-eminence.

In Genesis 49 we find that Jacob, when blessing all of his sons,
makes a few additional comments about Joseph. Essentially, Jacob is
interpreted as prophesying the day when Manasseh would separate
from Ephraim, or "run over the wall", with the "branches" being
understood as Manasseh's descendants leaving the confines of
Ephraim's domination. This is amplified in Isaiah 49:20 --

The children which thou shalt have, after thou hast lost the other,
shall say again in thine ears, The place is too strait for me: give
place to me that I may dwell.

British-Israel finds another biblical allusion to the pulling away
of the American colonies from the Empire, with the "other" being
understood as referring to the United States. Later Imperial
exegetes would continue with the body of the text, identifying the
"children" as the member states of the Empire and their complaint
being heeded by the eventual foundation of the Commonwealth
Nations.

In their interpretation of Isaiah 18:1-4, we find disagreement
among many British-Israelites. Some, though by no means even half,
identify Great Britain as the nation referenced here. Another
group, and a larger one than the first set, identifies a different
country in this chapter--the United States at her height. In either
case, the interpretation is fundamentally the same with only a few,
minor alterations. The Land with "whirring" or, as one
British-Israelite translates it, "Outstretched Wings" is the United
States because it reflects the image of a great Eagle, "and which
nation claims an eagle in its heraldry?" For these exegetes, the
phrase which places this nation beyond the rivers of Ethiopia is
not to be understood literally but, instead, accepted as simply a
metaphor for a distant land. "Vessels of bulrushes" is interpreted
to mean "water sucking boats--ie, steamships!" and the reference to
ambassadors represents this nations's great influence and great
power. Verse 3 is a key verse for the United States exegetes
because here it is understood that "when this country goes to war,
it is known the world over. They raise up the flag and march to the
notes of the 'stars and stripes forever'! Amen!" Additionally,
verse 2c is interpreted to mean a nation of vast expanses with many
rivers which cut across wide plains. According to some, Great
Britain fails to meet the descriptions. For others, however, the
location beyond Ethiopia is the key which applies this passage to
the Empire. Great Britain, after all, "possess the Nile region,
beyond both branches, and Atbara and the Soudan," which allows the
interpretation to adhere to the near-literal vision which
characterizes the vast majority of British-Israelite exegesis.
However, the Great Britain party does not represent even half of
British-Israelite exegetes in interpreting this chapter, and
especially not since Britain lost control of the Suez Canal, so we
will continue with the first group.

Understanding the United States as its brother Manasseh, Great
Britain could view America with a kindred, warm affection,
sometimes patronizing but never negative. America continued to
prove that the Celtic-Anglo-Saxons were the birthright nation in
terms of both population and world power, and during times of war
the United States would become a source of strength and support for
her elder brother, Ephraim.


LORD ADMIRAL FISHER: THE ANGLO-SAXON LEAGUE AND THE GREAT WORLD WAR

Great Britain, in the decade prior to the First World War, was an
Empire in political and religious turmoil. Domestically, the nation
was blessed with a stable, two-party political system and a booming
economy, but the rise of "new Imperialism" in the 1880s, combined
with the increased push for colonial holdings at the turn of the
century, posed a real challenge to the future of the Empire. In the
midst of, and perhaps because of this, Imperial British-Israelism
grew quite quickly into a full-blown cross-denominational movement
which permeated all levels of British society. As might be
expected, the growing middle class latched onto the doctrines of
British-Israelism as a means by which they could legitimize their
upwardly mobile ambitions. Leading clerics of the Anglican Church,
like Archbishop Bond of Montreal and Bishops Titicomb, Alexander,
Gobat, and Thornton, all gave the movement a basis for
respectability within the trappings of authorized religion. The
movement was not without important followers among the aristocracy
in this period, with such notables as Queen Victoria, King Edward
VII, King George VI, and currently Queen Elizabeth II all embracing
the tenets of British-Israelism. These, and many others in the
aristocratic and wealthy circles of British society, looked to the
movement for different things. Many of them found a rationale for
their continued rule and their Empire's existence amidst a world of
growing adversaries.

A few members of the British aristocracy had slightly different but
nevertheless quite powerful reasons for becoming
British-Israelites. The most illustrious example of this group
would have to be Fleet Admiral Sir John A. F. Fisher, First Sea
Lord of the British Navy during the First World War and the primary
architect of 20th century naval principles. According to Admiral
Fisher, Great Britain must be Israel because, despite the extreme
stupidity of the Members of Parliament, it had managed to achieve
an empire. This, combined with his great admiration for the
American people, drove him to the conclusion that God had destined
the Empire and the United States for leadership in a world union.
He envisioned:

... a great Commonwealth--yes a great Federation--of all those
speaking the same tongue [English] . . . . And I suppose now we
have got [sic] Palestine that this Federal House of Commons of the
future will meet at Jerusalem, the capital of the lost Ten Tribes
of Israel, whom we are without a doubt, for how otherwise could
ever we have so prospered when we have had such idiots to guide us
and rule us as those who gave up Heligoland, Tangier, Caracoa,
Corfu, Delagoa Bay, Java, Sumartra, Minorca, etc.? I have been at
all the places named, so am able to state from personal knowledge
that only congenital idiots could have been guilty of such
inconceivable folly as the surrender of them, and again I say: "Let
us thank God that we are the lost ten tribes of Israel!"

Lord Fisher opposed the elitism of most British-Israelites, viewing
the doctrine as a simple amplification of nominal Anglican
Christianity, which he accepted whole-heartily. But his belief in
the national promises of Israel directed his life in the service of
his people. On his death bed it is said that he whispered in the
ear of a close vicar: "Lord, in thee have I trusted, let me never
be confounded." And, in an epitaph it was said of him:

He confounded many enemies of Britain and spent his days and night
working with might and main to protect God's Kingdom and its
enduring throne, upon which sits the seed of David.

This was the pattern of most British-Israelites who influenced, or
were a part of, the ruling elites of English society. Their beliefs
affected their actions, confirming their goals and giving them the
tenacity to push forward in their quest for a greater Britain and
the coming Kingdom of God.


THE BRITISH-ISRAEL WORLD FEDERATION AND THE END OF THE EMPIRE

In opposition to the League of Nations most British-Israelites,
including Lord Admiral Fisher, viewed the Empire and the United
States as the final arbiter of world peace:

The British, Americans, and their offspring will cause a league of
the Anglo-Saxon-Celt nations the world over, and they, haying the
same languages, ideas, and ideals of justice and truth, and being
God's chosen company or commonwealth of nations, will bring about
what the Creator has ordained from the beginning--righteous peace.

Being Israel, both in people and in the faith of Jesus Christ, no
other alliance or world power could be trusted with such a
responsibility; indeed, God would never give it to any people other
than His chosen elect.

This union was symbolized by the shield of the British-Israel World
Federation, the parent organization out of which most
Anglo-Israelite movements have come. It depicts a globe, upon which
sits an open Bible with "THE LOVE OF GOD" written across it. To the
left side of the world is the British "Union Jack", on the other
the American "Stars and Stripes", and underneath is written "IN GOD
. . . WE TRUST." Beneath all this is written "ISRAEL HEIR OF THE
WORLD", and above all this is written, as if straight from the
mouth of God, "YE ARE MY WITNESSES", witnesses to "God's glory
throughout the world." It lit the path for continued unity between
Great Britain and America as the world rushed toward the Second
World War, and it was this devastating conflict, more than anything
else, which precipitated the final demise of the Empire. Though
victorious on the battle field, Great Britain gave way in world
dominion to the United States and began to fade into the sunset of
history. A trend which had been manifest since the 1901 death of
Queen Yictoria was finally becoming dominant: the British Empire
was in decline.


CONCLUSION: THE MANDATE OF IMPERIAL BRITISH-ISRAELISM


If the British people are understood as the modern-day descendants
of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, then their "just title" to a
world empire should be obvious. Their mandate is their birthright
as the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel, their royalty as descending from
Judah and David, and their faith in Jesus Christ. God had promised
that they would be as numerous as the stars in the night sky and
the sand on all the beaches of the world. Their domain was to be
characterized by a large community of nations which would push the
inhabitants of the regions they occupied to the very ends of their
land. They were to be the most powerful nation on the
earth--indeed, they would OWN the world. They would control the
strategic positions of the planet, the economic points of power
would be within their sphere rule, and under their flags would
reside the people who would herald the Gospel of Jesus Christ to
the ends of the earth. The British people would have nothing to
fear from their upstart neighbors on the continent; France had been
put in her place through the defeat of Napoleon's navy at the
Battle of Trafalgar, and his army at Waterloo. Both the Kaiser's
Germany and the Fuehrer's Third Reich would continue to be an
irritant, but both would eventually crumble to the mighty
Anglo-Saxon Union of the British Empire and the United States, the
modern day manifestations of Ephraim and Manasseh.

As Israel, everything they did had cosmic importance, and every war
they fought was just, noble, and within God's plan. While being
waged, each of the world wars had been viewed as the war of
Armageddon: the First World War had been the "war to end all wars",
and many British-Israelites viewed the Second World War as just a
precursor to a war with the Soviet Union which would usher in the
Second Coming of Christ and the Millennium. None of them foresaw,
nor would they have accepted or understood it if they had, that the
final outcome of the great conflict between the "forces of modern
Assyria and modern Israel," would be the decline and fall of the
British Empire!

Imperial British-Israelism began with the death of Queen Victoria
in 1901. As a movement, its primary goal was to justify both the
Empire and the royal family by equating them, respectively, with
the House of Israel and with the House of Judah. The reason for the
rise of the movement should be clear enough considering the world
situation at the turn of the century. Great Britain was the victor
of the "Old Imperialism", her former opponents--Spain, France,
Portugal--having collapsed under the weight of their empires. The
sixty-three year long Victorian Era had been its height, however,
and with the passing of the longest reign in English history also
passed the golden era of the Empire. The years leading up to the
First World War saw increasing competition among the European
powers for a piece of the colonial pie as the era of the "New
Imperialism" was born. On the other hand, growing indignation among
Christian moralists in Great Britain and the United States over the
squalor and the inhumanity of imperialism, linked to and spurred
forward by the anti-imperialist writings of English economist J.A.
Hobson, also added to the British need for a justification of their
position.

With the progression of the new century, the Empire began to slip
through Britain's fingers as, one by one, the colonies sought and
gained their independence. In response to this, the
British-Israelites of the Imperial phase simply modified their
theory, viewing the commonwealth as the logical extension of the
Empire in her latter years. But, with the Second World War Great
Britain fell from the pinnacle of planetary power and the United
States rose to take her place. While this event was a great boon
for Anglo-Israelite groups in the United States, it spelled doom
for the Imperial phase of British-Israelism and, in actuality, the
British-Israel World Federation. By mid-century it was American
nationalism and racism which dominated Anglo-Israelite theory, and
the motivating force behind its rise in the United States can be
traced to many of the same reasons that Imperial British-Israelism
had flourished: the need to rationalize a world dominion.

The Imperial phase of British-Israelism was born out of the need to
justify the existence of the Empire precisely because of its
decline. In rationalizing the Anglo-Saxon right to world empire,
British-Israelism provided a much-needed balm for the conscience of
millions. By rooting their justifications within a Christian
context, they made their doctrine palatable to many. And, by basing
their monarchy on the authority of the House of Judah, they added a
nationalistic element which was hard for any "good" subject of the
Crown to resist. Additionally, their rationale for the Empire's
right to exist in the present also provided assurances for its
future. Indeed, their eternal birthright and their eternal throne
gave them the confidence to make almost anything possible. As Lord
Admiral Fisher said, "There is nothing you can't have if you want
it enough." This characterizes the whole of Imperial
British-Israelism: they wanted to maintain their status as "the
World Empire", and refused to accept any vision of the future which
denied their identity as God�s birthright nation. Hence the
darkness and decline that was visible on the horizon in the first
decades of the twentieth century could not be the end. Great
Britain, as the House of Israel, would prevail. God would see to
that.



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om