Alrighty, let’s dive into British Israelism here.

Sigh. That I need to is, like, sad as hell.

One of the first writings where we see this idea put forth is from a French Huguenot named M. Le Loyer, who wrote, “The Ten Lost Tribes” in 1590. That’s the first time we see someone claim that “Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Scandinavian, Germanic, and associated cultures” were direct descendants of the ancient Israelites.

We also have Adrian Van Schrieck writing about the origin of the Celtic and Saxon peoples, and John Sadler, who wrote ‘The Rights of the Kingdom’ in 1649. He said there was ‘an Israelite genealogy for the British people’. Francis Drake and others had made similar claims, including some who claimed to actually be the King of Israel. I believe that was James VI. So the origin of British Israelism started in the 16th century. And Americans have a variation of this called Christian Identity.

British Israelism teaches that the people of England/U.K. are the racial descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. It started as a wider movement when several 19th century English writers, like John Wilson who wrote, “Our Israelitish Origin” in 1840, spread the concept. It wasn’t a highly organized movement, but later several British Israelite orgs were set up throughout the British Empire and the USA starting in the 1870s—from this we get the Christian Identity movement in America.

Later on in the 19th century you had Edward Wheeler Bird, Herbert Aldersmith, and Ed Hine as the developers of the British Israelite movement. Bird started the Metropolitan Anglo-Israel Association, and he and Hine promoted an Anglo-exclusive version of who were the people of Israel. In 1878 you had the Anglo Ephraim Assoc of London, and it added the Germanic peoples and other Western Europeans to the mix of who they thought were Israelites.

A doctor named George Moore started the Anglo Israel Association in the 1890s, got it up to several hundred members, and he came to America to promote this later. The ideas spread to Australia, New Zeland, Canada, and S. Africa, in the early 1900s they had Kingdom Identity groups in all those places. In fact, there was an org called the BIWF and William Massey was a member, he was the Prime Minister of New Zeland. Howard Rand started a publication called ‘the Bulletin’ and it is still around, called ‘Destiny’ I believe. The BIWF still exists, with chapters in the Netherlands and S. Africa.

You can blow their teachings out of the water very easily with ethnological, lignusitic, and archeological evidence, which I’ll go into here.

Be patient. It’s a virtue, gnome sayin’?

Firstly, and both disgustingly and hilariously, the British Israelites dug up the Hill of Tara looking for the Ark of the Covenant, ruining an ancient royal archeological site. They also thought the Pyramid of Khufu had prophetic numerology of the British people in it.

They promote wrong genealogical history theories, such as teaching the belief that modern-day Germany represents ancient Assyria. This is wrong because Assyrians are a Semitic people, and Germans are not. They are not the same people. They actually teach that the Assyrians’ language was changed after the tower of Babel incident. The nations of Israel, while in captivity, took up the Assyrian language which was really an “ancient German” language. That’s basically insane. Here’s why.

The term “Semitic” simply means descended from “Shem.” Genesis 10:22 shows us that Shem had five sons, and the Israelites eventually descended from one branch of Semites.

We have Arphaxad, Eber and Abraham. The modern Arabs descended from Ishmael, Abraham’s son with Hagar. The slave girl. It says they have been blessed with large numbers because they are Abraham’s seed (Genesis 17:18-20).
Now, on the business of Edomites: it says the modern Edomites and the descendants of Abraham’s other wife, Keturah, and the ones he had with his concubines (Genesis 25:1-6). So the idea is that many nations have descended from Abraham via these many branches of his Jew tree.
The Christian Identity teaching is that the Assyrians descended from Asshur, one of the other sons of Shem. So the Bible doesn’t say that these sons share in the blessing of very large population increases. So in their teaching it is Biblical that the Assyrians in the modern world will be far outnumbered by many of the Israelite tribes.
When the Sassanian Persians overthrew the Parthian Empire, the Sassanians pushed all the Semitic nations out of Asia, and those nations migrated into Europe. German, English, Norwegian, Dutch, etc., have all developed from a common tongue which was spoken during the time of the Parthian/Scythian Empires. It is possible that the modern Assyrians migrated into Europe as “Caucasians.” But they teach that the Saxon branch of the Germanic tribes bore the name of Isaac upon them (in Asia it was “Saka”, but the Romans said it as “Saxon”). They use Genesis, and say Isaac’s name was placed on the birthright tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh (Genesis 48:16). They teach that the British nations fulfilled the prophecy about an Ephraimite “company of nations” in the latter days, and the USA fulfilled the prophecy about a “related, single great nation of Manasseh” in (Genesis 48:19).

They teach that Germany is Gad in Genesis 49:19. It say that in the last days, the Gadites will be overcome by a “troop,” but will reemerge into prominence at the end. Germany was overrun by a “troop” of nations in WW II, but has “overcome” and is now a prominent nation.
Deuteronomy 33:20 says that Moses spoke of a special blessing on the future of the tribe of Gad that their population would be “enlarged”, so they expect for Gad to be one of the larger Israelite tribes/nations in the latter days. And it says that Gad will become an aggressive, warlike people in the future. They think this fits since it has been historically true of Germany/Germans.

So there are 12 tribes of Israel, and they are sons of the patriarch Jacob (later renamed Israel).
Jacob elevated the descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh (the two sons of Joseph) to the status of full tribes in their own right, replacing the tribe of Joseph.

Now, a division occurred among the 12 tribes in the days of Jeroboam and Rehoboam, with the three tribes of Judah, Benjamin and part of Levi, forming the KINGDOM OF JUDAH ( THE ONE JESUS BELONGS TO), and the remaining ten tribes forming the Kingdom of Israel (Samaria). So they argue “the great bulk of Israelites” are not the Jews.
They also quote Josephus (who was a Jew btw) to support their claim that the lost tribes of Israel are not the Jews: “the entire body of the people of Israel remained in that country; wherefore there are but two tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans, while the ten tribes are beyond the Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude.”
So this ‘lost 10 tribes’ is important because it’s key in their thinking. They think the Scythians, Cimmerians and Goths were representatives of these lost tribes. John Wilson wanted to include all Western European Gothic peoples among the descendants of the Israelites, but Edward Hine pushed the movement toward the view that only the peoples of the British Isles were.

Now, re evidence again: Ancient writers, like Josephus and Jerome, associated the Scythians with the peoples of Gog and Magog. But British Israelist etymologists used the word ‘Sacae’ to claim it was a name derived from the biblical “Isaac”. Claiming that the appearance of the Scythians where they claimed the Lost Tribes were last documented also supported a connection. They try and use etymological identification leading from Isaac to the ‘Sacae’ and say it was continued to the Saxons (interpreted as Sac’s sons – the sons of Isaac and say they invaded England from Denmark, the ‘land of the Tribe of Dan. The tribal name, in the Dardanelles, the Danube, Macedonia, Dunkirk, etc. was said to be a lost tribe in the mythical Irish Tuatha De Danann.

They tie the Scottish into this with the idea that the Scotti (Scots) were one with the Scoloti (Scyths) of Herodotus. How so? With the 1320 “Declaration of Arbroath”. They told that the Scots descended from the union of a Scythian exile with Scota, daughter of a Pharaoh, a tale found in some form in several 14th century writing and poetry.
Here’s part of that Declaration:

“Most Holy Father and Lord, we know and from the chronicles and books of the ancients we find that among other famous nations our own, the Scots, has been graced with widespread renown. They journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage tribes, but nowhere could they be subdued by any race, however barbarous. Thence they came, twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea, to their home in the west where they still live today.”

So if these Scythians are ‘sons of Isaac’ this declaration is how sons of Isaac are related to Scots, in their thinking.
But it’s basically a doc like America’s Declaration of Independence….mixed into their desire to be autonomous, they are the ‘chosen’, as so many people often consider themselves. I see it that way, as being the motivation for this kind of writing. All people have a natural desire to promote the sovereignty and advancement of their own kind, and since these people were already Xtians, they intertwined that with their sovereignty, it’s that simple IMO.

The Declaration of Arbroath was written to Pope John XXII, too, and they were mapping out Scotland’s history, using it as propaganda on behalf of a request about the Scottish throne. That’s why it presents the Scots in this grandiose way as a chosen people, protected, at Jesus’ request, by St. Andrew.
So they expanded this to other Celtic invaders, in other ways. For Welsh (cymbry) people, the British Israelists claimed a connection between Cimbri to the Cimmerians, the Gimirri of Assyrian annals, a name sometimes also given by the ancient Babylonians to the Scythians and Saka. A similarity between this and the name by which the Assyrian annals referred to Israel, Beth Khumbree, would lead the British Israelists to claim that the Welsh were one of the lost Tribes.

So you can see how ‘similarities’ and inferences are being made without clear proof, and with our ability to test DNA now we can show the falseness.
But the Anglo-Israelists claim these connections would make the British the literal descendants of the Lost Tribes.

Then there is that goofy idea that the British Royal Family is directly descended from the line of King David. They use Jeremiah for this.
They claim that the daughters of Zedekiah fled to Egypt…. which they interpret as Ireland. Wrong. And then they claim the descendants of these princesses crossed to England where they became ancestors of the monarchs.
So they believe, because of these false connections, that Britain and the United States are the inheritors of Jacob’s birthright. As mentioned before, the ythink the Tribe of Ephraim and Manasseh are Britain and the USA.

NOW, THIS IS MOST IMPORTANT: THEY HAD JEWISH MEMBERS.

That’s right. How Anti Jew can it be when in it’s original form it was receiving applause from Jews?
Early British Israelites that I’ve been writing about here, like Edward Hine and John Wilson, were “philo-semites.”

To get those who have been taught with wrong information to put Jesus down…showing them this might be key. Showing that this concept of lost tribes including Whites is steeped in Jewry from the beginning, it was not a rebellion against Jews. If a Christian is at least “Jew wise” they won’t like it one bit. If they think Jews are the ‘Synagogue of Satan’ and Whites are adversaries of Jews, they won’t like it that Jews fobbed this whole theory off onto their people–it won’t sit right with them. It will make them think, which leads to more inquiry, which leads to the truth.

British Israelism itself had several Jewish members and support from rabbis throughout the 19th century. The British Israel movement supported Benjamin Disraeli, who was descended from Sephardic Jews, and they supported Theodor Herzl in his advocacy of Zionism.
Yet they coupled that with a promotion of somewhat ‘anti-semitic’ ideas, like scientific racialism. Wilson later said Jews were not racially pure, and were ‘impostors’. And of course the American adherents of British Israelism created Christian Identity, which teaches that non Whites and Jews have no souls and therefore cannot be saved. That started in the 1920s.

Now, get this: with DNA we know this is wrong, but: Christian Identity teaches that the Jews are not descended from the tribe of Judah. British Israelites maintain that they DO, to this day, but that they need to bow to Jesus. Christian Identity teaches that Jews are descended from Satan & Lilith, Edomite-Khazars.

Now, more on their lousy research ability: a book by Tudor Parfitt, “The Lost Tribes: The History of a Myth”, states that the proof cited by adherents of British Israelism is “of a feeble composition even by the low standards of the genre.”

Historical linguistics is one reason. The claims of British Israelism that numerous links in historical linguistics between ancient Hebrew and various European place names and languages is speculative at best. It started with John Wilson in the 19th century. Wilson was self trained and merely looked for similarities in the sounds of words and argued that many Scottish, British and Irish words stemmed from ancient Hebrew.

And that is what inspired the development of British Israel language associations in Europe, something completely unsound and not based in historical fact.

Where our languages really came from, according to modern scholarly linguistic analysis, is the Indo-European language family.
Hebrew is a Semitic language of the AFROASIATIC LANGUAGE FAMILY. In 1906, T. R. Lounsbury said, “no trace of the slightest real connection can be discovered” between English and ancient Hebrew.
Michael Friedman in 1993 wrote of the claims that Hebrew was closely related to Celtic and Anglo-Saxon, and he said that “the actual evidence could hardly be any weaker”.
In 1995, William Ingram said the arguments made by British Israelism are examples of “tortured etymology’, lol.

Scriptural interpretation is all wrong, too, grossly inaccurate.

Example: the distinction that British Israelists make between the “Jews” of the Southern Kingdom and the “Israelites” of the Northern Kingdom. They believe that the Bible consistently distinguishes the two groups.
British Israelists believe that the Northern Tribes of Israel lost their identity after the captivity in Assyria…but only higher ranking Israelites were deported from Israel and many Israelites remained. Examples being that after the Assyrian captivity, Josiah, King of Judah, who received money from the tribes of “Manasseh, and Ephraim and all the remnant of Israel” (2 Chronicles 34:9). They also take things out of context, with no regard to their actual meaning or time frame when things were occurring.
They also rely on linking totally different ancient populations. This includes linking the “lost” tribes of Israel with the Scythians, Celts, Cimmerians, and British, etc. They cite any similarity in customs, like clothes, diet, burial, etc. are proof they were once together and migrated out. But the customs of the Scythians and the Cimmerians are in contrast in huge ways with those of the Ancient Israelites, as are the Saxons and Celts..it is nuts to mix Semites between the closely related English and Germans, lol. And the Scythian origin of the Scots is majorly mythical. Algernon Herbert said in 1848 that a linguistic derivation of Scots from Scoloti is “strictly impossible”. It’s a false etymology, according to actual etymologists. And the people who founded this stuff are not etymologists.
So the purpose, IMO, was to grow the British Empire by making people feel they had a destiny to dominate the earth, laid out in the Bible. Jews helped because they want to grow their suicidal religion for goy, keep them in line, while they are ‘philo Semites’ and ever respectful of Jews. But then it took a turn they didn’t like with Christian Identity in the USA going so far as to say they not only are wrong for rejecting Jesus, but aren’t even the tribe of Judah.

This was something being used for a purpose, a political one, as I see it. And good people get taken in and believe in it, wholeheartedly. They think they are receiving an expert education, and they like to think they are Kids of the Kingdom (“King’s Kids” as they said in Fundie circles in Texas).
I’ll let that be today’s installment of “Jesus was not White and British Israelism is bunk”.

Now u see where it started, why it’s wrong, and have some idea of why it was promoted.