"Brit-Am Now"-228: Steven Collins

April 9, 2003
Came across an Interesting article by Steven Collins that some of you may
have seen before but it worth
seeing again:  The article was written some time ago but is still very



By Steven M. Collins

This column has been stimulated by an extraordinary, even historic event.
On September 11, 2001, the United States was heavily attacked by radical
Islamic terrorists. The terrorists turned four hijacked airliners into
flying Fuel Air Explosive bombs as they utterly destroyed the World Trade
Center in New York and badly damaged the Pentagon in Washington DC. The
devastation in Manhattan looks like London, Coventry, Berlin or Dresden
after they were bombed in World War II! According to one article I read
this week, the attack destroyed or damaged 20% of all the office space in
New York City and it killed or wounded thousands of Americans! It was the
costliest attack upon American soil since our nation was founded.

It now seems apparent the fourth airliner was destined to ram into the
Capitol or White House, but heroic efforts by passengers on the doomed
flight prevented the terrorists from hitting their target with the fourth
aircraft. These passengers were told by spouses and friends via cel-phones
about the other hijacked airliners rammed into the World Trade Center, so
the passengers decided to sacrifice themselves to save their fellow citizens.

President Bush has rallied our nation which has not been this unified since
World War II. He gave a speech to a joint session of Congress setting forth
America's determination to wage war on terrorism and those nations, which
harbor terrorists. Sitting in the Congressional gallery was a single
foreign head-of-state. Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, was
present as a symbol of the unequivocal support of the British people for
America. As Pres. Bush acknowledged Mr. Blair's presence, he received an
ovation from the assembled leadership of the American government (and
American citizens watching the speech all over the nation).

Other foreign leaders could have come as well to be a part of the event,
but they chose not to do so. Other nations will help America's war on
terrorism, of course, but no nation is as supportive as Great Britain. As
this column is being written, the news media have shown footage of a
British fleet already passing through the Suez Canal on its way to join
forces with the gathering US fleet in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea. The
British fleet apparently consists of one jump-jet aircraft carrier, an
attack submarine and eleven other warships. While other nations will join
the coalition for quid-pro-quos or because of shared vital interests, the
British support of America goes far deeper.

This mutual support between the British and Americans has a fundamental
cause which goes much deeper than sharing a common language or culture.
Both Yair Davidy and I have identified the English and American peoples as
primarily the descendants of the Israelite tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh,
respectively. The British-American alliance is based on the fact that they
are truly "brother" nations who descended from the two sons of Joseph:
Ephraim and Manasseh. By divine favor, these nations have received the
lion's share of the many birthright blessings of the Covenant God made with
Abraham long ago. The bond between America and Britain is based on a blood

We must also not forget that Canada, Australia and New Zealand share the
Ephraimite roots of the British. When the airliners were being hijacked and
it became necessary to ground all airliners, Canadian airports freely
hosted many redirected American airliners. Australia had a contingent of
soldiers training in the USA, and the Australian government announced they
could be deployed to the Mideast along with the American troops. The USA
worked just as closely with Canada, Australia and New Zealand as it did
with the British in a global alliance in World War II to liberate Europe
and the rest of world from Axis domination.

Of course, America has also supported the British in their times of
greatest need. The Americans rallied to the help of Great Britain in both
World Wars I and II, turning the tide twice against the Axis powers. This
column will demonstrate that this relationship has existed throughout
history. This column will mention other instances where the tribe of
Manasseh rallied to join the Ephraimites in wars to defeat a common enemy.

After the tribes of Israel were expelled from their ancient homelands in
Eretz Israel, they grew mighty and possessed huge populations (Josephus
documents this promise in Hosea 1:6-10 had been fulfilled by the 1st
century AD). As documented in my book, the relocated tribes of Israel
included the Scythians (known also as "Sacae," named after Isaac their
forefather), and the Parthians.

The tribe of Manasseh came to be one of the dominant tribes of the
Scythians, and the Greeks called them the Massagetae. These Massagetae were
located in the Caspian Sea region, and they were, I believe, the
descendants of the half-tribe of Manasseh taken captive by the Assyrians in
approximately 741 BC when Gilead's tribes were taken by the Assyrians. When
the Assyrian Empire fell, those Israelites who were captives were free to
migrate elsewhere and they migrated toward the Caspian Sea. These related
tribes were known as the Eastern Scythians/Sacae and they were led by the
Massagetae. One would expect the birthright tribe of Manasseh to be one of
their leading tribes.

These Massagetae were attacked by Cyrus the Great and the Persian Empire in
the 6th century BC in an apparent attempt to bring them under a new Persian
captivity. Israelites are freedom-loving people and they fought fiercely to
prevent any new captivity. Herodotus records that virtually the entire
Persian Army died along with King Cyrus himself as the Massagetae gained a
total victory.

It is my view that the other half of the tribe of Manasseh migrated to the
Black Sea region along with several other tribes just before the final
Assyrian invasion, which conquered the city of Samaria. This mass of
migrating Israelites established Sacae Scythian kingdoms in the Black Sea
region as well as the Kingdom of Iberia (named after Eber, the forefather
of the Hebrews) in the Caucasus Mountains.

The Parthian Empire, which rivaled the Roman Empire for centuries, was
founded primarily by the tribe of Ephraim. Listed below is an excerpt from
one of my new books. The type-face is different and the endnotes dropped
out as I "cut and pasted" this text, so the source documents are noted but
the page numbers do not appear.


"...Numbers 26:35-36 records that three clans of the Israelite tribe of
Ephraim were named the Bachrites, the Eranites, and the Tahanites. The
Seleucid province of Bactria, which revolted along with Parthia, bore the
name of one of the clans of Ephraim in a Hellenized form. An Israelite
origin for Bactria is supported by an account from Richard Frye's book, The
Heritage of Persia, which states that the Bactrian language "...was related
to Saka, or at least underwent strong influences from Saka tongues." The
Persian word "Saka" referred to the Sacae Scythians. The record that the
Bactrians welcomed a Scythian ruler who freed them from a Greek satrap, and
the fact that the Bactrians shared a linguistic heritage with the Parthians
argues that the Bactrians were also Sacae (or Saka) who had descended from
the ten tribes of Israel.

Henry Rawlinson, in his book Bactria, states: "there seems to be very
little doubt that the population of Bactria was largely Scythian"...[and
cites Justin, a classical author, who wrote] "The Bactrian Empire was
founded by the Scythians."

Numbers 26:36 also notes that another clan of the tribe of Ephraim
descended from Eran and was known as the "Eranites." A group of people
known as the Eranians were present in the region of ancient Persia and
Parthia. Assyria had transplanted the defenders of Samaria (an Ephraimite
city) into "the cities of the Medes." Therefore, we should expect to see
Ephraimite names in the Medo-Persian region. The "Eranians" manifested the
exact Hebrew name of one of the clans of Ephraim in the area of
Medo-Persia. This name has survived into modern times as the English name
for modern Persia is Iran. The terms "Iran" and "Eran" are interchangeable.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica (1943 Edition), in its Index section, simply
states "Eran: see Iran." The capital of Iran, Teheran, also preserves the
name of this Ephraimite clan. This book does not assert or imply that
modern Iranians are Israelites as it is clear from history that modern
Iranians are principally Medo-Persian in racial origins. However, the name
"Iran" is derived from the name of a clan of Ephraim, which was placed in
Medo-Persian territory by the Assyrians and lived there for many centuries.

Most historical accounts assume that the name "Eran" originated from the
term "Aryan." However, historical accounts generally have not considered an
Israelite alternative for the origin of the Eranians. Indeed, historical
accounts seem unwilling to even look for the large masses of Israelites who
were relocated into Asia. The case for an Israelite origin for the Eranians
is very strong. Not only are the Eranians found in the correct geographical
location where Israelite tribes and clans were placed (Medo-Persia), but
there were many other ancient names in that region with an Israelite origin!"


My new book goes on to explain the Ephraimite clan of "Tahan" was known as
"Dahan" by the Greco-Romans who wrote about the Parthians. The Ephraimite
dominance of the Parthian Empire is clear. Josephus wrote that the ten
tribes were "in Asia" and "beyond [the] Euphrates" in his lifetime. The
Euphrates River was the border between the Roman and Parthian Empires then,
so Josephus was designating that the ten tribes "were in Parthia." Since
Ephraim was the chief birthright tribe of the ten tribes of Israel, it is
no surprise to find the Ephraimite clans in a leadership role in Parthia.

Indeed, the Greeks often wrote a "p" where we usually find a "b." For
example, the Greeks referred to the "Britannic Isles" as the "Pretannic
Isles." If we read the "P" in Parthia as a "B," we see the word "Barthia"
or "B'rithia" appear as the real name of the Parthian Empire. Herein we
easily see the Hebrew word for covenant, "Berith" or "B'rit" (dare we say
"Brits?") as forming the basis for the word "Parthia." Ephraim was the
chief tribe to inherit the birthright promises of the Abrahamic Covenant.
Therefore, the presence of the Hebrew word for "Covenant" is an appropriate
name for an empire dominated by Ephraimites.

Many historians have commented that the Scythians and Parthians were
related tribes to each other. The Parthian Empire was in direct contact and
rivalry with such other empires as the Seleucid Greek Empire and, later,
the Roman Empire. The Scythians were more "isolationist" and generally
avoided conflict with other nations and empires to their south. ten one
great exception is when the Black Sea Scythians invaded and destroyed the
Assyrian Empire in the late 7th century BC. There was always one notable
exception to their isolationism, however,

When the Parthians were in danger of being defeated by either the Seleucid
or Roman Empires, the Sacae of Scythia would often send armies to fight on
the side of the Parthians to ensure the Seleucids and Romans were defeated.
George Rawlinson's book, The Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy, particularly
mentions many of these instances.

Given that the Scythians were dominated by Manasseh and the Parthians by
Ephraim, we can see remarkable parallels in these ancient events to those
of the 20th century. Even as Manasseh came to the rescue of Ephraim when
the Scythians assisted the Parthians in their ancient wars, the same thing
happened as the Americans came to the rescue of the British Empire in two
World Wars. In the modern world, we have recently seen the Americans and
the British team up enthusiastically in the Persian Gulf War and now the
new War on Terrorism. They join forces as the brothers they are whenever
danger or war comes upon them. As we can see from ancient history, theirs
is a natural alliance, which has occurred over and over again in history.

As I conclude this column, we again see the bonds between Ephraim and
Manasseh uniting these nations when one of the brother nations is attacked.
Other nations of modern Israelite will join the latest alliance yet and so
will other non-Israelite nations. However, considerable wheeling and
dealing and negotiating will occur before these other nations decide on
their contributions to the war effort. However, Tony Blair and the British
have once again implemented the blood-brother alliance of Ephraim and
Manasseh. While other nations are still deliberating on what to do, the
British simply say: "Here we are, what can we do to help?"

There is evidence the modern alliance of Ephraim and Manasseh goes deeper
than anyone realizes or acknowledges. The nations of the European Union
allege that there exists a secret, worldwide intelligence-gathering
operation known as "Echelon." In an article in my home-town newspaper, The
Sioux Falls Argus-Leader (a Gannett Newspaper) on September 6th, 2001, it
was noted the European Union had voted 367-159 "to adopt 44 recommendations
on how to counter Echelon." The article, with a Brussels, Belgium dateline,
added that "Echelon is run by the United States in cooperation with
Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand."

As those who have read Yair Davidy's book or mine know, the nations
comprising the "Echelon" alliance are the modern nations of the tribes of
Ephraim and Manasseh. Echelon appears to be a shadowy, but very real
alliance of the entire House of Joseph in the modern world. Is not it
interesting that without even knowing their common Israelite origins, these
nations have gravitated together into a very close alliance?

As I close this column, I think again of the singular presence of British
Prime Minister Tony Blair in the Congressional Gallery as President George
Bush addressed the entire government of the United States. His presence
spoke volumes. He did not have to be there, but he came anyway in our time
of national trouble and challenge. He came because that is what brothers do
in a time of crisis.

Speaking from the standpoint of an American, I close this column with a
heartfelt appreciation of our brother nation when I say: "God bless the

Steven Collins