"Brit-Am Now"-717
1. Unconvinced? Snake Oil and Brit-Am.
2. Another "Innocent" Nasty Letter
3. Scotland: Covenanters

1. Unconvinced?
From: Charles Brand <shakerdom@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: "Brit-Am Now"-716

Do a Code search on "snake oil salesman".  Bet it leads to you. Bye

Brit-Am Reaction
(a) What is "Snake-Oil"?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Snake oil is a Traditional Chinese medicine used for joint pain. However, the most common usage of the words is as a derogatory term for medicines to imply that they are fake, fraudulent, and usually ineffective. The expression is also applied metaphorically to any product with exaggerated marketing but questionable or unverifiable quality.

Snake Oil and Holy Water is also the title of a well-known essay by Richard Dawkins attacking the convergence of science and religion, and Snake Oil is the title of a book by John Diamond attacking alternative medicine.

Snake oil originally came from China, where it was used as a remedy for inflammation and pain in rheumatoid arthritis, bursitis, and other similar conditions.

Chinese labourers on railroad gangs involved in building the Transcontinental Railroad to link North America coast to coast gave it to Europeans with joint pain. When rubbed on the skin above the pain, snake oil brought relief, or so it was claimed. This claim was ridiculed by other rival medicine salesmen, especially those selling patent medicines.

In time, snake oil became a generic name for the many medicines that were marketed as a panacea or miraculous remedy, whose ingredients were usually secret, unidentified, or mis-characterized, and mostly inert or ineffective. At best the placebo effect might provide some relief for whatever the problem might have been.

The snake oil peddler became a stock character in Western movies: a travelling "doctor" with dubious credentials, selling some medicine such as snake oil with boisterous marketing hype, often supported by pseudo-scientific evidence. To enhance sales, an accomplice in the crowd would often 'attest' the value of the product in an effort to provoke buying enthusiasm. The "doctor" would prudently leave town before his customers realized that they had been cheated. This practice is also called "grifting" and its practitioners "grifters".

An alternate theory for the origins of the term "snake oil" is that it was a corruption of "Seneca oil", after the Seneca tribe in the Eastern United States, who were known to use petroleum from natural seeps as a liniment for skin ailments.

Composition of snake oil

The composition of snake oil medicines can vary markedly between products.

Snake oil sold in San Francisco's Chinatown in 1989 was found to contain:
75% unidentified carrier material, including camphor
25% oil from Chinese water snakes, itself consisting
20% eicosapentaenic acid (EPA) - an omega 3 derivative
48% myristic acid (14:0)
10% stearic acid (18:0)
14% oleic acid (18:1w9)
7% linoleic acid (18:2w6) plus arachidonic acid (20:4w6)

At 20% EPA, Chinese water snake is the richest known source of parent of series 3 prostaglandins. Like essential fatty acids, EPA can be absorbed through the skin. Salmon Oil, the next best source contains 18% EPA. Rattlesnake oil contains 8.5% EPA.
Stanley's snake oil, produced by Clark Stanley, the "Rattlesnake King", was tested by the federal government in 1917. It was found to contain:
mineral oil
1% fatty oil (presumed to be beef fat)
red pepper
(Note that this makes the above similar in composition to modern-day capsaicin-based liniments. Thus, the original snake oil may have worked rather well as intended, even if it did not contain its alleged ingredients.)

Brit-Am Conclusion for (a): It would seem that "Snake Oil" both in its original form and how it later developed
more often than not did more or less what it claimed to and may well have been  just as efficacious as
modern medicines designed for the same purpose are.

(b) If you do not like it do not take it.

(c) No-one is running away. The proofs existed before our time and will endure after it.
If something is wrong it should become known quickly enough.

(d) We did not intend and still do not intend to "sell" our beliefs through the Codes
though in some circles our findings could be used to arouse interest.
Nevertheless they constitute supplementary evidence
and not primary principles.

(e) If you do not accept the Bruit-Am Biblical Codes please find alternative explanations as to why Australia is linked according to the Codes to the Land of Sinim,
Ephraim to "Briti", Zebulon to Holland and the Hague, Issachar to Fin, Fini, and Suomi (Finland in Finnish),
Zerefat (France) to Reuben and Clans of Reuben, Erets Acheret to American and Staff of the Tribes of Joseph,
Eire with Ireland etc, etc. Could Brit-Am have forged these results?? OR Could we be mistaken??
Is it all wishful thinking?? Some kind of optical illusion??
We will be happy to listen and if the explanation is at all feasible even to a remote degree we will post it here for everybody to see.

2. Another "Innocent" Nasty Letter
From: jay
Subject: Re: "Brit-Am Now"-711 "Brit-Am Now"-711
#2.  "Innocent" Nasty Letter: An Example of what we
 sometimes have to put up

Dear Yair:

Billy has put two Christian scriptures together and
has issued an important warning, to beware of people
who say they are Jews but are not. I follow some
events in Israel and I have to wonder if indeed there
are "Jews" who are oppressing real Jews who are living
a prosperous and peaceable life.  For example there is
the scandal about the James Ossuary, which I have been
somewhat out of touch with. The antiquities dealer,
Oded Golan is accused of forgery, probably falsely.
His accusers, the IAA, have recently been condemned by
the German scientist, Prof. Krumbein, for what amounts
to bad science.  Is the director of the IAA really a
Jew?  The IAA was offered half a million dollars for
the James Ossuary by the BAS (for a fake?) but refused
it.  Has Billy really stumbled onto something that we
need to take note of?


Brit-Am Answer:
(a) The Case. I have not been following the case. I also do not really
care. On the whole a gut reaction is to agree with the IAA. I did read a few articles on the matter
and from what I read it seemed an open and shut case of forgery
in which an Arab craftsman from Egypt was employed and went around boasting
of his exploits in barrooms. The police are now involved
and even if somebody wanted to "buy" the evidence they could not do so.
So why make the offer??

(b) The fact that a respectable body is prepared to pay a fortune for what they
must know could well be a forgery in my opinion casts suspicion on their motives.

(c) I see that people are prepared to pay well for a forgery when it suits their outlook.
Brit-Am on the other hand has the truth, has something of great value,
yet we have to struggle periodically to make ends meet.
We have seen other groups and personalities in the "Ephraimite"
movement receive very large sums and do very little with it,
and in sum cases even have a  counter-productive effect.

Brit-Am however has done something positive and is doing things and has made progress.
Our work in  Hebrew has made an impact
and mainly due to us the whole notion  is now being received with
more respect by important elements in Judah.
We have also reached in one way or another quite a few people in Joseph and we are stilling doing so.
The proofs and evidence we have uncovered in our research part of which can be seen in our publications,
postings, and websites  and more of which (God willing) will also be made public remains
a permanent heritage for Brit-Am Ephraimite knowledge that others may have recourse to in the future.
This is all on a shoe-string budget.
Support for Brit-Am from "Ephraim" exists but it is not "overwhelming".
We are not complaining so much against those who find it difficult  to give in general due to
their situation  but rather to those who can and do but when it comes to Brit-Am decide not to.
Even those who find it difficult could reveal that by helping us a source of blessing
from on High may be opened up in response to them as promised in Scripture.

(d) As for  your distinction  between "Jews"
and "real Jews" the impression is that :
Yesterday you were a Gentile.
Today you feel "Israelite".
Ten minutes later you are already deciding who is a "real Jew"
and who is not.
With attitudes like that
it is no wonder that some Jews are reserved about Brit-Am
though if truth be known we are not to blame and, if anything, we manage at times
to alleviate the sickness of they who think along such lines.

(e) "Billy" has indeed "stumbled onto something". He wrote a letter that reflected an ingrained,
taken for granted, prejudice against Judah.
Surprisingly he has received quite a bit of support and sympathy.
Apparently there exists an inborn pathological drive amongst some non-Jews to cast Jews in the role
of the villain no matter what the excuse.
"Billy" exemplified this phenomenon and even on our own list there are those
unfortunate souls who suffer from the malady in question.
 It is not my goal to tell Christians how they should understand their own sources
but  the expression "Synagogue of Satan" could conceivably be explained (if so desired) in a number of ways
that are not anti-Semitic.
Or it could be explained (as it was by Billy) in a basically anti-Jewish manner.
This reflects on those doing and receiving the explanation rather than on the source itself.

Brit-Am is definitely correct in a general sense but
the actual application of Brit-Am conclusions may be far more limited than we had
Anti-Semitism and idolatry are flip sides of the same coin..

3. Scotland: Covenanters
From: Francis Hynds
Subject: Re: "Brit-Am Now"-716
#2. re Scotland: Forgotten History


It is difficult to imagine that Anglianism -(Ulster-Scots) would permit the creation of Presbyterianism to counter any perceived Jewish threat, especially when no threat ever existed.  Furthermore a 'one-tribe' approach completely misses the point when the Tudor Church had planned to dominate all in the British Isles especially in relation to religion.  Their Roman customs, beliefs, rituals and practices still prevailed, but under a new name purely only for reasons of power and self-interest.  Generally Presbyterians were dispised both by practice and belief, they could not take official office, they could not be educated, or even in many cases own land.  Many of them moved to Ulster where they were also known as Covenantors practicing their faith on hill-tops and open land.  Believers sailed from Scotland to Ulster in the beginning to practice there daily/weekly to worship in relative safety.  The children were educated in the country areas where as children will ate the blackberries when available giving a stain around theirs mouths, - hence blackmouths was the label for Presbyterians amongst the Romanists and Anglians.  The Presbyterians in Ulster built their churches like copies of Solomon's temple, most interestingly they were not even called churches, but meeting houses as in many cases they still are.   When firstly Anglian pressure and eventually Romanist dispisal became to-much, many sailed for the Americas, where they still are, concealed, today.

Judah, Levi, or whoever else, this may well have been again Israel on the move.

The Almighty scattered the children among the nations of the world where still (apart from Judah) they do not know their name only the label that is given to them.