"Brit-Am Now"-841
1. Evil Speech? What was the point?
2. Chad Leatherby: Brit-Am Stretching a Point?
3. Americans Biologically Different? Quotation
4. Britain and France Almost United!
5. Brit-Am Important
6. Brit-Am Fortunate
7. Brit-Am makes Racial Accusations

1. Evil Speech? What was the point?
re "Brit-Am Now"-840
#5. Yaacov Fogelman and Rabbi Avichail
You repeated a somewhat thoughtlessly offensive remark.
Is this not "lashon hara"?
What was the point of repeating it anyway?

Answer: "Lashon [tongue] ha-Ra [bad]" i.e. evil speech
is a very serious offensive.  In principle it however only applies in specific circumstances
and even then only to something that is not already known in public.
In this case the said remark was made in front of quite a number of people
and in modified form words to the same or a similar effect are repeated
several times over in the weekly Portion commentaries that YF distributes
by the thousands in handbill form in public places, on his web-site, and in
his postings that he says reach more than 2000 subscribers.
It was not retracted.
It was something that was said yesterday, may be repeated today,
and again tomorrow.

If someone says something and regrets it or there are grounds to suppose it may have been
an uncharacteristic slip then Brit-Am will refrain to repeat it.
This was not the case.

The relevance is that the said remark was followed later (in his postings) by a strenuous expression of support
for the position of Rabbi Avichail.
It would seem that someone who thinks along those lines to the point of near obsession
cannot be expected to really care where the true Israelites (according to physical ancestry)

Sometimes a person is duty bound to answer a false matter:

2. Chad Leatherby: Brit-Am Stretching a Point?
From: Chad Leatherby <>

I thought that the articles on Democracy coming out of Manasseh and a monarchy in Britain was stretching beyond what the context of the text would allow. There are 'sod' levels of torah but it should never go against the simple meaning of the text. I'm a believer in letting the Bible interpret itself. So Joseph defines Ephraim as (Gen. 41:51-52) 'fruitful in the land of my affliction'  and Manasseh as "forget all my trouble and all my father's household.' To extrapolate out an entire teaching on democracy or a monarchy when the plain definition of these names is given in the text seems to stretch beyond what the context would allow for.
Spreading hope,

In principle we agree with you. We too prefer to keep our understanding and interpretations as close as possible to
the simple meaning of the text.
It so happens however that from our point of view,
after reaching an understanding of the simple meaning
and seeing what we considered to be historical and contemporary justification
for that understanding (as explained very well by Steven Collins)
we then found Rabbinical Exegesis  that confirmed our conclusions better than we
could have wished for and more precisely than we would have imagined.
You probably are referring to our articles
"Presidents and Not Kings"

These articles are based on the Commentaries of Rabbis closely examining
the niceties of the Hebrew Language in what amounts to an entirely
independent framework.
They almost certainly did not think along Brit-Am lines,
were not trying to prove anything, were not working with an agenda,
and had no reason to want to reach the conclusions they did.
Nor did these conclusions to their way of thinking have any known practical application.
Nevertheless, the conclusions fit those of Brit-Am, confirm, and complement them
I think this is something worth noting.

On another point, you sent us a reply concerning the terms for people, nation, etc
in the Hebrew and then retracted it in order to polish it over.
I would like to get a word in first and say that you are correct.
The Hebrew words "goi", "am", "ooma", "loomah", etc all connote "people"
or "nation" in different contexts and they may all be applied to either Israelites or

3. Americans Biologically Different? Quotation
<<The recent Americans are of course another classical example of the same process. European Americans differ from Europeans because they evolved (biologically and culturally) separately from their European ancestors, but they are also different because they are descended from a particular kind of European, who, being uncomfortable at home, decided to make a fresh start in the New World.>>

4. Britain and France Almost United!
At the beginning of WWII just before the fall of France Churchill
suggested that the two nations unite.
The article below that we saw posted on Craig White's Origin of Nations
e-mail discussion list shows that the idea resurfaced later this time from
the French side...
From: surfer11 <>
Subject: [origin of nations] When Britain and France nearly married

When Britain and France nearly married

Mike Thomson,, January 15, 2007:

[Extracts Only]
Formerly secret documents unearthed from the National Archives have showed
Britain and France considered a "union" in the 1950s.

On 10 September 1956 French Prime Minister Guy Mollet arrived in London for
talks with his British counterpart, Anthony Eden.

These were troubled times for Mollet's France. Egypt's President Gamel Abdel
Nasser had nationalised the Suez Canal and, as if that was not enough, he
was also busy funding separatists in French Algeria, fuelling a bloody
mutiny that was costing the country's colonial masters dear.

Monsieur Mollet was ready to fight back and he was determined to get
Britain's help to do it.

Formerly secret documents held in Britain's National Archives in London,
which have lain virtually unnoticed since being released two decades ago,
reveal the extraordinary proposal Mollet was about to make.

The following is an extract from a British government cabinet paper of the
day. It reads:

"When the French Prime Minister, Monsieur Mollet was recently in London he
raised with the prime minister the possibility of a union between the United
Kingdom and France."

Mollet was desperate to hit back at Nasser. He was also an Anglophile who
admired Britain both for its help in two world wars and its blossoming
welfare state.

There was another reason, too, that the French prime minister proposed this
radical plan.

Tension was growing at this time along the border between Israel and Jordan.
France was an ally of Israel and Britain of Jordan. If events got out of
control there, French and British soldiers could soon be fighting each

With the Suez issue on the boil Mollet could not let such a disaster happen.

Secret document

So, when Eden turned down his request for a union between France and Britain
the French prime minister came up with another proposal.

This time, while Eden was on a visit to Paris, he requested that France be
allowed to join the British Commonwealth. This, if accepted, would make the
Queen France's head of state.

A secret document from 28 September 1956 records the surprisingly
enthusiastic way the British premier responded to the proposal when he
discussed it with his Cabinet Secretary, Sir Norman Brook.

It says: "Sir Norman Brook asked to see me this morning and told me he had
come up from the country consequent on a telephone conversation from the
prime minister who is in Wiltshire.

"The PM told him on the telephone that he thought in the light of his talks
with the French:

"That we should give immediate consideration to France joining the

"That Monsieur Mollet had not thought there need be difficulty over
France accepting the headship of her Majesty

"That the French would welcome a common citizenship arrangement on
the Irish basis"

Seeing these words for the first time, Henri Soutou, professor of
contemporary history at Paris's Sorbonne University almost fell off his

Stammering repeatedly he said: "Really I am stuttering because this idea is
so preposterous. The idea of joining the Commonwealth and accepting the
headship of Her Majesty would not have gone down well. If this had been
suggested more recently Mollet might have found himself in court."

5. Brit-Am Important
Dear Yair,

Your work is immensely important.  HaShem's plan insures the future of our world, and you are unveiling His plan as revealed through His holy prophets.   We, the Lost Tribes, have been missing for 2,700 years, blinded by our captivity in paganism.  Your tireless work is releasing our prisoners, one individual at a time.  No thanks or recompense is sufficient for what you continually give to all.

May the blessings of HaShem overwhem you now and always,


6. Brit-Am Fortunate
From: Timothy F Murray <>
Subject: Re: "Brit-Am Now"-840

Dear Yair,

Many thanks for the posting of Steve Coneglan and Steve Collins remarks
regarding Ephraim/Britain, etc.  You (and the rest of us) are fortunate
to have men of such eloquence and scholarship contributing to the
thinking regarding Israel's two houses in these days.  I want to thank
these men for their work.  Well stated, well reasoned, well received.

Tim Murray

7. Brit-Am makes Racial Accusations
Brit-Am ACCUSES its opponents of being racially prejudiced
against Westerners!

Brit-Am CANNOT be accused of racialism.
Our views on this subject are found in our article
Brit-Am Answers to Queries: Race

Brit-Am also accuses all "Ephraimites" who are against
the Jews and the State of Israel of ideological treason
towards the Israelite nation!