Brit-Am Now 244

May 14, 2003
1. Kurdistan
2. Good Point about Zoroaster
3. Druids
4. New Findings

1. Kurdistan
At 03:42 12/05/2003 +0000, M wrote:
>Greetings Yair
>I hope this email finds you well and happy,
>I am wondering about this tribe Cardussi....could it be Carducci? Carducci
>is pronounced the Italian way Carduchi.... The Carducci are was
>the original name for the Kurds....the Kurds like us Irish are Iranian
>based....they have often wondered if they are Celts....could this be? They
>have some Assyrian but then Celts do too due to marriage alliances in
>Royalty long ago....the Assyrians are Semitic anyway...but...maybe that
>would explain the Kurds in Syria..allying with Isrealis or at least I have
>heard some do.....

It was not Cardussi we spoke of but rather the "Cadussi" whose name is
derived from Kadesh in Naphtali and they were from the Tribe of Naphtali.
The Book of Tobias speaks of people from Naphtali being in their area. The
Cadussi were later identified with the Naphtalite Huns. They were also
registered as related to the Scythian Sacae.
As for the Kurds? Maybe the name Kurd is derived from Carducci and maybe
Carducci is derived from Cadussi. The Cadussi dwelt
near present-day Kurdistan. Most of the Kurds appear to be a mixed people
some of whom descend from the ancient Medes. A few small Kurdish tribes
also believe they are derived from the Israelite Tribe of Benjamin. There
are also Jews from Kurdistan who are somewhat unique. Some of the Jewish
Kurds believe that they are too are descended from the Lost Ten Tribes. I
have a friend whose parents came from Kurdistan, black hair and blue eyes.
I used to learn Siamese Boxing. Amongst my sparring partners were those
whose parents came from Kurdistan. They were usually clean fighters,
aggressive attackers, smart, and sportsmen. Many "Eastern" Jews have
characteristics similar to those of Celts from the British Isles whereas
"Western" Jews are more like regular Anglo-Saxons and West Europeans. At
the same time we should all perhaps not generalize overduly about any group
of people.

2. Good Point about Zoroaster
From: "Taylor, John (JH) (Solvents)"
Subject: RE: "Brit-Am Now"-242

One of the arguments that Zoroastrians got their info from the Jews than
the other way round is that the Samaritans who were not taken to Babylon
have the same torah as the Jews. Hence there is an independent
confirmation of the revelation to Israel.

Most of the doctrines of later Judaism are already contained in the
Torah, and do not need Zoroastrian origin. The beliefs became more
explicit during the later period, but did nor originate then.

John Taylor

3. Druids
From: Shelagh McKenna
Subject: RE: "Brit-Am Now"-243

Dear Mr. Davidy,

I have two remarks to make regarding the latest posts.

My first remark is about the Druids. They were identified as magi, a
term associated with Chaldees, a Hebrew lineage which includes the
Israelites (see the Book of Judith). 'Culdee' Celtic monks (of Druidic
lines, I assure you) were called 'cuil de', literally 'servants of God'.
The historian Adamnan wrote in his 'Life of Saint Columba' that magi
advised the Pictish kings, and MacGeoghan and Mitchell, in their
'History of Ireland', wrote that the Celtic Druids were magi fromScythia.

The Celts were sympathetic to the Templar knights and Cathari, magian
Christians persecuted in the south of France during the twelfth century,
and Scotland was a refuge for those who managed to escape. These magian
Christians were fairly traceable as Ephraimites from Persia who had
joined the invading Medes after the storming of Babylon which ended theCaptivity.

The Celts had an affinity for these magian Christians (whose red and
white rose symbol confirms their Israelite identity, to me at least). I
am sure this affinity is partly due to the fact that members of the
Druidic lines, now integrated into Celtic population, were fellowChaldees.

The Druids never saw Babylon. They were with the Gaedheals (the
migration of Celts who landed in Spain and Ireland) when the Gaedheals
left Scythia. The Gaedheals had a legend that their ancestor Eber the
Scyth had been brought before Moses as a child, and the name 'Eber'
suggests Hebrew descent. The eighth century B.C. remains of Navan Fort
in Northern Ireland suggest an approximate date for the Gaedheals'
arrival in Ireland. This does make it possible that their Druids were
Israelites, though of course it proves nothing.

My second remark is a question. I would like to know where Thomas Malloy
gets his translation of 'mazda' as 'demon'. 'Mazda' means 'knowing' in Old Iranic.

Shelagh McKenna

Comment by Brit-Am: The above postings raise an interesting possibility.
The Roman historian, Pliny, can be understood as saying that the Magi of
Persia learned their art from the Druids of Britain. This remark has
usually been dismissed as fanciful conjecture though Pliny is often
reliable. The Northern Israelites before their exile had received the
Mosaic Law and Biblical traditions. They also adopted the pagan practices
and beliefs of the peoples around them. That is why they were exiled (see
2-Kings, chapter 17).
After they were exiled there was an attempt to bring them back and reform
their beliefs system. This was Zoroastrianism in its original form. A form
of Zoroastrianism was also adopted by the non-Israelite "Gentile" neighbors
of the Scythian peoples.
The type of Zoroastrianism that the non-Israelite Persian and Median
peoples developed was heavily paganised.
We attributed this paganisation to these non-Israelites mixing it up with
their own previous pagan beliefs. Research bears this out.
Even so, it may be some aspects of this paganisation cam from the
Israelites themselves. The Israelites of Scythia ultimately became the
Anglo-Saxons and kin but early offshoots from them did join their
Israelite brethren who were already present in the "Celtic" west, as
explained in our works. The religion of the Druids as we know it suggests a
mixture of Israelite, pagan Middle Eastern (Canaanite), and Indo-European
(Iranian?) beliefs. Perhaps Pliny was right?
Whatever the case, this kind of evidence can only serve as illustrative
material of some value after the physical movement of the Israelite peoples
has been proven and accepted. See next posting.

4. New Findings
New archaeological evidence links the Middle East, Scythia, and the origins
of the "Celtic" west.
This is in addition to the findings we have already made known in our
publications. Our conclusions appear to be correct and academically
defendable. To some degree we have a problem regarding the discrepancy of
dates conventionally accepted
though with some work this too seems to be capable of a satisfactory resolution.
At all events our major emphasis is on proof from Scripture and related
sources. It is sufficient that other fields of evidence merely show that
our conclusions are feasible though usually we have managed to progress
beyond that. Even though these "other fields of evidence" may be less
important they are necessary and one of the strengths of Brit-Am is that we
have been enabled to provide new insights of some value in different
spheres of study concerning our subject.