Forty-Seveners vs. Forty-Eighters

jew2 jews22 jews23 left7 left8 cav12 tomcot10 jesss3rickperr2 JessieScoutsjews233jews234

Tom Cotton is like Jennifer Rubin’s adopted brother. She and Bill Kristol have been grooming Tom for several years to take the place of Joe Lieberman whose job was to make sure Israel always get’s it share of the Defense Tax Pie. If they have to cut out food stamps for poor black children to make sure Israel is plump with arms, and has our army at their disposal, then  Cotton and Rubin have done their job. They don’t work for America. They are liars!

Rubin said this about Cotton in 2012:

“Like his role models, Cotton has the potential to do big things in Congress at a time when bombast often substitutes for smarts and ego trumps common sense.  He also gives one hope that if America produces young men and women like him, the future is not entirely bleak.”

What this Jew is saying is our first black President is on a bombastic ego trip because he is not buying into the End Time Terror of the Zionist Army of Hebrew American Co-terrorists who back voter suppression, and, will say anything to trick our leaders into sending another Crusader Army to the Levant in order to destroy Israel’s enemies. Rubin enjoys dual-citizenship, and thus wants America’s young people to have a John Wayne role model so they will strap on guns and go over there = and kill. Fuck this ‘Peace Brother’ crap!  ISIS employs the same tactics. They got their PR men.

Let me tell my reader my ex-best friend, Mark Gall, is a Jew, who did not invite me to his sons funeral because friends from Israel would be there, and, I might go off on my Baja-Israel plan. Like Tom he went to Harvard. Like Jennifer, he went to UC Berkley. These are Hebrew Smarty Pants who are obsessed with solving the Israeli Rubic’s Cube.

Above are two photographs of Orthodox Jews demonstrating against the Israeli draft in Israel and in New York. This anti-war and draft movement has created a big crisis as it did in the U.S. when peace-loving hippies took to the streets. There is no problem in getting terrified Americans to fork over another two trillion dollars, but, who is going to go out into the battlefield and fight? We have seen the Iraqi army, run, leaving billions of dollars of military equipment for ISIS to grab! Do you think the Orthodox Jews are going to go get our weapons back – and use them! How ironic that Iranian Militias just took back Sadaam’s hometown. Too bad the Neoconservatives wanted ‘The Evil One’s’ head in a noose – for political gain!

 He also gives one hope that if America produces young men and women like him, the future is not entirely bleak.”

Rubin has been characterized as neoconservative.[6][12][13] She has opposed Barack Obama on multiple occasions, calling him “the most anti-Israel U.S. president (ever)”,[14] and writing that “Obama isn’t moderate, doesn’t like the free market, and isn’t interested in waging a robust war on Islamic fundamentalists.”[6] She also criticized what she characterized as inaction on issues including the Middle East peace process and the Keystone XL pipeline.[15]

Rubin consistently supports the Likud government and other conservative factions in Israel, and has been a harsh critic of Hamas and of the PLO leadership.

There are eight million Jews in Israel, the population of New York. There are forty-eight million blacks in America. Sixty-five million democrats voted for Obama. How is it these Jews came to own such power, and receive so much attention? The answer is: Irving Kristol – who no doubt knew Denis de Rougemont, and took over his CCF in order to employ writers and artists against Leftists who might want to become Communists. This is the Hebrew Commie Scare, the Chicken Little Star of David Plan used to make Israel powerful. Kristol and his gang of Zionists undermined the Hippie Movement, the Anti-War Movement, the Peace Movement, and for doing this – they must be destroyed!

When the Iron Curtain fell I told my Hippie friends the Right is going to have to find a New Evil Empire to USE, and, “I think half of America will be elected ‘The Children of the Evil One’.”

I suspect the Hebrew End Time Co-terrorists met with those Republicans in that restaurant the day of Obama’s inauguration, and hatched a plot to depict the Presdient of the United States as the Anti-Christ. This is TREASON! This is a plot hatched by Jews loyal to a foreign country to severely diminish the power and effectiveness of the Commander in Chief. Do you think these Traitors considered the idea of a second black president because the first one did such a good job?. These Jews are racists! Jennifer has called our President a – stupid uppity negro –  who can never be as smart as a Jew! I will follow her career closely. Did Jennifer teach college kids racist songs?

It is time for a New Iron Clad Oath. It is time to give birth to the Forty-Eighters and the Jessie Scouts. It’s time for Americans to serve Americans. It is time to destroy the Neoconservatives!

Jon Presco

Neoconservative Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin embraced Cotton back in 2012. She was worried then that with Joe Lieberman leaving the Senate, we were losing national security hawks.

Hawks are nervous that, with the retirement of Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and the demands of a fiscal crisis, fewer lawmakers will be interested in and devoted to national security.

Though the student revolts of the late 1960s drew sharp rebukes in Encounter from the likes of Sidney Hook, and Robert Nisbet,[52][53] the editors did not see fit to throw out the humanist baby with the radical bathwater

jew234 jew235

Neoconservative Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin embraced Cotton back in 2012. She was worried then that with Joe Lieberman leaving the Senate, we were losing national security hawks.

Hawks are nervous that, with the retirement of Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and the demands of a fiscal crisis, fewer lawmakers will be interested in and devoted to national security.

The letter by those 47 Senators is getting scorned and abused nationwide. The hashtag #47Traitors has been trending on twitter. Huffpo speculates that it was “treason.” And no wonder, USA Today says the letter has subverted US diplomacy. Slate calls the letter stupid and idiotic. Salt Lake City Tribune says it was felonious:

Chances are that the foolish, dangerous and arguably felonious attempt by the Obama Derangement Caucus of the Senate will soon be forgotten.

The Tribune labels Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton an “uber-hawk.” The letter is sure to define his career, and not in a good way. The Kansas City Star says:

On Tuesday, Tom Cotton, the freshman senator from Arkansas who started the letter, defended it and said he wasn’t a traitor.

The liberal Zionist group J Street says that Cotton was scripted by neoconservative Bill Kristol. Street is reveling in the letter because it is sure to drag the neoconservative rightwing Israel lobby down politically, marginalize the greater-Israel lobby in the far right wing of the Republican Party. Just as the Netanyahu speech has hurt Netanyahu and the Likud wing of the lobby, the Cotton letter is turning out to be an own-goal, scored by the neoconservatives. 

The neoconservatives reached out and groomed Tom Cotton when they saw him coming down the pike. The Harvard College and Harvard Law grad spent just one term in the Congress before challenging and defeating Mark Pryor last fall. And he got tons of money then from the Israel lobby.

Neoconservative Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin embraced Cotton back in 2012. She was worried then that with Joe Lieberman leaving the Senate, we were losing national security hawks.

Hawks are nervous that, with the retirement of Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and the demands of a fiscal crisis, fewer lawmakers will be interested in and devoted to national security.

It was a genuine embrace. The sixth-generation Arkansan who grew up on a cattle farm read Leo Strauss the neocon icon when he was in college. And the letter to Iranian leaders is not his first outrageous letter. In 2006 he earned notoriety for a letter he wrote to the New York Times from Iraq where he was serving as an officer officer. The letter said that he hoped the Justice Department showed the courage of US soldiers and prosecuted the New York Times and its journalists for disclosing details of the government’s program on stopping the funding of terrorists.

The letter was published on Power Line. It fetishized war:

I apologize for not writing sooner. But I am a lieutenant in the United States Army and I spent the last four days patrolling one of the more dangerous areas in Iraq.

Unfortunately, as I supervised my soldiers late one night, I heard a booming explosion several miles away. I learned a few hours later that a powerful roadside bomb killed one soldier and severely injured another from my 130-man company. I deeply hope that we can find and kill or capture the terrorists responsible for that bomb….

Next time I hear that familiar explosion — or next time I feel it — I will wonder whether we could have stopped that bomb had you not instructed terrorists how to evade our financial surveillance…

I hope that my colleagues at the Department of Justice match the courage of my soldiers here and prosecute you and your newspaper to the fullest extent of the law. By the time we return home, maybe you will be in your rightful place: not at the Pulitzer announcements, but behind bars.

He later told Power Line that war had been in his dreams:

“here I was in Iraq, leading a platoon, going out every day on patrol, as I had dreamed of doing for so long.”

Of course Cotton came home to run for Congress in southwestern Arkansas. By the time he reached D.C., he seemed to love war a little too much. From Jennifer Rubin’s column:

Cotton certainly advocates a strong U.S. presence in the world. He recalled, “What I used to say in the campaign was, ‘You may be tired of war, but war is not tired of you.’ There are evil people in the world who would do evil things.” Because of questions about U.S. resolve, he pointed out, “Certain Middle East countries are hedging and edging closer to Iran.” He said, “It’s important to remind the American people why we’re still engaged, [to] still maintain force projection, stand with Israel … because it is not something they experience firsthand. They experience the economy, but they don’t experience Gaza or Libya or Afghanistan.”

Neoconservative Bret Stephens made the same comment, by the way, in February, quoting Lenin:

“You may not be interested in war but war is interested in you.”

Cotton loves to flash his military experience:

He wryly took issue with the president’s suggestion in the last debate that ships were as outmoded as bayonets and horses. “My first four hours in basic training was in bayonet training. And we’ve used horses in a number of special operations.”

Grooming a young politician is how Bill Kristol and the Israel lobby work. I saw Kristol at AIPAC many years ago talking about how important it is to cultivate rising politicians. He mentioned Dan Quayle, whom Kristol ultimately served as chief of staff when he was vice president.

Bill Kristol said that Hart Hasten, a Holocaust survivor and successful Indianapolis businessman, had been crucial to shaping Dan Quayle’s view of Israel, having “spent a lot of time” with Quayle when he was still a congressman. (Quayle’s office later told me, “The statement Bill Kristol made was not exactly accurate. Mr. Quayle said his broad knowledge of Israel came from many people and sources, not specifically from Mr. Hasten.”) Dan Senor, an analyst on CNN and former AIPAC intern, boasted that AIPAC won over Spencer Abraham when he was the head of the state Republican Party, years before he became a Michigan senator. The party was $500,000 in debt, and an AIPAC leader helped him pay that off.

As we noted yesterday, Kristol’s Emergency Committee for Israel bankrolled the Cotton campaign with $1 million as he went down to the wire against Mark Pryor last fall.

According to the Federal Election Commission, the Kristol family gave Cotton money. Susan Kristol gave Cotton $2500, his daughter Anne Kristol gave $1,000.

Elliott Abrams and Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam also gave Cotton money. So did rightwing Israel supporter Kenneth Bialkin. So did James Berenson, a board member of the neoconservative Hudson Institute.

Jennifer Rubin praised Cotton’s fire-and-brimstone speech about Iran in January. She was defensive about the Israel lobby allegation:

You see, this is not about simply being a friend to Israel — although a Cotton-type policy would certainly fit that description. This is about whether a leader is ready to defend the West against the jihadist threat — whether it comes from Sunni or Shiite Islamists.

Paul Blumenthal has a good piece up at Huffpo showing how a large portion of the money funding Republican Party nominees is from the same sources who are trying to defeat Obama’s negotiations with Iran– the Israel lobby in short, though Blumenthal does not use that description.

Cotton has received a great deal of support from the donors who fund these and other groups opposing an Iran deal. [Paul] Singer and [Seth] Klarman have given a combined $350,000 to the pro-Cotton super PAC Arkansas Horizon. Singer also gave $2.6 million to American Crossroads, $100,000 to B-PAC and $10,000 to John Bolton Super PAC, all of which spent money to support Cotton’s Senate campaign last year. Klarman has directed $400,000 to American Crossroads. The Emergency Committee for Israel — a nonprofit group, led by the neoconservative Bill Kristol, that opposes an Iran deal — spent nearly $1 million to support Cotton in his election campaign.

These donations are just a fraction of the total spent by these funders. Overall, the combined giving of [Sheldon] Adelson, Klarman, Marcus and Singer accounted for over 10 percent of all pro-Republican independent spending in the past two election cycles.

In some cases, contributions from these donors have been the dominant source of funds for party-linked groups.

Here is the bottom line on all these Iran capers, they have been self-defeating.

Democratic Hawk Brad Sherman: “Brouhaha last week reduced chances of Democratic support for veto override from 40 to 4 percent”

PS Here’s yet another likely-Israel-lobby group, the American Security Initiative, with a video out saying that the Iranians want to nuke an American city.

– See more at:

Kristol was born in Brooklyn, New York, the son of non-observant Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe.[4][5] He received his B.A. from the City College of New York in 1940, which was free to attend until the 1970s, where he majored in history and was part of a small but vocal Trotskyist anti-Soviet group who eventually became the New York Intellectuals. During World War II, he served in Europe in the 12th Armored Division as a combat infantryman.[6]

Kristol was affiliated with the Congress for Cultural Freedom; he wrote in Commentary magazine from 1947 to 1952, under the editor Elliot Cohen

Encounter is a monthly literary and British policy founded in London in October 1953 by poet Stephen Spender and the neo-conservative New York Irving Kristol. This newspaper, which was interested in the intellectual life and Anglo-American culture, ceased to be issued at the beginning of 1991.

How quickly things change. The days of taking evangelical support for Israel for granted are over. As they are increasingly confronted with an evangelical-friendly, anti-Israel narrative, more and more of these Christians are turning against the Jewish state.[1]

There is troubling precedent for such an about-face. At one time—prior to the 1967 war— the mainline Protestant denominations were among Israel’s most reliable American supporters. Israel’s opponents, therefore, targeted these denominations with mainline-friendly, anti-Israel messages. There are still many mainline Protestants who support Israel today. But to the extent the mainline denominations act corporately in connection with the Jewish state, it is to divest from it. And it is from Israel—not Iran—that they seek to divest.

In a similar fashion, Palestinian Christians and their American sympathizers are successfully promoting a narrative aimed at reaching the rising generation of evangelicals and turning them against Israel. As a result, more leaders of this generation are moving toward neutrality in the conflict while others are becoming outspoken critics of Israel. Questioning Christian support for the Jewish state is fast becoming a key way for the millennials to demonstrate their Christian compassion and political independence. In short, this population is in play.

The Shift

There is nothing new about the efforts to drive a wedge between America’s evangelicals and Israel. Many in the anti-Israel camp have been working for years to do exactly that. Anti-Israel Palestinian Christians such as Sami Awad and Naim Ateek have traveled the country telling American Christians how their “brothers and sisters in Christ” are being oppressed by Israel’s Jews. Left-leaning evangelicals such as Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo, and Serge Duss have echoed this narrative in their corner of the Christian world. Duss’s sons, Brian and Matt, have worked diligently to mainstream their father’s views within the fields of Christian philanthropy and Democratic Party policy-making, respectively.

Until the past couple of years, however, there was little reason to believe that these individuals were influencing Christians beyond their own narrow circles. Almost every significant evangelical leader who took a position on the issue came out squarely behind the Jewish state. A center-right evangelical world simply was not taking its political cues from these stalwarts of the left.

This situation is changing dramatically. With every passing month, more evidence is emerging that these anti-Israel Christians are succeeding in reaching beyond the evangelical left and are influencing the mainstream. In particular, they are penetrating the evangelical world at its soft underbelly: the millennial generation. These young believers (roughly ages 18 to 30) are rebelling against what they perceive as the excessive biblical literalism and political conservatism of their parents. As they strive with a renewed vigor to imitate Jesus’ stand with the oppressed and downtrodden, they want to decide for themselves which party is being oppressed in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Whoever first defines the conflict for these young people will win lifelong allies.

Of Polling and Documentaries

In October 2010, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life conducted a major survey of evangelical leaders attending the Third Lausanne Congress of World Evangelization in Cape Town, South Africa. When asked with which side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict they sympathized, these leaders answered as follows:

All Evangelicals (Global)

Sympathize With Israel—34%
Sympathize with the Palestinians—11%
Sympathize with Both Equally—39%

American Evangelicals

Sympathize with Israel—30%
Sympathize with the Palestinians—13%
Sympathize with Both Sides Equally—49%

The survey contained two bombshells. It showed that only a minority of those evangelicals polled sympathized primarily with Israel. And it demonstrated that American evangelical leaders were actually less inclined to support Israel than evangelical leaders in general.

These figures may mean that evangelical support for Israel was never as universal as was commonly believed. But they may also demonstrate that years of grassroots efforts by Israel’s critics were beginning to bear fruit even before their recent intensification.

The year 2010 was one of dramatic escalation in the efforts to drive a wedge between American evangelicals and Israel using the medium of film. In the span of that one year, no less than three major documentaries were released attacking Christian support for Israel. These were hardly the first anti-Israel movies to be produced. What made these films special was that they were focused on discrediting Christian support for Israel. While First Run Features’ Waiting for Armageddon was produced and directed by a team of secular documentarians, two other films—With God on Our Side (Rooftop Productions, 2010) and Little Town of Bethlehem (EthnoGraphic Media, 2010)—were made by Christians specifically for Christians. With God on Our Side was produced by Porter Speakman, a former Youth with a Mission[2] (YWAM) activist while Little Town of Bethlehem was funded and produced by Mart Green, chairman of the board of trustees of Oral Roberts University and heir to the Hobby Lobby arts and crafts stores fortune.

These two Christian-made films are masterpieces of deception. They feature compelling protagonists wandering earnestly through a Middle Eastern landscape in which all Arab violence, aggression, and rejectionism have been magically erased. Thus the Israeli security measures they encounter along the way—from the security fence to Israel’s ongoing presence in the West Bank—are experienced as baffling persecutions, which any decent person would condemn.

More recently, in November 2013, another anti-Israel documentary—The Stones Cry Out—was released. Like its 2010 predecessors, this documentary specifically tailors its anti-Israel message to a Christian audience. The film’s website laments: “All too often, media coverage of the conflict in Palestine has framed it as a fight between Muslims and Jews.” The not-too subtle goal of The Stones Cry Out is to reframe the conflict as a fight between Christians and Jews.

The Stones Cry Out begins with the story of Kfar Biram, a Christian Arab village on Israel’s border with Lebanon. Israel expelled the village’s residents in 1948 in order to, in the words of the film’s website, “make way for settlers in the newly created state of Israel.” The film then moves on to “the expropriation of the West Bank in 1967” and the plight of modern Bethlehem, which is “hemmed in by the wall.”[3] As such language repeatedly makes clear, the filmmakers did not craft a nuanced critique of Israeli policies. They produced instead a modern passion play.

In an interview about the film, Bethlehem pastor Mitri Raheb summarizes the changes taking place in the American evangelical world:

It’s not a hopeless case. The first time I went to the States in 1991, most of the people I met knew nothing about Palestine. That has changed a lot. I see among the evangelical Christian community more openness towards the Palestinians.[4]

Raheb is right about the openness. And this could be a good thing if it leads to an honest examination of the issue. Unfortunately, Raheb and his colleagues are exploiting this openness by telling a one-sided narrative of Jewish persecution of Christians that may sow the seeds of future hate.

Another sign of the times came in 1972, when Daniel Bell, firmly of the social-democratic, anti-Stalinist, Old Left/Menshevik tendency, resigned from his co-editorship of the Public Interest, rather than strain his long friendship with Irving Kristol, who had recently left the Democratic fold and come out for Richard Nixon, easing into his final four decades in the ideological orbit of, e.g., the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. Some among the nascent neoconservatives, like Bell’s successor Nathan Glazer, would remain loyal Democrats, while others would form the advance intellectual guard of the “Reagan Democrats who played a pivotal role in the 1980 and 1984 elections.

§The autonomy of art[edit]

At Encounter these cleavages played out in a rather less ruptured, more gradual, more diversified and less overtly hostile manner. For one thing, its always-extensive literary pages retained a back-of-the-book autonomy, above the roiling polemical waters of the day, of a sort increasingly rare over time in Podhoretz’s Commentary, in which the multiple-front assaults on the New Left, the counterculture, radical feminism, Cold War dovishness, and other such deviations came to assume a monolithic editorial supremacy — “culture war is hell and there are no aesthetes in a foxhole”, as Franklin Foer put it in 1997.[51] By contrast, Encounter retained until its end of days a pronounced overlap with the artistically-conservative focus, in both topics and often in contributors, of the formally artistic and historical side of the New York Review — divers dons from Oxbridge and London assaying the latest English literary biographies, the latest historians’ “storms over the gentry” of seventeenth-century England, and, as always, new poetry and fiction.

Even in its formally political content, though, Encounter, no doubt in part as the result of its base in London rather than in New York, played something of an ongoing mediator’s role vis-a-vis the squabbling left-liberals and neocon hatchlings, helping keep it in demand and clean and dry atop mid-Atlantic coffee tables otherwise subject stateside to the detritus of splashed cabernet and flung brie.

Denis de Rougemont was titled ‘The Prince of European Culture’. He was at the first Bilderberg meeting, and is considered a co-founder of the European Union. Frederich the Great granted the Rougemonts of Neufchatel a title of old nobility when he came to this area in Switzerland.

Rougemont was the Director of Congress of Cultural Freedom that employed Writers and Artists against the Soviet Block. There is a creative subconscious that may have created a psychic force that brought many to a vortex that a core group created, and was like a psychic internet. The Roza Mira of Russian is sustained outside this Western Vortex, but, subliminal messages are being exchanged by what you might call Art Angels.

At the same time, it is mobilized with other intellectuals against Stalinist propaganda conveying the idea of a culture to the service of the class struggle, within the Congress for the Freedom of the Culture of which he becomes President in 1952 (he will occupy this function until 1966).

In charge of the Center European of the Culture, Denis de Rougemont provided the foundations, in December 1950, of an organization gathering the European scientists working on nuclear energy: it will be the CERN. He was at the origin of the first association joining together the very first Institutes of European Studies, which was drawn up in Geneva in 1951 (it existed until 1991), as well as European Association of the Festivals of Music. In the sides of Robert Schuman, it took part in the creation of the European Foundation of the Culture (Geneva, December 16th, 1954) which was transported to Amsterdam in 1957 when it always continues its activities.

He undertakes a deliberation on the cultural features which characterize the Occident compared to other civilizations. It is the topic of its work the Western Adventure of the Man (1957) and the think tank on the “dialog of the cultures” (formulates begun again later by UNESCO) which it organizes as from 1961. This same year, it publishes a work on the history of the European idea entitled Twenty-eight centuries of Europe. In 1963, it founds in Geneva the Institute of European Studies which will be incorporated in the University in 1992.

Though the student revolts of the late 1960s drew sharp rebukes in Encounter from the likes of Sidney Hook, and Robert Nisbet,[52][53] the editors did not see fit to throw out the humanist baby with the radical bathwater, and so, for example, the socialist critic Irving Howe, editor of Dissent and an Old Left stalwart, was still, with such contributions as a discerning essay on Zola,[54] still very much representative of a central tradition within of socially engaged criticism that was to those in the Encounter orbit, at once critical of the injustices of the status quo yet firmly anti-fanatic, anti-totalitarian and fiercely resistant to forms of radicalism that, especially in the academy, sought to “revise” Stalin back into favor.[55]


About Royal Rosamond Press

I am an artist, a writer, and a theologian.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Forty-Seveners vs. Forty-Eighters

  1. Scott Lahti says:

    I am pleased to see here several generous excerpts from the article at Wikipedia devoted to Encounter magazine. I wrote that article – save for the first 250 words or so, the earlier version which I left undisturbed – in 2012 in submission to the Unz Historical Research Competition, in which it took First Prize.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.