When Predators choose to talk Peace

Study the declarations that were made by representatives of the Israeli government in the past two decades or so, and you'll find that they all rejected every peace effort, peace initiative and peace process for the middle East, whether they were initiated by someone friendly to Israel or unfriendly to it.

As well, study the sayings that were uttered by the talking heads and the articles that were written by the mob of Jewish pundits in America, and you'll find that all these characters spent time echoing Israel's rejection of peace. They did so pursuant to the eternal policy of the Judeo-Israeli syndicate. The policy is eternal, they point out, because it's a principle that was codified in modern time, and more importantly, it is the foundation upon which the Jewish religion was founded three and a half millenniums ago.

The DNA of that religion and the culture that arose around it spell “predation.” In fact, the single idea out of which flows the entire philosophical construct upon which stands the Jewish existence is that the Jew establishes his ownership of something simply by desiring it. If that something belongs to someone already, the Jew does not ask for or negotiates to have it; he simply grabs it and runs. And that's the only time he'll talk peace. He'll talk because he doesn't want to be pursued by those he robs. Thus, the ideal situation for the Jewish predator happens when he snatches the piece he covets, and he's given the peace that allows him to keep it without having to fight.

This is the Jewish reality that has not changed in thousands of years. It is the reason why the Jews were never able to establish the empire they craved since the beginning of time. But they are not giving up on that ultimate desire, and as long as there are suckers populating the planet, the Jews will tell them false stories in an effort to recruit them for the battles they cannot win alone.

The battle that the Jews are currently fighting centers on their robbery of Palestine. They snatched a piece of real estate, and what they want is the peace that will allow them to keep it and not be pursued. As to the suckers who will stand with them and fight their battles; these would be the part of the American set-up that's known as the politico-journalistic establishment.

The Jews have already spent two decades convincing the Americans that the part of Palestine they robbed belongs to them, and there should be no revision of that. As to the part they occupy but have not yet annexed, they want the Americans to help them keep it without having to fight for it. For this reason, the Jews are talking peace to the Americans. They hope that in the end, they'll get the piece they want, and the peace that will free them to go on preying elsewhere.

Fortunately however after two decades of groping in the darkness that's gushing out the Jewish misinformation and disinformation machine, a member of the American politico-journalistic establishment has seen the light and said that the Jews do not really want peace as defined by the civilized world. That someone happens to be – surprise, surprise – the New York Times. Its editors composed an editorial in which they said that Israel has “shown no serious interest in peace”.

That observation, coming from what used to be staunch supporters of Jewish thievery, prompted a response from Danny Dayan who is Israel's consul general in New York. His missive was printed under the title: “An Israeli View on Peace” on December 15, 2017 in the New York Times. Dayan is telling the Times editors they were wrong in saying that Israel does not want peace. And so, he set out to prove his point. But guess what, my friend; Dayan did the very Jewish thing of emasculating himself in public.

Accused of not wanting peace, you would expect the representative of Israel to start his argument by demonstrating that Israel does want peace, and that it has been working relentlessly to secure it. But that's not what he did. Instead, he badmouthed the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas; an act that reflects the Jewish disease responsible – at least in part – for the Jews being thrown into the proverbial gas chamber everywhere they went on this planet.

After the attack on Abbas, Dayan simply declared: “It is Israel that has stated continuously that it is open for negotiations.” Aside from that, Dayan again chided Abbas for working to put the Palestinian House in order by negotiating with the opposition.

But Dayan said nothing about the differences that exist in Israel's House; a sad place where the prime minister is probed by the police for thievery and corruption, and where the prime minister is complaining that the police was recruited by the opposition to destroy him and his coalition government.

When it comes to dealing with internal differences, does Dayan not wish the Jews were as civilized as the Palestinians?

Sprouting green Shoots fed by the Manure below

Two articles published four days apart tell an allegorical story that some people will find elegant and informative.

You don't have to be a farmer to realize that for centuries, human beings have known that dung can be used as fertilizer to help trees grow more lush and more fruitful.

Well, you'll be glad to know that the principles involved in that natural process can serve as allegory to represent what happens in situations far removed from the farmer's field. Of the two articles alluded to above, one represents the manure that's absorbed by the roots of the tree. The other represents the green shoots that promise a lush and fruitful harvest later in the season.

On December 12, 2017, Matthew RJ Brodsky gave the world an example on how to write an article that has the look and smell of manure. It came under the title: “The Jerusalem Fiction” and was published on December 12, 2017 in National Review Online. Four days later, on December 16, 2017, the editors of the New York Times published a piece of their own under the title: “Donald Trump Seems Confused About Jerusalem”; a piece of work that means little for now, but like green shoots, may be foretelling of rewards ahead.

So we take a closer look at the fecal literature that was authored by Matthew Brodsky. The first thing he contends is that the peace process will be helped because President Donald Trump said that Israel's capital is in Jerusalem. Eleven hundred words later, he says this: “The international community's pernicious adherence to the fiction that Israel's capital isn't in Jerusalem helps reinforce deleterious aspects of Palestinian mythology.” But the fact is that neither the Palestinians nor the World are saying anything like that. What they say is that Jerusalem is not in Israel. And there is a big difference between the two propositions.

It is not that Matthew Brodsky doesn't know that; he knows it. In fact, the eleven hundred words he wrote between the two sayings are dedicated to making the deceptive point that Jerusalem is in Israel despite the facts to the contrary he admitted to. Look at this: “In 1949, the Truman administration recognized Israel but not any portion of Israeli-held Jerusalem. The U.S. embassy was established in Tel Aviv ... In 1967 Israel expanded the city's municipal boundaries. Still the U.S. kept its embassy in Tel Aviv, preferring a stance of neutrality … With the Oslo peace process, the U.S. maintained a consulate in Jerusalem tasked solely with representing American interests to the Palestinian Authority … In effect, America was favoring Palestinian claims to the city”.

So then, why is Brodsky saying that Jerusalem is in Israel? Here are his reasons: “American presidents visited Jerusalem to meet with politicians and heads of state, and they spoke before the Knesset. Likewise, a few years later, Egyptian president Anwar Sadat didn't go to Tel Aviv but to Jerusalem to address the Knesset”.

But does that mean those presidents recognized Jerusalem as being Israeli territory more than would have the relocation of the American embassy there? Do you know what this claim is like, my friend? It is like the saying which goes: “If you cannot take Mohamed to the mountain, bring the mountain to Mohamed.” It seems those presidents weren't so wise as to insist that the Israelis move the Knesset to Tel Aviv before they would agree to speak to its members. Absurd!

None of this is lost on anyone, of course, so why does Brodsky and those of his ilk engage in a Harvey Weinstein style of shameless behavior? Here is the clue that tells of their true motivation: “The Senate passed a resolution commemorating the reunification of Jerusalem, stating that 'Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of Israel.'” Thus, in the truest of the Judeo-Yiddish tradition, the Jews are trying to shake hands with the human race for one reason only; to steal the rings adorning its fingers – and steal the fingers too. This is how badly the Brodsky manure stinks even if it led to the debate that's helping to clarify the issues driving this subject.

Now the New York Times editorial representing green shoots. Here are the pertinent passages:

“The United States isn't going to move its embassy until 2020, if then. Passports of Americans born in Jerusalem will continue to say born in Jerusalem, not Israel. American government maps won't identify Jerusalem as being inside Israel … More than 50 Muslim leaders urged the world to recognize East Jerusalem as the capital of an independent Palestinian state. In Brussels, most leaders of the European Union have rejected the idea of following Mr. Trump's lead”.

It cannot get any better. Thank you, President Trump. Thank you, Matthew Brodsky.

The Way to dampen so-called Antisemitism

They have been doing the same thing for 4,000 years and getting the same result. Strangely enough, they are still blaming their woes on everyone but themselves. If this is not insanity, what is?

A painful cycle that should never exist starts when the Jews point to the last pogrom or holocaust and accuse humanity of suffering a defect they call antisemitism. They use this approach to ask the existing authorities to intervene on their behalf. When this happens, they recommend harsh treatment for the individuals that do not kowtow to their demands. From there, they gradually escalate their demands till they cover the entire society. And this is how the next pogrom or holocaust is triggered. It is a never-ending case of here we go again!

To see how that cycle unfolds, you may study an article that came under the title: “The Uncomfortable Truth About Swedish Anti-Semitism,” written by Paulina Neuding and published on December 14, 2017 in the New York Times. The writer begins by making the correct observation, but then immediately spins it as if to load a machine gun and point it at the Jews throughout the world.

Here is Neuding's observation: “Jews are by now used to anti-Semitic threats and attacks –– especially during periods of unrest in the Middle East...” and here is her spin: “...which provide cover to those whose actual goal has little to do with Israel and much to do with harming Jews.” But what's the utility of this spin? It is to say there is nothing wrong with Israel and nothing wrong with those who finance the crimes it commits against the unarmed people of Palestine.

What's wrong, she means to say, resides in humanity itself – and this can only be a genetic defect called antisemitism. Her recommendation, therefore, is that we must look for a solution to the problem that does not include the Jews. It will have to be a solution that punishes the individuals who do not behave as instructed, even if that ends up covering all of society.

Having fabricated a dishonest spin, and believing it will hold in the minds of the readers no matter how much she contradicts herself, Paulina Neuding went on contradicting herself like there is no tomorrow. Here is a sampling of that:

“People protested Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Some of the country's leaders have used Israel to explain violence … Sweden's foreign minister explained radicalism among Europeans with reference to Israel: 'Here, we are brought to situations like the one in the Middle East, where the Palestinians see that there isn't a future. We must either accept a desperate situation or resort to violence'”.

While that was a glaring kind of contradiction, the Jews also practice a more subtle kind; one that adds to their sliminess just the same. It is called the ‘double-standard.’ To understand how it works, we compare what Paulina Neuding says must be done, and what she says must not be done.

Here is her argument as to what must be done: “Prime Minister Lofven was asked whether Sweden was naïve about the link between immigration and anti-Semitism. His response was: 'We have a problem with anti-Semistism, and it doesn't matter who expresses it.' But the problem grew so dire, he later admitted 'We will not ignore the fact that people have come from the Middle East where anti-Semitism is widespread. We must become clearer, dare to talk more about it.' He's right. Unfortunately, the country's news media is often unable to speak plainly about the issue”.

And here is her argument as to what must not be done: “Sweden's newspaper, Aftonbladet, accused Israel of harvesting Palestinian organs –– the modern equivalent of the blood libel. The state TV attributed Trump's announcement on Jerusalem to the extreme strength of the Jewish lobby in the United States. Sweden's leading news agency cited 'influential Jewish donors' in its analysis of the move. The Swedish press often crosses the line into vilification of the Jewish state and regularly insinuates that events in the Middle East are directed by powerful Jews in the West. This risks stoking already dangerous anti-Jewish sentiment”.

Thus, what she means to convey with these two statements, is that Sweden must stoke anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiments but not anti-Jewish sentiment.

Now, my friend, stop for a moment and think about it. If after 4,000 years of this kind of behavior––and the various punishments that resulted, these people still have not learned their lesson––what can we do to save them from themselves?

The first thing we do is acknowledge that the Jewish leaders are able to maintain the self-destructive posture that's characteristic of them because they succeeded at weaponizing and exploiting the Holocaust.

Therefore, the effort to save the Jews (from their self-appointed leaders) must include a prohibition on all governments to spend money that would be used to memorialize the Holocaust.

Also, the politico-journalistic establishment must be on alert at all time, and push back against attempts to speak of the Holocaust other than in historical terms.

That is, the people who would use the Holocaust to do propaganda of any kind must be instantly repudiated with a level of vehemence equal to that employed against the people who use history in exploitative ways.

The two Faces of a fraudulent Democracy

Give credit where credit is due.

The editors of the Weekly Standard have finally seen the light and seen fit to produce an iconic piece that shows how democracy, which might have been a formula for good governance at some point in the past, was corrupted and turned into a virulent poison with the potential to threaten life on Earth.

The editors wrote: “A New Intifada?” a piece that also came under the subtitle: “The gates of hell remain closed.” It was published on December 12, 2017 in the Weekly Standard. The editors discuss the American declaration of intent to move the country's embassy to Jerusalem, thus recognize the still to be defined boundaries of the city, as the capital of Israel.

Upon hearing of this strange decision, the first thing that comes to mind is some 200 questions that go something like this: Does anyone recognize Paris as the capital of France? Ottawa as the capital of Canada? Moscow as the capital of Russia? Cairo as the capital of Egypt? Washington as the capital of the United States? Addis Ababa as the capital of Ethiopia? Do France, Canada, Russia, Egypt, America or Ethiopia insist that others recognize their capital city? No; nobody does. So why make an exception for Israel? Good question.

The fact is that the world runs on norms, some of which took centuries to develop; others only decades. When there is a need to amend any of the norms, a procedure agreed to by all nations is strictly followed. The compilation of such procedures – which are necessary to run life on Planet Earth in an orderly fashion – was given the name 'international law'.

All nations have accepted the idea that the rule of law is supreme, and that no one can claim to be above it. Whether you are an authoritarian system of governance or a so-called democratic system, you accept a judgment that is rendered by a qualified tribunal, and you abide by it. So far, everyone on the planet except one entity has accepted and honored that deal.

The exception is Israel that refuses to submit to the rule of law as a matter of principle. It does so despite the fact that it is the first to holler about others not adhering to the law, even during an ongoing debate as to how a given law can or cannot be interpreted. If and when a ruling is made against Israel, its aggressive representatives and their American recruits crisscross the planet where they run roughshod over everyone, while howling the familiar claim that what happened here is a clear case of anti-Semitism.

This happens to American recruits whether they are private citizens or officials of the American government. It happens because the system of governance in America has so deteriorated, the ruling elites are known to sacrifice anything that does not belong to them personally, to protect Israel from the legal consequences of the criminal activities it never ceases to engage in.

But there is a line that official America has not crossed. It is to recognize the criminal annexation of Palestinian lands by Israel. Being a party to the Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 that forbid Israel from doing just that, America has almost literally split itself in two so as to appear like it is adhering to the law while at the same time signaling to the Jews it approves their act of piracy.

The editorial of the Weekly Standard gives inkling as to how this is working out with the Jerusalem issue. The editors say that in recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, President Donald Trump “defied America's foreign policy establishment, the European Union, the British foreign secretary, the French president, the pope, transnational policymakers of every sort, and governments across the Middle East.” This should please the Jews enormously because they believe that the way to prove your love for them is to kiss them while giving the middle finger to everyone else.

The editors of the Weekly Standard go on to say that American presidents “Clinton, Obama and Bush all promised to declare Jerusalem the capital but didn't follow through.” And they end with this lamentation: “The harder part will be for the Trump administration to follow through and move the embassy to Jerusalem. Rex Tillerson said the move is not something that's going to happen this year, probably not next year. In Washington 'not this year' has a way of turning into 'not ever.'” And that, my friend, is America's way of telling the world it is not violating international law.

On the whole, what this history demonstrates is the frivolous nature of democracy as it is practiced in America today. It is a system that bankrupted itself so badly it is now forced to resort to fraud––lost on no one––when performing on the world stage.

They're ruining the World and must be stopped

When the Judeo-Israeli syndicate plans to launch a major operation, it prepares for it ahead of time. The aim is to make its upcoming crimes look like legitimate self-defense while blaming the victims for those crimes.

The syndicate played that scheme in America time after time where it found a receptive Congress of the mentally retarded to play along. Each time, the latter paved the way for horrors of the kind that happened in the Levant and Libya, to take place. And that's not all because the ramifications of what happens in such places always extends to the rest of the Middle East, Europe, Africa, Asia and America.

This is how the Judeo-Israeli scheme usually unfolds: Israel starts something in occupied Palestine which prompts someone in leadership position to warn that if this goes on much longer, the people under occupation will inevitably revolt. Upon this warning, the mob of Jewish pundits in America launches a sustained barrage of articles in which the pundits spout the accusation that the Palestinians are blackmailing “us”.

When the noise level of journalistic misinformation and disinformation reaches its apogee, a high ranking Israeli official takes advantage of the cacophony filling the air to warn that a Middle Eastern neighbor is preparing to attack Israel. He adds that Israel will defend itself – not against a real attack that nobody is contemplating, but the one he just imagined.

The Israeli official then leaves it to the mob of pundits in America to counsel that the way to prevent such an attack from happening is for the American Congress to do certain things for Israel. And then, instead of calling what just happened blackmail by the Judeo-Israeli syndicate and the American mob, the Congress does what the syndicate tells it to do.

On another level, because America lost its effectiveness in the eyes of the world, Netanyahu of Israel tried to play that same scenario in Moscow and in other Asian capitals. When each of them told him to take a hike, he went to Europe where he played that same scenario. A summary of what he did there is provided in an article that came under the title: “How to Prevent the Next Mideast War” and the subtitle: “It is in Europe's interest to get tough with Hezbollah,” written by Daniel Schwammenthal and published on December 12, 2017 in the Wall Street Journal.

The writer begins the article by predicting that sooner or later, there will be war between Iran and Israel. He says this is the message that Netanyahu took to the Europeans. But how does Netanyahu know there will be war? He knows because Iran made “Holocaust denial and the destruction of the Jewish state core pillars of its ideology,” says Schwammenthal.

Does that mean Iran will attack Israel? No, it does not mean anything like that. Well then, will Israel attack Iran? What are you; an idiot or something? Don't you know you must never ask a Jew a question that requires a direct answer? Sorry, I didn't know that. But what would be the indirect answer to my question, anyway? Since you put it this way, here is my answer: “No Israeli leader, whether right-wing or left-wing, could allow it [Iran] to establish a permanent military presence next door.” Does that mean Israel will attack Iran? I gave you my answer; now buzz off or I'll sue you for haranguing me … and maybe I'll ask for compensation too.

What follows is what Benjamin Netanyahu and Daniel Schwammenthal are telling the Europeans what it is that Israel wants them to do now and after the fact of an Israeli attack on Lebanon. The intent is to pave the way to exonerate Israel while blaming Iran and Hezbollah for the bloodshed that will result. This would be the way that the American Congress has done things for decades:

“Lebanon hosts 1.5 million Syrian refugees. A war could turn Lebanese themselves into refugees. The ensuing migration would destabilize Europe. Media coverage will mischaracterize every Lebanese civilian casualty as evidence of Israeli war crimes. The EU's foreign ministers should condemn Hezbollah for rearming. It should put it on its terror list until it disarms. It will hold Hezbollah and Tehran responsible for civilian casualties. It should also inform the Lebanese government that no EU reconstruction aid will flow after another war. Moreover, EU diplomacy needs to take a stronger tone vis-à-vis Tehran. The time to confront Iran is now. No EU aid should flow to Syria. Europe's soft power can be weaponized to help contain Iran”.

This is how the Jews go from place to place and ruin it. It is how America allowed the Jews to place it on the road to ruin. It is why the human race prays that America will see the light and drain the swamp in its midst of the Jewish morbidity that is threatening the world.

Look what they are doing to you, America!

Three articles that appeared in The Washington Times on three different days tell a story about how America is played, and how it is sucked dry by those who pretend to be her friends.

Daniel Pipes wrote: “How the Dubai miracle was realized,” and had it published on December 6, 2017. Cheryl K. Chumley wrote: “On Jerusalem, let 'em rage,'” and had it published on December 9, 2017. Jed Babbin wrote: “Good Luck, Jared Kushner,” and had it published on December 10, 2017.

Using different words from what I'm using here, Daniel Pipes confessed that he did the very Jewish thing of making a list of the sins that differentiate the Jews, then turned around and accused the Arabs of everything on that list. But he said he must now retract his words because his predictions did not come true. He then threw a very Jewish caveat in this form: The predictions did not come true not because I, Daniel Pipes the Jew, was wrong but because the Arabs discovered they were wrong and corrected their mistakes.

Here is how Daniel Pipes said all that:

“I lambasted Dubai in a 2009 article for suckering outsiders with Ponzi-scheme real estate deals. It appeared to be only a matter of time until the whole edifice collapsed. But that did not happen. The leaders learned from their mistakes and oversaw Dubai's roaring back bigger than ever”.

He did not stop here but went on to explain how the leaders of Dubai did it. But again, Pipes did so in the very Jewish fashion of insulting those leaders, denigrating their economic model, associating it with those of bad actors such as the Chinese, and concluding that despite the Dubai success of having devised a viable model, it is regrettably not as good as the one followed by the Judeo-Christian West. Here is how Daniel Pipes put it:

“This is capitalism where the state plays a major role. Dubai's leaders have directed the economy through a strong hand. Thus, Dubai fits the Asian model where the tigers grew rich with government involvement in the economy. Then came China [where] the Communist Party maintained four decades of remarkable economic growth. The success of its state capitalism has proven so impressive that regimes [elsewhere] have emulated China. Dubai boisterously fits this new model, which fits a well-established and regrettably viable model”.

As to Cheryl Chumley, having no big story to tell, and no head on a silver platter to offer the Jews who just got rewarded with a diplomatic victory, she thought she could get in the good graces of her bosses by performing the Salome dance of triumph and jubilation. Thus, on the occasion of the announcement that America will move its embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, she threw mud in the face of “the United Nations, the European Union, the Catholic Church, the political ranks of progressives, the globalists and the Islamic apologists” while undulating to the rhythm of the ancient precursor to the modern belly dance. 

And she sang, of course. She sang not someone else's verses but her own. They went like this: Let 'em. Let the moaners moan, the wailers wail and the protesters protest. The problem is that she was so fixated about pleasing her Jewish bosses; she failed to realize that her intent was misconstrued. Because the Jews wanted Jerusalem to get close to the Wailing Wall, her audience thought she was mocking the Jewish wailers at the Wall, and moaning the lot of the protesting Israeli women who were prevented from getting near the Wall by rabbis that think of them as inferior creations.

As to Jed Babbin, he did the very Jewish thing of looking at the situation, locating imaginary dots in places that do not exist, and connecting said dots in such manner as to reach the inescapable conclusion that peace will come to the Middle East if America were courageous enough to trample on the rights of Palestinians, and give the Jews of Israel what does not belong to them. Here is how Babbin argued all of that:

“[Because] the Arab nations care about securing themselves against Iran; the Palestinians could be forced to agree to a deal with Israel if Kushner and Greenblatt play their cards right. It's a long-shot. If Trump were to change the position he took with Putin and require withdrawal of all Iranian forces from Syria, he could put Hamas on the spot for its alliance with Iran. Mahmoud Abbas would be in a very weak position that the Saudis, Jordanians and others could help us leverage into a deal”.

Well, someone should tell this guy, Babbin, that if this is the kind of game yielding result in the Washington Beltway, it will not work with the Arabs who can see through it, and will reject it off hand.

In fact, this is how the Arabs were able to prevent the Jews among them from getting out of control. The result has been that the Arabs never had to use pogrom or holocaust on the Jews.

It is an Arab approach that the Europeans failed to emulate; one that the Americans must learn or see themselves repeat the European mistake.

No such Thing as Jacksonian America

The human predisposition to believe in a power outside the self and outside the ordinary, leads some people to identify with and draw strength from such power, however mythical it may be.

To satisfy that craving, individuals of the cultures that had a glorious ancient past, tend to create myths rooted in the reality of their past achievements. As to individuals of the cultures that live in the glorious present, they tend to create myths rooted in the fiction of larger than life figures that lived in the recent past. Aside from Ronald Reagan who is almost universally accepted among Americans to have been a towering figure, there are people who try to make Henry Jackson a towering figure, and create a myth around what they believe was his approach to foreign policy.

Henry Jackson was a Democratic Congressman and Senator who ran to be president of the United States but never made it. He was so ambitious he could not help but be opportunistic, jumping on every occasion to advance his career. One opportunity he thought could do him a great deal of good was the falling out that happened between the Jews who wanted to populate Israel with new immigrants, and the Soviet Union that had a large number of potential Jewish immigrants, but would not allow them to leave the country.

Thus, while the Jews were chanting: “Let my people go,” Henry Jackson that had Jews on his staff – later identified to have been neocon material – began to espouse a philosophy that combined the support for Israel's agenda and hatred for the Soviet Union. In this sense, Henry Jackson and his staff were the spiritual fathers of what later came to be known as neoconservatism (neocon) despite the fact that the credit is given to Irving Kristol who actually converted from liberalism to conservatism, and said so in writing.

However, to this day, the reality remains that America never developed a grass-root neocon following despite the fact that Jewish neocons infiltrated and took over most of the nation's think tanks and media outlets. Thus, the Jacksonian approach to foreign policy never took hold in mainstream America. This is why a Henry Jackson Society developed in England but not in America where no one came forward to fund it.

A further discrediting of the neocon movement happened in America among the Jews who did not want to be identified with the pro-Israel foreign policies that cost America tens of thousands of lives and trillions of wasted dollars. For this reason, the diehard neocons came up with a new strategy to assure their survival. They circled around the young veterans of America's recent wars and convinced them that Henry Jackson had the right idea when he advocated a strong defense. To make their point, they demagogued the renewed phenomenon of Russian expansionism and the rising Muslim challenge.

Senator Tom Cotton, a veteran of the Iraq war, is one that embraced this idea. A column was written about him and printed in the Wall Street Journal. It came under the title: “A Foreign Policy for 'Jacksonian America'” and the subtitle: “Sen. Tom Cotton has a worldview––even a doctrine––that is hawkish and realistic, though tinged with idealism.” Authored by Jason Willick, the column was published in the Journal on December 9, 2017.

Reading the column, it becomes clear that neither Willick nor Cotton have any idea what the Jacksonian Philosophy of foreign policy looked like, or where to find Jacksonian America today or in the past. That's because there isn't one now, and there never was one. Those on the Henry Jackson staff that shaped the neocon philosophy––which Jackson himself never fully embraced––were none other than Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. They ended on the staff of Dick Cheney in the George W. Bush Administration after spending a decade organizing the scheme that launched the war that destroyed Iraq and now the Levant. If Cotton or Willick had any inkling regarding that history, they would not have produced the following passage:

“He [Cotton] believes that the lack of an organizing principle for using American power created a divide between the foreign policy elites and what Cotton calls Jacksonian America––heartland voters … Foreign policy must command popular support, says he … Without the support of Jacksonian America, the people who are going to cash checks written by elites in New York and Washington, no foreign policy can be successful”.

Anyone that believes heartland voters in America will support foreign wars because New York and Washington elites will write checks to advertise them, need to have their heads examined. If they can be cured, they’ll have to begin their history lesson by reading all about Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle.