So That’s Why Palin Believes in the Ingathering of the Jews

Monday, November 23, 2009 at 9:53 am

Last week, Sarah Palin made a strange comment defending Israeli settlement construction by warning that “more and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead.” Since worldwide Jewry is unaware of such an imminent threat that would prompt mass immigration to Israel — and certainly not immigration specific to the West Bank – that sounded like some kind of dogwhistle to Christian Zionists, a cohort that promotes unconditional American support to Israel in order to bring about the end of the world and the return of Jesus Christ to earth. Not, in other words, something particularly high on the Jewish or Israeli agendas, but Christian Zionists represent a pretty sizable bloc within the Republican coalition and could, say, help someone win a presidential nomination were someone so inclined.

Palin’s apparently eschatological comment doesn’t appear to be an accident. The Charlotte Observer reports that she’s taking dinnertime advice on Israel from the Graham family:

The former Alaska governor and 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate told Billy Graham about how she came to faith in God as a girl in Bible camp.

She quizzed him on the presidents he’s known and wanted his take on what the Bible says about Israel, Iran and Iraq, Franklin Graham reported.

The Rev. Billy Graham is a credit to this country, and has for all of his life eloquently melded evangelical Christianity with a civic-mindedness and a broadmindness that have appealed to people of all faiths and no faith. (He apologized for an unfortunately antisemitic comment with President Nixon that was caught on tape and recently released.) Franklin Graham is a much different story. A Christian Zionist leader, Franklin has described Islam as “a very evil and wicked religion” and suggested erroneously that the Christian God and the Muslim God are two different deities. He even asked President Obama on the campaign trail if he was a Muslim. And unfortunately, Billy Graham is not long for this world, so if Palin is trying to yoke herself to the Grahams, then she’ll be palling around with Franklin more and more.

Follow Spencer Ackerman on Twitter



Tweets that mention So That’s Why Palin Believes in the Ingathering of the Jews « The Washington Independent --
Pingback posted November 23, 2009 @ 9:57 am

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by attackerman and WashIndependent, TMC Member Feed. TMC Member Feed said: Wash. Independent: So That’s Why Palin Believes in the Ingathering of the Jews: Last we.. [...]

Bruce Wilson
Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 1:13 pm

Spencer – You're correct, this is about eschatology. But not the “rapture” variety. Palin's in a little known religious tendency broadly known as the Third Wave and, more specifically, the New Apostolic Reformation.

And, Palin's “flocking to Israel” statement is really about “fishers and hunters.”


Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 3:06 pm

They are both evil, bigoted scum who would gladly kill anybody who doesn't worship in their approved style.

Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 3:16 pm

Bruce Wilson,

I may be ignorant to some facts here, but do you think there will be a push to “twist” the First Amendment's promise of separation of church and state?

Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 3:30 pm

The influx of Jews into Israel will come about as Jews flee an increasingly islamafied Jew-hating Europe. It will be just as bad as under Hitler. I would think that anyone could see the writing on the wall there.

Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 3:31 pm

“Franklin…suggested ERRONEOUSLY that the Christian God and the Muslim God are two different deities.” (emphasis added) Can you provide a source for the assertion that the two are, in fact, the same god? Particularly one with first-hand knowledge?

Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 3:39 pm

The fact that it says so in the Qu'ran, when the God of Abraham gives his blessing and makes a covenant with Ishmael, ancestor of the Arabs.

Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 3:43 pm

Check out,, the dark_christianity community on LiveJournal, or anything by Dogemperor, Troutfishing, Chris Rodda, or Frederick Clarkson on Daily Kos. There's also some good information about this movement, which is already trying very hard to recast the Constitution along “Christian” lines, available at the Southern Poverty Law Center's web site.


Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 4:57 pm


Thanks much!

Being secular, I don't keep abreast of these things. Will now, though!

Again, Thanks!

Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 5:17 pm

And this is what I've been on about for two years running: myth-jacking is the state of the art in manufacturing consent.

Look at the health care (not coverage, dammit, CARE) reform debate during August and answer me this: which has more power to move electorates, facts or carefully crafted myths?

Princess Sarah of the Tundra is the stalking moose of the lesser Kristol and his crew of practitioners of “the noble lie.”

How did we get jacked to war in Iraq? By facts? Or myths of brown-skinned infidels with nukes or nerve gas coming to kill us in our sleep tonight?

The irresistible power of myth has been perverted, IMO most likely by the torturers at APA in allegiance with the notorious “crazies” of the intelligence community, and is now powering weapons-grade domestic propaganda.

Excerpted from Mourn on The Fourth of July, by John Pilger originally published in New Statesman 09 July 2009

What the American elite demanded, wrote Frederic F Clairmont in The Rise and Fall of Economic Liberalism, “was not allies but unctuous client states. What Bretton Woods bequeathed to the world was a lethal totalitarian blueprint for the carve-up of world markets.” The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Asian Development Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank and the African Development Bank were established in effect as arms of the US Treasury and would design and police the new order. The US military and its clients would guard the doors of these “international” institutions, and an “invisible government” of media would secure the myths, said Edward Bernays.

Bernays, described as the father of the media age, was the nephew of Sigmund Freud. “Propaganda,” he wrote, “got to be a bad word because of the Germans . . . so what I did was to try and find other words [such as] Public Relations.” Bernays used Freud’s theories about control of the subconscious to promote a “mass culture” designed to promote fear of official enemies and servility to consumerism. It was Bernays who, on behalf of the tobacco industry, campaigned for American women to take up smoking as an act of feminist liberation, calling cigarettes “torches of freedom”; and it was his notion of disinformation that was deployed in overthrowing governments, such as Guatemala’s democracy in 1954.

Above all, the goal was to distract and deter the social democratic impulses of working people. Big business was elevated from its public reputation as a kind of mafia to that of a patriotic force. “Free enterprise” became a divinity. “By the early 1950s,” wrote Noam Chomsky, “20 million people a week were watching business-sponsored films. The entertainment industry was enlisted to the cause, portraying unions as the enemy, the outsider disrupting the ‘harmony’ of the ‘American way of life’ . . . Every aspect of social life was targeted and permeated schools and universities, churches, even recreational programmes. By 1954, business propaganda in public schools reached half the amount spent on textbooks.”

The new “ism” was Americanism, an ideology whose distinction is its denial that it is an ideology. Recently, I saw the 1957 musical Silk Stockings, starring Fred Astaire and Cyd Charisse. Between the scenes of wonderful dancing to a score by Cole Porter was a series of loyalty statements that the colonel in Vietnam might well have written. I had forgotten how crude and pervasive the propaganda was; the Soviets could never compete. An oath of loyalty to all things American became an ideological commitment to the leviathan of business: from the business of armaments and war (which consumes 42 cents in every tax dollar today) to the business of food, known as “agripower” (which receives $157bn a year in government subsidies).

Barack Obama is the embodiment of the “ism”.…

John Pilger: Obama and Empire

Just last week, we witnessed an attempted myth-jacking of the Paul-Grayson Bill. Ryan Grim described it this morning for Democracy Now!

And almost always in Washington when you have this serious, reasonable kind of compromise, come up the pike, then the moderates and some of the liberals who are supporting the other bill will say, OK, you know what? Let’s move back to the center and let’s take this reasonable approach forward. But what happened on Tuesday, Huffington Post reported that this Mel Watt amendment is not in fact just a compromised version of what Paul and Grayson are doing, but it actually adds restrictions to the ability to audit the Federal Reserve. It added four major restrictions of what could not be audited which currently can and it’s said that any audit that takes place must be done in accordance with current law. Current law bars, essentially, audits of the Federal Reserve. So, the amendment was a total sham. Then the Watt Amendment backers sent around a letter by what they called eight prominent economists backing his amendment rather than the Paul-Grayson type. Interestingly, this letter was written in the beginning of November, about a week before Watt unveiled his own amendment. You can kind of guess where this came from.

So what I did was I just Googled the eight economists who were on this letter, seven of them had close ties to the Federal Reserve, four of them are currently on the Federal Reserve payroll. So that kind of showed a little bit of operation in bad faith.…

Which brings us back to Palin and the use of iconography to jack electorates to hell and back, sticking them with the bill both ways. It's gotta be a trick older even than books. Goering announced a notorious formulation of its basic principles:

SEN. ROBERT BYRD: My hands tremble, but my heart still throbs. I read this quote: “Naturally, the common people don’t want war. But after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.” Hermann Goering, president of Reichstag, Nazi Parliament, 1934.…

Hasn't that been Karl Rove, Dick Cheney et al.'s MO all this time?

Naomi Klein described it this morning, too, regarding the evolution of branding. And she comes to the same conclusion as John Pilger (above).

NAOMI KLEIN: Well, I mean, it’s—it always—branding is expert at absorbing its opposition. So, I gave a couple of examples of companies that had gone “no logo,” an example of Absolut vodka taking their label, their logo, off the bottle. And Starbucks opened, interestingly in Seattle, a store without their brand on it at all. They’re trying to make their brand disappear. So, you have this evolution in corporate branding.

But, what I decided to focus on is not how corporate—the latest gimmicks and techniques of corporate branding, but, rather, how politicians were—and, indeed, how government has absorbed the techniques honed by the corporations in the ‘90s in creating and selling their super brands. And now they’re being used by political parties, by politicians really, to sell themselves.

And I’m afraid, I think, that that’s where Obama fits in, that he really is a super brand on line with many of the companies that I discuss in No Logo. And he has many of the same problems as the companies that I discuss in No Logo, like Nike and Apple and all of these—Starbucks—all of these, sort of 1990s, sort of, lifestyle brands that co-opted many of the, you know—the iconography of the transformative political movements like the civil rights movement, the women’s movement. And that was really the hallmark of 1990s branding.

One of the things in this—you know, a large part what I write about in No Logo is the absorption of these political movements into the world of marketing. And, you know, the first time I saw the “Yes, We Can” video that was produced by, my first thought was, you know, “Wow. A politician has finally produced an ad as good as Nike that plays on our, sort of, faded memories of a more idealistic era, but, yet, doesn’t quite say anything.” We think we hear the message we want to hear, but if you really parse it, the promises aren’t there, it’s really the emotions.

And, you know, I think that that explains in some sense the paralysis in progressive movements in the United States where we think, Obama stands for something because we—our emotions were activated on these issues, but we don’t really have much to hold him to because, in fact, if you look at what he said during the campaign, like any good super brand, like any good marketer, he made sure not to promise too much, so that he couldn’t be held to it.

Afghanistan is a very strong example, Amy. I mean, it’s hard to build the case that Obama is breaking a campaign promise when, in fact, this—he is doing what he said he would do during the campaign, even if he made us think that he was a pro-peace candidate, even if he used the iconography, the imagery of the peace movement, even if he, you know—it’s the same thing with labor. “Sí se puede. Yes we can.” This is the imagery of, this is the slogan of the farm workers. Even, you know, Obama’s—you know, the famous poster, you know, this is like the poster of Ché, but this isn’t a real social movement because it never made those transformative demands.…

So there you go. Why are we stuck in this god-forsaken Waste Land? And how do we find our way out? It's the mythology!

Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 6:19 pm

Another case in point (of the state of the art in manufacturing consent, described at length by yours truly earlier) is found in the article by William Black just posted on HuffPo. I'll end with a suggestion.

WILLIAM BLACK, HUFFINGTON POST 23 NOVEMBER 2009: Last week was a bad one for Geithner and Bernanke. Senator Dodd said that Bernanke's confirmation was no longer a done deal. The House Financial Services Committee revolted against the administration, the Fed, and Chairman Barney Frank. It voted for a strong bill to audit the Fed. Senate Banking Chairman Schumer went to a conference at Columbia University — where a generation of students salivated at the prospects of Wall Street wealth — and was overwhelmed by an audience denouncing the continuing stranglehold of the finance industry over successive administrations and the Congress. Neither Barney's blarney nor Schumer's schmooze was any avail before an outraged public.

The administration promptly secured a column in the Washington Post claiming that the effort to fire Geithner “buoy[ed]” him because, as the subtitle to the article explained: “Even ex-Bush aides sympathetic, sources say.” The article didn't note that Geithner is an “ex-Bush” senior official who, with his fellow “ex-Bush aides” (particularly Bernanke and Paulson) produced a chain of disasters: the bubble, an “epidemic of mortgage fraud” by lenders, the Great Recession, and the scandalous TARP and AIG bailouts. Of course they're “sympathetic” to a fellow member of the Wrecking Crew that destroyed effective regulation and turned the nation over to Wall Street. The craziest part of the story is that the anonymous Obama administration flack that spread this anecdote believes that we should support Geithner because his fellow members of the Bush Wrecking Crew empathize with him because they, too, have been criticized for wrecking the economy.

The Washington Post article then offers a metaphor that serves as an apology for the Bush Wrecking Crew. The metaphor is driving over a cliff: “'Secretary Geithner has helped steer the American economy back from the brink, and is now leading the effort on financial reform,' White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said.” Geithner pushed back against Republicans who questioned his performance, telling them, “you gave this president an economy falling off the cliff.”

You? How about we? Bush's financial Wrecking Crew “gave this president an economy falling off the cliff.” Geithner was President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York from October 23, 2003 until President Obama chose him as his Treasury Secretary. He was supposed to be the lead regulator of many of the largest bank holding companies. His failures as a regulator were a major cause of the “economy falling off the cliff.” Bernanke held prominent positions in the Bush administration from 2002 to the end of the administration and failed as a regulator an economist. Geithner and Bernanke failed to regulate even after the FBI publicly warned in September 2004 that (1) there was an “epidemic” of mortgage fraud and (2) it would lead to a financial crisis if it were not contained. Their refusal to take responsibility for the harm they inflicted on our nation as leaders of Bush's financial Wrecking Crew adds to their unsuitability. Rewarding their perennial failures with a promotion and reappointment represents a dereliction of duty by the Obama administration.…

The Wrecking Crew: Thomas Frank on How Conservatives Rule
Democracy Now! 08 August 2008

“Columnist and author Thomas Frank joins us to talk about his latest book, The Wrecking Crew. Frank writes, “Fantastic misgovernment of the kind we have seen is not an accident, nor is it the work of a few bad individuals. It is the consequence of triumph by a particular philosophy of government, by a movement that understands the liberal state as a perversion and considers the market the ideal nexus of human society. This movement is friendly to industry not just by force of campaign contributions but by conviction.”…

Bill Moyers Talks with Thomas Frank: Web Exclusive

BILL MOYERS: Your book describes conservatism as “an expression of American business.” Why exclude Democrats? Jimmy Carter triggered the deregulation frenzy. Bill Clinton pushed for NAFTA, signed the Telecommunications Act of l996 which gave the megamedia companies everything they wanted, auctioned off the Lincoln Bedroom, and swooned over Robert Rubin while showing Robert Reich the door. Democratic Congresses were shaking down corporations when George W. Bush was still tipsy in Texas. And who was running Congress during the S&L swindles of the late 80s? Why single out conservatives as the greedy party?

THOMAS FRANK: Democrats can be conservatives too, of course. In fact, certain Democrats' embrace of the free-market faith has been just as consequential as the Republicans' own move to the right. When the Democrats gave up on FDR and came around to the ideology of Reagan, the opposition ceased to oppose.


BILL MOYERS: I read the muckraker David Graham Phillips, whom you quote in your book. A hundred years ago he was writing about The Treason of the Senate when the biggest names in the world's “greatest deliberative body” were serving “interests as hostile to the American people as any invading army could be, and vastly more dangerous; interests that manipulate the prosperity produced by all, so that it heaps up riches for the few; interests whose growth and power can only mean the degradation of the people.” Ralph Nader couldn't say it better. So what's new?

THOMAS FRANK: Morally, those sentiments are right on-target. What's new is (a) the unthinkable is back; (b) it's infinitely more complex; and (c) it's ideological. The Vanderbilts had their own U.S. Senator because that way they could grab more, but the people doing it today are motivated at least partially by ideology. They have a theoretical justification for what they've done: the market is always and in every case better than the bureaucracy.

What's more, many of the people I describe in the book understand themselves as crusaders against corruption. They think *they* are the muckrakers, demanding more and more deregulation or privatization. Government should get out of the marketplace altogether. By what right does it regulate insider trading or price fixing? Get off our backs!…

That's the power of myth: to shape the background of the world in which we are right now acting. If we want to change the discussion, Joseph Campbell said, change the metaphor.

For starters, quit using the outdated, reductive, machine-bound terms of Newton's mechanics for us complex biological systems.

“The Market” is a mechanism; are you a mechanism, o reader my beleaguered Reader? Then why do we talk and think and act as if we and our source, the cosmos, are, too? Mechanisms are forced into order; organisms grow from within.

And that's the source of the power of the people: the fire that burns within.

Online Political Blog » Blog Archive » Midday Open Thread
Pingback posted November 23, 2009 @ 7:24 pm

[...] it to Sarah Palin to find the looniest of the [...]

Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 7:30 pm


WOW! You should be in politics! I'd vote for you.

Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 8:02 pm

“Franklin Graham suggested erroneously that the Christian God and the Muslim God are two different deities.”

The word “erroneous” is what is erroneous in this statement. Of course the Christian God and the Muslim God are two different deities. The Christian God is trinitarian, with Jesus Christ the same as God. Both the trinitarian nature of God and the deity of Christ are anathema to Muslim belief. The idea that the Christian God and the Muslim God are the same is true only in the imagination of Western idealists who have no substantive knowledge of basic Islamic or Christian beliefs.

Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 8:26 pm

So, then, that means the Christian God is not the same as the Jewish God, as the trinitarian nature of God and the deity of Christ are anathema to Jewish belief as well.

Skull / Bones » Blog Archive
Pingback posted November 23, 2009 @ 10:03 pm

[...] Behind Palin’s comments about a sure Jewish influx into the Holy Land. Billy Graham. [...]

Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 2:33 pm

One made up superhero verses another….whats the difference? Is the Catholic God different than the Lutheran God? Nope…same…. but Catholics still believe (and recite at EVERY MASS) that everyone who is not Catholic is going to hell…..sorry Jews, sorry Protastants, Sorry Muslims, sorry everyone…. prepare to burn

Comment posted November 30, 2009 @ 12:51 am

After checking out “Assemblies of God” on the web, I was soon reading a Google piece titled “Pretrib Hypocrisy” – yes, info re rapture hypocrisy inside the AG organization. Palin, as you know, has or has had connections to it. Another interesting Google item is “Roots of (Warlike) Christian Zionism.” The author of these is a historian, Dave MacPherson, whose book “The Rapture Plot” reportedly has everything anyone could want to know about the “rapture” revered by millions of evangelicals. One fact that stands out is that MacPherson claims that the same rapture has a 19th century beginning and foundation that is anti-Jewish. You can be sure that I will keep on checking out all of this topic, and your readers may want to also.

Comment posted November 30, 2009 @ 5:51 am

After checking out “Assemblies of God” on the web, I was soon reading a Google piece titled “Pretrib Hypocrisy” – yes, info re rapture hypocrisy inside the AG organization. Palin, as you know, has or has had connections to it. Another interesting Google item is “Roots of (Warlike) Christian Zionism.” The author of these is a historian, Dave MacPherson, whose book “The Rapture Plot” reportedly has everything anyone could want to know about the “rapture” revered by millions of evangelicals. One fact that stands out is that MacPherson claims that the same rapture has a 19th century beginning and foundation that is anti-Jewish. You can be sure that I will keep on checking out all of this topic, and your readers may want to also.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.