In Foreign Affairs, Walter Russell Mead extends his critique of Walt and Mearsheimer by arguing that love of Israel is American as apple pie.
When presidents overrule their expert advisers
and take a pro-Israel position, observers attribute the move to the
"Israel lobby" and credit (or blame) it for swaying the chief
executive. But there is another factor to consider. As the Truman
biographer David McCullough has written, Truman's support for the
Jewish state was "wildly popular" throughout the United States.
A
Gallup poll in June 1948 showed that almost three times as many
Americans “sympathized with the Jews” as “sympathized with the Arabs.”
That support was no flash in the pan. Widespread gentile support for
Israel is one of the most potent political forces in U.S. foreign
policy, and in the last 60 years, there has never been a Gallup poll
showing more Americans sympathizing with the Arabs or the Palestinians
than with the Israelis.Over time, moreover, the pro-Israel sentiment in the United States has increased, especially among non-Jews.
In the United States, a pro-Israel foreign policy does not represent
the triumph of a small lobby over the public will. It represents the
power of public opinion to shape foreign policy in the face of concerns
by foreign policy professionals. Like the war on drugs and the fence
along the Mexican border, support for Israel is a U.S. foreign policy
that makes some experts and specialists uneasy but commands broad
public support…
The piece quickly goes to the religious/philosophical. Sort of like Michael Oren, but loftier:
Besides a direct divine promise, two other important justifications
that the Americans brought forward in their contests with the Native
Americans were the concept that they were expanding into “empty lands”
and John Locke’s related “fair use” doctrine, which argued that unused
property is a waste and an offense against nature.
More highmindedness. Mead sees the ordinary Americans who love Israel as “Jacksonian.”
[F]or Jacksonians, Israel, despite all its
power and all its victories, remains an endangered David surrounded by
enemies. The fact that the Arabs and the larger community of one
billion Muslims support, at least verbally, the Palestinian cause
deepens the belief among many Jacksonians that Israel is a small and
vulnerable country that deserves help.
The conclusion has the guts to mention Jewish money:
In the future, as in the past, U.S. policy toward the Middle East will,
for better or worse, continue to be shaped primarily by the will of the
American majority, not the machinations of any minority, however
wealthy or engaged in the political process some of its members may be.
I have a few reactions. Walter Russell Mead supported the Iraq war. Some of those war supporters, rather than robing themselves in sackcloth, have decided to just get on the bus and see where it goes. Mead is happily on the bus. It’s headed way right, toward elaborate theories of religious militance in the American heartland. I bet that Mead’s elite cohort (Protestant; his father’s a priest) is very much in my camp on this question; it’s the old abolitionist coalition. So Mead needs to displace his pro-Israel ideas on to common people who he probably doesn’t know, and calls them Jacksonian. Jackson Democrats supported slavery too.
If Israel is so beloved by Americans–and as I often say here, maybe they really do love Israel; look, I live in elitist New York–then about 7000 Jews I saw at AIPAC 2 weeks back are wasting their money. And as a cheapo of the first water, I think Jews are pretty smart about money. They spend that money because it’s money well-spent. And I can tell you, those people simply do not trust Americans to love Israel, and I think they’re right. Book after book I read speaks of all the pressure and influence that Truman was under when he signed off on Israel. The latest is Irreconcilable Differences? a wonderful work of sociology by Steven T. Rosenthal. The words pressure and influence are his. “The importance of American Jewish influence in bringing about this decision can hardly be overemphasized.” Abba Eban also spoke of “pressure” and “influence,” and spoke of all the money Truman got. All I argue for in this blog is to get rid of the pressure tactics.
Mead is right about the polling. But I say this is a reflection of media distortion. Let’s let all those Jacksonian divine Americans see what is going on in the Occupied Territories, which Mead of course elides here, before they sign off. As it is, the media give us a distorted view of the place and the politics. Show the water those Palestinian kids are drinking. Show the religious crazies on the ridgelines of Judea and Samaria. I think support would evaporate.
Adam Horowitz, of AFSC, sent me this piece. And he has a more generous response to it, and adduces some actual observations to support Mead.
“I understood his argument as saying that politics are something fluid
and actually uses Carter’s own journey [from pro-Israel to critical] to illustrate this. I also think
that AIPAC is effective is advocating for specific policies, but this
article helps show the reservoir of ideals and values that grants them
acceptance or at least discourages deep interrogation.
“Last November i was in Palestine leading a delegation and we were
meeting with Ghassan Andoni at Bir Zeit. One delegate asked him why he
thinks the US supports Israel so much (clearly expecting an answer
along the lines of “the Israel Lobby” or “the media”) and Ghassan
answered our shared settler ideology and experience leads to a natural
affinity – each countries success affirms the other. This sorta blew my
mind, but I’ve thought a lot about it since and think its a very
compelling idea. The sad truth is that AIPAC (and the broader lobby)
isn’t totally pulling the wool over our eyes, but using a confluence of
influences and affinities to push through their specific vision and
tapping into what is understood as “common sense” in much of the US.”I’m more cynical. I’d note that Mead cites Stalin as influencing the American left in its support Israel, back when Israel was a leftwing cause. “At Yalta, Joseph Stalin told Franklin Roosevelt that he, too, was a
Zionist, and in May of 1947, Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko
announced before the United Nations that the Soviet Union supported the
creation of a Jewish state.” Well here is Peter Voskamp of the Block Island Times, telling me about his recent interview with Nikita Khrushchev’s son:
“I interviewed Sergei Khrushchev (Nikita’s son) on Friday on a variety of subjects. What an interesting guy. I asked him about the Suez and his father’s reaction, and about Israel in general. During this segment of the discussion a sly smile appeared on Sergei’s face and he said, ‘you know, Stalin was actually the first world leader to come out in support of the establishment of Israel–before the British and before the U.S. Of course, he did it for cynical reasons. He guessed that Israel would remain a source of irritation/difficulty for the West for years to come.’”
Never a good idea to invoke Stalin uncynically. Supporting the Iraq War has led a lot of intellectuals to funny places.
More like chopping down the cherry tree than cherry pie I think.
Israeli Embassy Installs Drive Through Windows For Drop off of U.S. Government Secrets
http://homo-sapien-underground.blogspot.com/2008/06/israeli-embassy-installs-drive-through.html
the myth of israel is similar to the potemkin villages of russia…built up to make things look pretty on the outside…the veneer will wear out and the bullshit will wash away….
My personal experience, talking to all sorts of people, tells me that US support for Israel is deep in the foreign policy establishment but almost non existant among ordinary Americans.
In 2002 I spent several months in the West Bank and Gaza. I came back to New York, enraged at my goverments policies supporting Israel. I decided that whenever I went into a bar (I do like to drink), I would turn to the person next to me and tell them what I thought of Israel, what I thought of our government's policies in support of the apartheid state. I expected, I looked forward to getting into fights.
Much to my surprise, no one seemed to want to quarrel with me. Almost all of the people I spoke to agreed with me. Indeed many said I did not go far enough in my denunciations of Israel.
So I decided to wear my Yassir Arafat T-Shirt. I don't particularily like Arafat but I thought it would be a conversation starter. It was: people said right on, asked me where I got it, if I could get them one.
I concluded that although the US govt and media are deeply pro Israel, the people (even in NYC, the most Jewish city in America) are not. I think this has to do with the deep American desire to root for the underdog. Between a kid with a rock and a tank, it is hard to root for the tank.
Anti Semitism does play a part but mostly, our people are not as daft as our elites. It is clear that supporting Isreal damages US interests and so, most patriotic Americans are questioning our support for the Jewish state.
No wonder the lobby is scared.
It is my experience that most Americans don't care what is happening in Israel, because, in their minds "we don't have a dog in that fight."
A fair number of Americans support Israel for religious reasons. Among conservative Protestants, it's Christian Zionism at work. Among some (but fewer, I think) liberal Protestants, they support Israel out of a mistaken notion that this is a way to atone for hundreds of years of Christian anti-semitism. I used to know someone like this–he was rightfully concerned about anti-semitism, but he'd react like any criticism of Israel or the Israel Lobby is antisemitic.
As for Mead, he's the classic sellout. Twenty years ago he wrote a very liberal/left book, Mortal Splendor, which was quite critical of US foreign policy and favored humanitarian aid instead. (Digging wells, vaccination programs, that kind of thing.) One can agree or disagree about the effectiveness of foreign aid (I think the part aimed at public health is worth support), but he obviously wasn't an imperalist. Now he is, and he's been rewarded for it with much more attention than he'd ever have received if he'd stuck with his original positions.
nearly 100 years of brain washing has some americans, the rapture monkey-christians for one, in 'love' (or in need) with israel.
the others love money, status, their jobs.
For somebody in the foreign policy establishment, supporting Israel is a good career move, opens doors to grants and think tank sinecures. Also, spouting conventional wisdom is endemic in that crowd. Foreign policy academics make Detroit auto executives seem like mavericks.
What does frighten me is how Obama is now spouting the AIPAC line.
That's some damn expensive cherry pie, which I still haven't gotten my slice of, despite paying my taxes.
Avnery also recently made Ghassan's point re shared settler ideology and experience leading to a natural affinity:
"The more I think about this wondrous phenomenon, the stronger becomes my conviction (about which I have already written in the past) that what really matters is the similarity between the American enterprise and the Zionist one, both in the spiritual and the practical sphere. Israel is a small America, the USA is a huge Israel."
http://www.antiwar.com/avnery/?articleid=12963
More propaganda claiming Americans love Israel?..and that Jews and Israel are just like American and America?…That is too funny. They have been pitching this line of propaganda forever but not even evangelical Israeli nutcases buy it….all they want is for the jews to go up in flames or convert.
Every time I hear this spin it reminds of boys "whistling thru the grave yard" at night.
Who was it who called you ladies Phillipinas? Brilliant!
What unites all you commentators (I'm guessing seven overweight men with 25 or 30 screennames) is a sense that you know much more than everyone else, that you tell the truth where others are afraid, and that the vast majority in the US, France, Germany, and Italy who disagree with you about Israel are idots or liars.
Gets old after a while, doesn't it?
'Between a kid with a rock and a tank, it is hard to root for the tank.'
Talk about hitting the nail on the head – extremely well said Tom.
And how many screen names do you have Dream Girl? What's your real handle? And I don't care if you're overweight – the more the merrier.
So if Americans so freely love Israel, why does American need AIPAC?
So if Americans so freely love Israel, why does American need AIPAC?
# F=ma
# F=ma
# F=ma
VENGEANCE BE ME SAY YAHWEH JEW BASTARD IDOLATORS WILL DIE NO MOSES TO SAVE THEIR ROTTEN ASSES THIS TIME
AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
ahhh
ahhh
ahhh
And if Americans so love the miracle in the desert, why don't the media permit an open debate on the subject of American policy in the Middle East?
Many Christian Americans do, in fact, support Israel because as "the other", Jews are not nearly considered within that description as Palestinians or Muslims. This certainly comes from the familiarity of most Christians with the Old Testament–and the direct antecedent that Judaism is considered to be for Christianity–but also due to the fact that most Americans know Jews as fellow Americans who live down the street.
[Great blog. For a rare behind-the-scenes look at rapture-ized evangelicals, I hereby share "Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty" which is now on the internet. Reactions? fairmack]
PRETRIB RAPTURE DISHONESTY
by Dave MacPherson
When I began my research in 1970 into the exact beginnings of the pretribulation rapture belief still held by many evangelicals, I assumed that the rapture debate involved only "godly scholars with honest differences." The paper you are now reading reveals why I gave up that assumption many years ago. With this introduction-of-sorts in mind, let's take a long look at the pervasive dishonesty throughout the history of the 179-year-old pretrib rapture theory:
Mid-1820's – German scholar Max Weremchuk's work "John Nelson Darby" (1992) included what Benjamin Newton revealed about John Darby in the mid-1820's during his pre-Brethren days as an Anglican clergyman:
"J. N. Darby was a very subtle man. He had been a lawyer, or at least educated for the law. Once he wanted his Archbishop to pursue a certain course, when he (J.N.D.) was a curate in his diocese. He wrote a letter, therefore, saying he had been educated for the law, knew what the legal course would properly be; and then having written that clearly, he mystified the remainder of the letter both in word and in handwriting, and ended up by saying: You see, my Lord, such being the legal aspect of the case it would unquestionably be the best course for you to pursue, etc. And the Archbishop couldn't make out the legal part, but rested on Darby's word and did as he advised. Darby afterwards laughed over it, and indeed he showed a copy of the letter to Tregelles. This is not mentioned in the Archbishop's biography, but in it is the fact that he spoke of Darby as 'the most subtle man in my diocese.'"
This reminds me of an 1834 letter by Darby which spoke of the "Lord's coming." Darby added, concerning this coming, that "the thoughts are new" and that during any teaching of it "it would not be well to have it so clear." Darby's deviousness here was his usage of a centuries-old term – "Lord's coming" – to cover up his desire to sneak the new pretrib idea into existing posttrib groups in very low-profile ways!
1830 – In the spring of 1830 a young Scottish lassie, Margaret Macdonald, came up with the novel notion of a catching up [rapture] of Spirit-filled "church" members before Antichrist's "trial" [tribulation] of non-Spirit-filled "church" members – the first instance I've found of clear "pretrib" teaching (which was part of a partial rapture scheme). In Sep. 1830 "The Morning Watch" (a journal produced by London preacher Edward Irving and his "Irvingite" followers, some of whom had visited Margaret a few weeks earlier) began repeating her original thoughts and even her wording but gave her no credit – the first plagiarism I've found in pretrib history. Darby was still defending posttrib in Dec. 1830.
Pretrib promoters have long known the significance of her main point: a rapture of "church" members BEFORE the revealing of Antichrist. Which is why John Walvoord quoted nothing in her revelation, why Thomas Ice habitually skips over her main point but quotes lines BEFORE and AFTER it, and why Hal Lindsey muddies up her main point so he can (falsely) assert that she was NOT a pretribber! (Google "X-Raying Margaret" for info about her.)
NOTE: The development of the 1800's is thoroughly documented in my book "The Rapture Plot." You'll learn that Darby wasn't original on any chief aspect of dispensationalism (but plagiarized the Irvingites); that pretrib was initially based on only OT and NT symbols and not clear Scripture; that the symbols included the Jewish feasts, the two witnesses, and the man child – symbols adopted by Darby during most of his career; that Darby's later reminiscences exaggerated his earliest pretrib development, and that today's defenders such as Thomas Ice have further overstated what Darby overstated; that Irvingism didn't need later reminiscences to "clarify" its own early pretrib development; that ancient hymns and even the writings of the Reformers were subtly revised to make it appear they had taught pretrib; and that after Darby's death a clever revisionist quietly made many changes in early Irvingite and Brethren documents in order to steal credit for pretrib away from the Irvingites (and their female inspiration!) and give it dishonestly to Darby! (Before continuing, Google the "Powered by Christ Ministries" site and read "America's Pretrib Rapture Traffickers" – a sample of the current exciting internetism!)
1920 – Charles Trumbull's book "The Life Story of C. I. Scofield" told only the dispensationally-correct side of his life. Two recent books, Joseph Canfield's "The Incredible Scofield and His Book" (1988) and David Lutzweiler's "DispenSinsationalism: C. I. Scofield's Life and Errors" (2006), reveal the other side including his being jailed as a forger, dishonestly giving himself a non-conferred "D.D." etc. etc.!
1967 – Brethren scholar Harold Rowdon's "The Origins of the Brethren" quoted Darby associate Lord Congleton who was "disgusted with…the falseness" of Darby's accounts of things. Rowdon also quoted historian William Neatby who said that others felt that "the time-honoured method of single combat" was as good as anything "to elicit the truth" from Darby. (In other words, knock it out of him!)
1972 – Tim LaHaye's "The Beginning of the End" (1972) plagiarized Hal Lindsey's "The Late Great Planet Earth" (1970).
1976 – Charles Ryrie"s "The Living End" (1976) plagiarized Lindsey's "The Late Great Planet Earth" (1970) and "There's A New World Coming" (1973).
1976 – After John Walvoord's "The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation" (1976) brutally twisted Robert Gundry's "The Church and the Tribulation" (1973), Gundry composed and circulated a 35-page open letter to Walvoord which repeatedly charged the Dallas Seminary president with "misrepresentation," "misrepresentations" (and variations)!
1981 – "The Fundamentalist Phenomenon" (1981) by Jerry Falwell, Ed Dobson, and Ed Hindson heavily plagiarized George Dollar's 1973 book "A History of Fundamentalism in America."
1984 – After a prof at Southeastern College of the Assemblies of God in Florida told me that the No. 2 man at the AG world headquarters in Missouri – Joseph Flower – had the label of posttrib, my wife and I had two hour-long chats with him. He verified what I had been told. But we were dumbstruck when he told us that although AG ministers are required to promote pretrib, privately they can believe any other rapture view! Flower said that his father, an AG co-founder, was also posttrib. We also learned while in Springfield that when the AG's were organized in 1914, the initial group was divided between posttribs and pretribs – but that the pretribs shouted louder which resulted in that denomination officially adopting pretrib! (For details on this and other pretrib double-mindedness, Google "Pretrib Hypocrisy.")
1989 – Since 1989 Thomas Ice has referred to the "Mac-theory" (his reference to my research), giving the impression there's no solid evidence that Macdonald was the real pretrib originator. But Ice carefully conceals the fact that no eminent church historian of the 1800's – whether Plymouth Brethren or Irvingite – credited Darby with pretrib. Instead, they uniformly credited leading Irvingite sources, all of which upheld the Scottish lassie's contribution! Moreover, I'm hardly the only modern scholar seeing significance in Irvingism's territory. Others in recent years who have noted it, but who haven't mined it as deeply as I have, include Fuller, Ladd, Bass, Rowdon, Sandeen, and Gundry.
1989 – Greg Bahnsen and Kenneth Gentry produced evidence in 1989 that Lindsey's book "The Road to Holocaust" (1989) plagiarized "Dominion Theology" (1988) by H. Wayne House and Thomas Ice.
1990 – David Jeremiah's and C. C. Carlson's "Escape the Coming Night" (1990) massively plagiarized Lindsey's 1973 book "There's A New World Coming." (For more info, type in "Thieves' Marketing" on MSN or Google.)
1991 – Paul Lee Tan's "A Pictorial Guide to Bible Prophecy" (1991) plagiarized large amounts of Lindsey's "The Late Great Planet Earth" (1970).
1991 – Militant Darby defender R. A. Huebner claimed in 1991 to have found new evidence that Darby was pretrib as early as 1827 – three years before Macdonald. Halfway through his book Huebner suddenly admitted that his evidence could refer to something completely un-rapturesque. Even though Thomas Ice admitted to me that he knew that Huebner had "blown" his so-called evidence, prevaricator Ice continues to tell the world that Huebner has "positive evidence" that Darby was pretrib in 1827! Ice also conceals the fact that Darby, in his own 1827 paper, was looking for only "the restitution of all things" and "the times of refreshing" (Acts 3:19,21) – which Scofield doesn't see fulfilled until AFTER a future tribulation!
1992 – Tim LaHaye's "No Fear of the Storm" (1992) plagiarized Walvoord's "The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation" (1976).
1992 – This was when the Los Angeles Times revealed that "The Magog Factor" (1992) by Hal Lindsey and Chuck Missler was a monstrous plagiarism of Prof. Edwin Yamauchi's scholarly 1982 work "Foes from the Northern Frontier." Four months after this exposure, Lindsey and Missler stated they had stopped publishing and promoting their book. But in 1996 Dr. Yamauchi learned that the dishonest duo had issued a 1995 book called "The Magog Invasion" which still had a substantial amount of the same plagiarism! (If Lindsey and Missler ever need hernia operations, I predict that the doctors will tell them not to lift anything for a long time!)
1994 – In 1996 it was revealed that Lindsey's "Planet Earth – 2000 A.D. (1994) had an embarrassing amount of plagiarism of a Texe Marrs book titled "Mystery Mark of the New Age" (1988).
1995 – My book "The Rapture Plot" reveals the dishonesty in Darby's reprinted works. It's often hard to tell who wrote the footnotes and when. It's easy to believe that the notes, and also unsigned phrases inside brackets within the text, were a devious attempt by someone (Darby? his editor?) to portray a Darby far more developed in pretrib thinking than he actually had been at the time. I found that some of the "additives" had been taken from Darby's much later works, when he was more developed, and placed next to or inside his earliest works! One footnote by Darby's editor, attached to Darby's 1830 paper, actually stated that "it was not worth while either suppressing or changing" anything in this work! If his editor wasn't open to such dishonesty, how can we explain such a statement?
Post-1995 – Thomas Ice's article "Inventor of False Pre-Trib Rapture History" states that my book "The Rapture Plot" is "only one of the latest in a series of revisions of his original discourse…." And David Reagan in his article "The Origin of the Concept of a Pre-Tribulation Rapture" repeats Ice's falsehood by claiming that I have republished my first book "over the years under several different titles."
Although my book repeats a bit of the Macdonald origin of pretrib (for new readers), all of my books are packed with new material not found in my other works. For some clarification, "The Incredible Cover-Up" has photos of pertinent places in Ireland, Scotland, and England not found in my later books plus several chapters dealing with theological arguments; "The Great Rapture Hoax" quotes scholars throughout the Church Age, covers Scofield's hidden side, a section on Powerscourt, the 1980 election, the Jupiter Effect, Gundry's change, and more theological arguments; "The Rapture Plot" reveals for the first time the Great Evangelical Revisionism/Robbery and includes appendices on miscopying, plagiarism, etc.; and "The Three R's" shows hypocritical evangelicals employing occultic beliefs they say they have long opposed!
So Thomas Ice etc. are twisting truth when they claim I am only a revisionist. Do they really think that my publishers DON'T know what I've previously written?
Re arguments, Google "Pretrib Rapture – Hidden Facts" and also obtain "The End Times Passover" and "Why Christians Will Suffer 'Great Tribulation' " (AuthorHouse, 2006) by media personality Joe Ortiz.
1997 – For years Harvest House Publishers has owned and been republishing Lindsey's book "There's A New World Coming." During the same time Lindsey has been peddling his reportedly "new" book "Apocalyse Code" (1997), much of which is word-for-word the same as the Harvest House book – and there's no notice of "simultaneous publishing" in either book! Talk about pretrib greed!
1997 – This is the year I discovered that more than 50 pages of Dallas Seminary professor Merrill Unger's book "Beyond the Crystal Ball" (Moody Press, 1973) constituted a colossal plagiarism of Lindsey's "The Late Great Planet Earth" (1970). After Lindsey's book came out, Unger had complained that Lindsey's book had plagiarized his classroom lecture notes. It was evident that Unger felt that he too should cash in on his own lectures! (The detailed account of this Dallas Seminary dishonesty is revealed in my 1998 book "The Three R's.")
1998 – Tim LaHaye's "Understanding the Last Days" (1998) plagiarized Lindsey's "There's A New World Coming" (1973).
1999 – More than 200 pages (out of 396 pages) in Lindsey's 1999 book "Vanished Into Thin Air" are virtually carbon copies of pages in his 1983 book "The Rapture" – with no "updated" or "revised" notice included! Lindsey has done the same nervy thing with several of his books, something that has allowed him to live in million-dollar-plus homes and drive cars like Ferraris! (See my Google articles "Deceiving and Being Deceived" and "Thieves' Marketing" for further evidence of this notably pretrib vice.)
2000 – A Jack Van Impe article "The Moment After" (2000) plagiarized Grant Jeffrey's book "Final Warning" (1995).
2001 – Since 2001 my web article "Walvoord's Posttrib 'Varieties' – Plus" has been exposing his devious muddying up of posttrib waters. In some of his books he invented four "distinct" and "contradictory" posttrib divisions, claiming that they are either "classic" or "semiclassic" or "futurist" or "dispensational" – distinctions that disappear when analyzed! His "futurist" group holds to a literal future tribulation and a literal millennium but doesn't embrace "any day" imminency. But his "dispensational" group has the same non-imminency! Moreover, tribulational futurism is found in every group except the first one, and he somehow admitted that a literal millennium is in all four groups! On the other hand, it's the pretribs who consistently disagree with each other over their chief points and subpoints – but somehow end up agreeing that there will be a pretrib rapture! (See my chapter "A House Divided" in my book "The Incredible Cover-Up.")
2001 – Since my "Deceiving and Being Deceived" web item which exposed the claims for Pseudo-Ephraem" and "Morgan Edwards" as teachers of pretrib, there has been a piranha-like frenzy on the part of pretrib bodyguards and their duped groupies to "discover" almost anything before 1830 walking upright on two legs that seemed to have at least a remote hint of pretrib! (An exemplary poster boy for such pretrib practice is Grant Jeffrey. To get your money's worth, Google "Wily Jeffrey.")
FINALLY: Don't take my word for any of the above. Read my 300-page book "The Rapture Plot" which has a jillion more documented details on the long-hidden but now-revealed history of the dishonest, 179-year-old, fringe-British-invented, American-merchandised-until-the-real-bad-stuff-happens pretribulation rapture fad. If this book of mine doesn't "move" you, I will personally refund what you paid for it!