Donald Trump’s German grandfather begged the prince of Bavaria not to deport him from Germany in the early 20th century, a newly uncovered letter has revealed. Friedrich Trump, who built up a fortune through restaurants and boarding houses after arriving in America as an immigrant, was born in the Bavarian town of Kallstadt.
But according to German newspaper Bild, he decided to return to his hometown in 1901 along with his wife, Elisabeth Christ, only to be issued with a deportation notice a few years later. It is understood the notice was issued after the German authorities discovered he had never carried out military service before emigrating to America.
He was therefore banned from reclaiming his citizenship, local historian Roland Paul told Bild.
“The American citizen and pensioner Friedrich Trump, currently residing in Kallstadt, is hereby informed that he is to depart the state of Bavaria, or face deportation,” the notice states.
Mr Trump’s grandfather even resorted to pleading with the prince of Bavaria not to deport him, Bild revealed, in an emotionally-charged letter. He begged the “well-loved, noble, wise and just” monarch to make an exception and block the deportation order in the note, but a court would later deny the request. The Trump family was then forced to abandon Germany for good and move back to America in 1905, when Elisabeth was pregnant with the US president-elect’s father, Fred Trump.
The emergence of the letter has raised eyebrows in some quarters due to Mr Trump’s hardline stance on immigration.
Just think. If the USA fails to repatriate millions of immigrants, it may be robbing Mexico, El Salvador, or even Nigeria of a future national leader. We can’t take that risk! If even one nation is deprived of a future president, that is too many!
Thomas Frank at The Guardian observes the way the Podesta emails reveal how America’s ruling class really operates:
This genre of Podesta email, in which people try to arrange jobs for themselves or their kids, points us toward the most fundamental thing we know about the people at the top of this class: their loyalty to one another and the way it overrides everything else. Of course Hillary Clinton staffed her state department with investment bankers and then did speaking engagements for investment banks as soon as she was done at the state department. Of course she appears to think that any kind of bank reform should “come from the industry itself”. And of course no elite bankers were ever prosecuted by the Obama administration. Read these emails and you understand, with a start, that the people at the top tier of American life all know each other. They are all engaged in promoting one another’s careers, constantly.
Everything blurs into everything else in this world. The state department, the banks, Silicon Valley, the nonprofits, the “Global CEO Advisory Firm” that appears to have solicited donations for the Clinton Foundation. Executives here go from foundation to government to thinktank to startup. There are honors. Venture capital. Foundation grants. Endowed chairs. Advanced degrees. For them the door revolves. The friends all succeed. They break every boundary.
But the One Big Boundary remains. Yes, it’s all supposed to be a meritocracy. But if you aren’t part of this happy, prosperous in-group – if you don’t have John Podesta’s email address – you’re out.
I don’t so much mind the corruption and nepotism. It has always been thus, in every human culture. Francis Fukuyama has even coined a term, repatrimonialization, to describe the process, and in his excellent The Origins of Political Order, argues that one of the chief challenges of a society, and one of the causes of the rise and fall of civilizations, is the never-ending battle between the aristocratic class to increase its wealth and privileges at the expense of the common people, and pass them on to its children, and the state, which attempts to interfere with that process.
In the USA, the state, and the people, have clearly lost that battle, because the financial aristocrats captured the throne, which has historically allied with the common people against the aristocracies.
Whatever are we going to do about this army of Volunteer Auxiliary Thought Police who are occupied with memory-holing history?
Last week, you could still find on Wikipedia two of Ms. Machado’s more recent misadventures:
In 2005, Machado was engaged to baseball star Bobby Abreu. During their engagement she was on the Spanish reality show ‘La Granja’ where she was filmed on camera having sex with another member of the show. Shortly after the video surfaced Abreu ended their engagement.
On June 25, 2008, Machado gave birth to her daughter, Dinorah Valentina. She issued a statement that the father of Dinorah was her best friend Mexican businessman Rafael Hernandez Linares after Mexican news sources, quoting the Attorney General, reported that the father was Gerardo Álvarez Vázquez, a drug lord.
But mentions of these imbroglios have since been memory holed on Wikipedia. Editors have offered bizarre excuses for deleting the most interesting information about Hillary’s heroine, such as that the diva is not a “public figure,” an assertion that would surely wound the actress more deeply than allegations that she’s a gangster’s moll.
That points out an answer to one of the more obvious questions about the plausibility of Orwell’s 1984: How can they afford that? Is it really fiscally feasible even for a totalitarian government to employ an army of salaried Winston Smiths to alter history?
Yet it’s naive to imagine that a government would have to pay people to do this kind of thing. In the current year, we now know that plenty of people would join the Volunteer Auxiliary Thought Police for free.
How very unfortunate. Now, thanks to Wikipedia’s ever-efficient thought police, no one will ever know the truth about Ms Machado. It’s not as if there is anything we can do about it, right?
If Ronald Reagan were alive today, I wonder if he would still be a conservative.
“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”
Ronald Reagan address to the annual meeting of the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce Mar. 30, 1967
We’re already at that point. At this point, our children already don’t know what it is like to live in a white country, and our grandchildren are likely to learn what it is like to have to fight a civil war.
That being said, Ronald Reagan is one of the individuals responsible for the USA’s current predicament due to a) signing the California no-fault divorce law and b) the 1986 Immigration Amnesty. As conservatives are wont to do, he stood up to the external enemy and surrendered to the internal enemy. As internal enemies are always more dangerous, he failed to fight when it counted most.
So, yes, upon further reflection, he probably would still be a conservative, attacking the Alt-Right for seeking to do what he wouldn’t.
I don’t know who “Publius Decius Mus” is, except in the Samnite War sense, but this is the best article I have ever read at the Claremont Institute. It very clearly makes the case for the need for the Alt-Right, if not for the Alt-Right per se. And in doing so, it also underlines the petty narcissism of the dwindling #NeverTrump crowd:
If conservatives are right about the importance of virtue, morality, religious faith, stability, character and so on in the individual; if they are right about sexual morality or what came to be termed “family values”; if they are right about the importance of education to inculcate good character and to teach the fundamentals that have defined knowledge in the West for millennia; if they are right about societal norms and public order; if they are right about the centrality of initiative, enterprise, industry, and thrift to a sound economy and a healthy society; if they are right about the soul-sapping effects of paternalistic Big Government and its cannibalization of civil society and religious institutions; if they are right about the necessity of a strong defense and prudent statesmanship in the international sphere—if they are right about the importance of all this to national health and even survival, then they must believe—mustn’t they?—that we are headed off a cliff.
But it’s quite obvious that conservatives don’t believe any such thing, that they feel no such sense of urgency, of an immediate necessity to change course and avoid the cliff. A recent article by Matthew Continetti may be taken as representative—indeed, almost written for the purpose of illustrating the point. Continetti inquires into the “condition of America” and finds it wanting. What does Continetti propose to do about it? The usual litany of “conservative” “solutions,” with the obligatory references to decentralization, federalization, “civic renewal,” and—of course!—Burke. Which is to say, conservatism’s typical combination of the useless and inapt with the utopian and unrealizable. Decentralization and federalism are all well and good, and as a conservative, I endorse them both without reservation. But how are they going to save, or even meaningfully improve, the America that Continetti describes? What can they do against a tidal wave of dysfunction, immorality, and corruption? “Civic renewal” would do a lot of course, but that’s like saying health will save a cancer patient. A step has been skipped in there somewhere. How are we going to achieve “civic renewal”? Wishing for a tautology to enact itself is not a strategy.
Continetti trips over a more promising approach when he writes of “stress[ing] the ‘national interest abroad and national solidarity at home’ through foreign-policy retrenchment, ‘support to workers buffeted by globalization,’ and setting ‘tax rates and immigration levels’ to foster social cohesion.” That sounds a lot like Trumpism. But the phrases that Continetti quotes are taken from Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam, both of whom, like Continetti, are vociferously—one might even say fanatically—anti-Trump. At least they, unlike Kesler, give Trump credit for having identified the right stance on today’s most salient issues. Yet, paradoxically, they won’t vote for Trump whereas Kesler hints that he will. It’s reasonable, then, to read into Kesler’s esoteric endorsement of Trump an implicit acknowledgment that the crisis is, indeed, pretty dire. I expect a Claremont scholar to be wiser than most other conservative intellectuals, and I am relieved not to be disappointed in this instance.
Yet we may also reasonably ask: What explains the Pollyanna-ish declinism of so many others? That is, the stance that Things-Are-Really-Bad—But-Not-So-Bad-that-We-Have-to-Consider-Anything-Really-Different! The obvious answer is that they don’t really believe the first half of that formulation. If so, like Chicken Little, they should stick a sock in it. Pecuniary reasons also suggest themselves, but let us foreswear recourse to this explanation until we have disproved all the others.
Whatever the reason for the contradiction, there can be no doubt that there is a contradiction. To simultaneously hold conservative cultural, economic, and political beliefs—to insist that our liberal-left present reality and future direction is incompatible with human nature and must undermine society—and yet also believe that things can go on more or less the way they are going, ideally but not necessarily with some conservative tinkering here and there, is logically impossible.
Let’s be very blunt here: if you genuinely think things can go on with no fundamental change needed, then you have implicitly admitted that conservatism is wrong. Wrong philosophically, wrong on human nature, wrong on the nature of politics, and wrong in its policy prescriptions. Because, first, few of those prescriptions are in force today. Second, of the ones that are, the left is busy undoing them, often with conservative assistance. And, third, the whole trend of the West is ever-leftward, ever further away from what we all understand as conservatism.
One thing that I expect has become clear to most readers here, whether of the Alt-Right or the conservative persuasion, is that conservatism is utterly unequipped to deal with the current situation. Even if conservatism were a coherent ideology – it isn’t, read Cuckservative – or if it were not partially culpable for the current situation – and it is – conservatives are both intellectually unarmed and emotionally unprepared to deal with the ongoing transition from ideology politics to identity politics.
A favorite phrase of mine is, “let reason be silent when experience gainsays its conclusions.” Conservatives correctly point out the ways in which American liberalism, Leftism, and progressivism all fail the test of experience. However, conservatives completely fail to recognize their own pie-in-the-sky thinking when they appeal to Magic Dirt, Magic Words, and the Zeroth Amendment. They do not understand the significance of the Supreme Court’s version of the US Constitution not being the same as the original written version of the Constitution, they are unaware that most immigrants, children of immigrants, and grandchildren of immigrants neither know nor care what any version of “the Constitution” is, says, or represents, and they ignore the very purpose of the Constitution as laid out in the Preamble.
Most importantly, they elevate a single phrase from the Declaration of Independence, a meaninglessly utopian piece of rhetoric which is not only contradicted by the Preamble, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and the acts of the First Congress, but by subsequent phrases in the Declaration itself, and proclaim it to be the foundational core of both state and nation. To conservatives, “all men are created equal” is a Magic Spell of unlimited potency that is not only, contra literally ALL the evidence, historically definitional, but can even be invoked to instantly transform any individual, tribe, people, or nation into Americans.
However, neither the Magic Spell nor the Magic Words prevented the Civil War, or if you prefer, the Second War for Independence. And the Magic Words will not prevent Round Two, or if you prefer, the Third War for Independence, or what is considerably more likely to be the free-for-all that follows the general collapse of the US central state. Very few saw the Soviet collapse coming, and I expect even fewer genuinely see the US collapse coming, despite the profiteering of opportunistic media doomsayers who have never seen an Apocalypse, a Ragnarok, or a Rapture they didn’t like.
Where conservatism has proven intrinsically fragile and self-contradictory, the Alt-Right is anti-fragile and intellectually consistent. A nation has considerably more ruin in it than a state; the state cannot survive long without a single dominant nation but as the Jews, the Kurds, and many other peoples have proved, a nation can survive indefinitely without a state. The architects of 4GW theory and the globalists alike have chronicled the way in which we are coming to the end of the Westphalian period where the state held a monopoly on violence. Therefore, it should surprise no one that as the international state system is in the process of coming to an end, the ideology politics that arose within it and subsequently dominated it should also be in decline.
So, conservatism is not merely incoherent, it is now as entirely irrelevant as a biplane during the Battle of Britain. Neither a Balanced Budget Amendment nor pledging undying loyalty to AIPAC nor deciding to “rededicate ourselves to the notion of liberty for which generations of Americans fought and died” are going to even begin to address the implications of the post-Westphalian shift to identity politics, much less prevent the collapse of the USA.
Action: It is our duty to preserve our nations for our children.
(((Reaction))): redefine “preserve”, “nation” and “children”.
What most Americans don’t realize is that (((globalist propagandists))) are now pushing the same deceitful game of redefinition in their attack on the nations of Europe that they successfully pushed in the United States in the 20th century.
But even the dumbest, most maleducated and historically ignorant American, who blithely accepts the idea that George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Franklin believed their posterity to consist of Bantu tribesmen, cannibals from Papua New Guinea, and Chinamen in founding “a nation of immigrants”, will tend to raise his eyebrows in befuddlement at new and outlandish claims about “Britain is a nation of immigrants”, “the Judeo-Christian identity of the Swedish nation” and “all nations are nations of immigrants”.
I cannot stress this enough. All four of the following phrases are ahistorical lies, and moreover, they are lies that are now being recycled to attack Europe in the same way they were used to destroy the genuine historical concept of the American nation.
The melting pot
A proposition nation
A nation of immigrants
Judeo-Christian values
“all men are created equal” means “everyone is an American”
And the European nationalists all know it too.
“If we could just get our definitions straight I’m sure we’d find we actually AGREE on the important points” – Saint Cuck the First
That doesn’t mean that the country’s on the verge of actual implosion. But the idea of America required a common definition of being American: a love of country on the basis of its founding philosophy. That has now been undermined by the left.
Love of country doesn’t mean that you have to love everything about America, or that you can’t criticize America. But loving America means understanding that the country was founded on a unique basis -a uniquely good basis. That’s what the flag stands for. Not ethnic superiority or racial solidarity or police brutality but the notion of individual liberty and equal rights before God. But with the destruction of that central principle, the ties that bind us together are fraying. And the left loves that.
In fact, the two defining philosophical iterations of the modern left both make war with the ties that bind us together. In President Obama’s landmark second inaugural address, he openly said, “Being true to our founding documents…does not mean we all define liberty in exactly the same way.” This is the kind of definition worshipped by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has single-handedly redefined the Constitution. He said, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
But this means that liberty has no real definition outside of “stuff I want to do.” And we all want to do different stuff, sometimes at the expense of other people’s liberty. Subjective definitions of liberty, rather than a common definition, means a conflict of all against all, or at least a conflict of a government controlled by some who are targeting everyone else. It means that our flag is no longer a common symbol for our shared definition of liberty. It’s just a rag that means different things to different people based on their subjective experiences and definitions of reality.
And that means we have nothing holding us together.
The only way to restore the ties that bind us is to rededicate ourselves to the notion of liberty for which generations of Americans fought and died. But that won’t happen so long as the left insists that their feelings are more important than your rights.
It’s difficult for a revisionist lie to hold people together in lieu of the genetic, linguistic, religious, and cultural kinship upon which successful nations have historically rested. And if “only way to restore the ties that bind us is to rededicate ourselves to the notion of liberty”, well, to paraphrase Stefan Molyneux, that is not a strategy.
It’s just gaseous cuckservative rhetoric.
It’s also a bit ironic that (((Shapiro))) should complain about President Obama redefining liberty and Justice Kennedy redefining the U.S. Constitution, considering that he and his (((co-religionists))) have shamelessly attempted to redefine both “America” and “Christian values” for over 100 years.
This is why the eventual triumph of the Alt-Right over conservatism and its panoply of ahistorical myths is inevitable. Our beliefs are rooted in well-documented history and are entirely in line with both reality and current events. Theirs are rooted in revisionist lies and romantic bathos, and are hopelessly out of sync with what can be readily observed by anyone.
In response to my pointing out the self-serving historical revisionism of certain (((immigrants))), several people claimed that not only were there several Jews involved in the Revolutionary War, but that the war would not have been won without the financing of a Polish Jew by the name of Haym Solomon, who, I was informed, was “the primary financier” of the war.
Several of them cited a theme that I subsequently noticed on Twitter:
Mac @Macdad25 Haym Solomon was instrumental in financing the US in the Revolutionary War. So thank a Jew today
Mordechai Lightstone@Motte @Yair_Rosenberg is @bryanjfischer aware that Jews helped win the Revolutionary War, including Haym Solomon who helped finance it?
Ina Gilmore @inagilmore Reading: Forgotten Patriot The Story of Haym Solomon by David Allen Lewis. Financed Revolutionary War with over 40 billion US 2005 dollars
The implied idea that this forgotten patriot merited mention with the likes of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson due to his “instrumental”, and indeed, presumably single-handed financing of the war struck me as highly unlikely, although I supposed that since Messrs. (((Greenspan))), (((Bernanke))) and Ms (((Yellen))) have effectively destroyed 97 percent of the value of the current U.S. dollar, it was not entirely unthinkable that Mr. (((Haym))) might have been involved in whatever led to the phrase “not worth a Continental”. However, this notion was easily determined to be incorrect.
As is my custom once my B.S. detector is triggered, I looked into the documented facts of the matter. I learned the truth is that Haym Solomon was, in fact, a legitimate Revolutionary War hero. He was a spy, he was captured by the British twice, he risked his life for the colonial cause, and as the agent to the French consul as well as the paymaster for the French forces in North America, he was able to broker the sale of bills of exchange from France and Holland and help Robert Morris raise money for the war.
In all, he raised $650,000, a not-insubstantial sum, which amounts to $16,644,272.43 in 2015 dollars. (1913 to 2015 data is the CPI. Inflation data from 1665 to 1912 is from a historical study by Robert Sahr at Oregon State University.)
However, it is also worth mentioning that $650,000 was 1/1327th of the total $862,688,500 that the Journal of the American Revolutionestimates was spent by the Continental Congress and various other revolutionary parties on the Revolutionary War. To say that Mr. Haym’s contribution to the winning effort is exaggerated by the revisionists is to put it mildly. And note that most of the significant efforts to honor that contribution were made more than 150 years later, well after the revisionists had begun rewriting American history.
In 1939, Warner Brothers released Sons of Liberty, a short film starring Claude Rains as Salomon.
In 1941, the writer Howard Fast wrote a book Haym Salomon, Son of Liberty.
In 1941, the Heald Square Monument, a sculpture designed by Lorado Taft was erected at Wacker Drive and Wabash Avenue in downtown Chicago. Taft began the work but died in 1936. It was completed by his associate, Leonard Crunelle. The monument depicts George Washington flanked by Salomon and Robert Morris and grasping hands with both men.
In 1943, the United States liberty ship SS Haym Salomon was named in his honor
In 1946, a memorial statue was erected to Salomon at Hollenbeck Park in Los Angeles. The statue was rededicated in 2008 at Pan-Pacific Park in the Fairfax District, where it can be found on the corner of Gardner and Third Street.
In summary, Haym Soloman’s legitimately heroic contributions to the American Revolution have been coopted, exaggerated, and weaponized as rhetoric in order to further the false historical revisionism of the deceitful, self-serving (((proponents))) of “the melting pot”, “the nation of immigrants”, and “Judeo-Christian values”. And those exaggerated contributions are now cited by various opponents of the Alt-Right in a futile effort to obscure the historical fact of America having been founded as a very real White and Christian nation, both material and distinct from the current multi-ethnic imperial state known as the USA.
These revisionist efforts are somewhat ironic, because Solomon’s domestic political efforts tend to support the Alt-Right’s perspective on history, identity politics, and the predictable effects of non-native interference in politics.
In 1783, Salomon was among the prominent Jews involved in the successful effort to have the Pennsylvania Council of Censors remove the religious test oath required for office-holding under the State Constitution.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. Furthermore, of the 376,000 Continental soldiers and militia members who fought in the Revolutionary War, less than 100 were Jews. It is also interesting to note that only 7,000 blacks fought for the revolutionaries, versus 20,000 blacks who fought for the British.
I’ve recently chronicled how various assimilationists, from (((Israel Zangwill))) to (((Ben Shapiro))), (((Ekaterina Jung))), and (((Andrew Klavan))) have either concocted or attempted to pass off self-serving revisionist lies about American history in order to retroactively write their (((tribe))) into it so they can claim to be “every bit as American” as the Posterity whose rights the U.S. Constitution was written to protect.
Considering that the purpose of the U.S. Constitution was to safeguard the rights of that Posterity, their actions in doing so are not only dishonest, but are literally anti-American. They are more cuckoo than the cuckservatives in this regard, in both senses of the term.
These lies include the following concepts:
The melting pot
A proposition nation
A nation of immigrants
Judeo-Christian values
Like any effective lie, each is constructed around a fragment of truth, in this case, the section of the Declaration of Independence which declares: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
However, it is also self-evident that a secular atheist Jew, such as (((Ekaterina Jung))), who does not believe in a Creator, cannot credibly appeal to the Declaration in order to claim to be an American. And it is documentarily evident that, like the U.S. Constitution, the Naturalization Act of 1790, the writings of John Jay, Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and other Founding Fathers, and the Alt-Right nationalist position, the Declaration of Independence itself is directly opposed to the revisionist interpretation, as the document also refers to:
the connection between [the United Colonies] and the State of Great Britain
the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages
large Armies of foreign Mercenaries
the present King of Great Britain
the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners
the free System of English Laws
our Brittish brethren
To cite one phrase of a document in contradiction to the central theme of the entire document, which is that the People of the United Colonies are an English people, unique and distinct from foreigners, Indians, and the English people loyal to the King of Britain, is an outrageous attempt at deceit that relies entirely on the historical ignorance of the audience. To say that anyone can become an American because “all men are created equal” is a shameless lie. One might as readily cite it as evidence to claim it means anyone can become Chinese.
Now, I was aware of this deception because I am half-American, born in Boston, descended in my paternal line from an American revolutionary who died at Valley Forge, and steeped in the history of the American revolution. My family even celebrated Independence Day 1976 in Lexington, Massachusetts. But what I did not know, not being Jewish, is that Jews have also been victimized by the same sort of revisionist Talmudry to which Americans have been subjected by their assimilationist co-religionists.
In Cuckservative, John Red Eagle and I made the connection between Churchianity and the concept of Tikkun Olam, the Jewish mandate to “heal the world”. But, as one of the Jewish readers here helpfully brings to our attention, it turns out that “heal the world” is just another assimilationist lie, no more historically legitimate than the anti-American lies already mentioned.
“The central mitzvah or commandment for our era is the mitzvah of Tikkun Olam. It is the defining mission of Jews to strive for the repair of the world by making society more just, fair, egalitarian, and sensitive. Judaism demands that we repair the world by striving for social justice. It is the mission of Jews in the Divine Plan for the universe to repair the world by repairing man, by improving and advancing mankind.”
The above paragraph is a fair representation of what has become the defining raison d’etre of Judaism as conveyed by non-Orthodox liberal Jewish organizations and synagogues in America. It is not a direct citation from any of them, but is an accurate paraphrase of what has become the canon of non-Orthodox Jewish liberalism in our time.
It is the “modernized” and contemporary “reinterpretation” of “Jewish ethics” as defined and inculcated by much of the Reform and Conservative movements. It is also the “theology” of Jewish radical leftist groups operating at the fringes of the Jewish community, including the “Renewal/ALEPH” movement, the “Eco-Judaism” groups, the “Tikkun community” of people and groups that are satellites to the magazine by that same name published by tikkun-activist Michael Lerner, and what remains of the “Reconstructionists.” Lerner, it should be added, discovers “repair of the world” even in LSD consumption.
What are we to make of “Tikkun Olam” proclamations?
The most important thing that must be understood about the Tikkun Olam catechism in the United States is that each and every sentence in the above proclamation is false.
First of all, there is no such thing as a mitzvah or commandment of “Tikkun Olam.” Jews are nowhere commanded to “repair the world.” In all the authoritative or traditional compilations of the commandments of Judaism, none list “Tikkun Olam”. The expression itself does not appear anywhere in the Torah or in the entire Bible.
Those assimilationist liberals who insist that the entire “ethics of the Prophets” can be reduced to the pursuit of “Tikkun Olam” have to explain why none of the Books of the Prophets use the term. “Tikkun Olam” is used sporadically in the Talmud, but as a technical term for resolution of certain judicial problems that arise before rabbinic courts.
The only place the expression appears in Jewish prayer is in the “Aleinu” and there it clearly has nothing at all to do with social justice. In the “Aleinu,” Tikkun Olam is explicitly explained in the prayer text itself as the quest to eliminate pagan superstition and to see God’s rule of the universe implemented. It is a theological concept, not a social, political or environmental one.
It is in the interest of Americans and Jews alike, and in the interest of anyone who values either history or the truth, to continue to expose these “assimilationist liberals” for the liars that they are, and to reject their self-serving, ahistorical, revisionist falsehoods. This post also demonstrates why a broad-spectrum Alt-Right is more effective, and informed, than a narrow-gauge, white American-only Alt-Right.
UPDATE: Lies have ALREADY appeared about this post on Twitter. They are truly People of the Lie.
Blue Meanie @BlueMeanie4 @voxday displays general cluelessness and paranoia re. Jews #Zionism #AltRight
“Judeo-Christian” is another false construct, not even as old as “the melting pot” or “a nation of immigrants”. From Wikipedia:
History of the term The term is used, as “Judeo Christian”, at least as far back as in a letter from Alexander M’Caul dated October 17, 1821. The term in this case referred to Jewish converts to Christianity. The term is used similarly by Joseph Wolff in 1829, referring to a style of church that would keep with some Jewish traditions in order to convert Jews.
Use of the German term judenchristlich (“Jewish-Christian”), in a decidedly negative sense, can be found in the late writings of Friedrich Nietzsche, who emphasized what he saw as neglected aspects of continuity between the Jewish world view and that of Christianity. The expression appears in The Antichrist, published in 1895 and written several years earlier; a fuller development of Nietzsche’s argument can be found in a prior work, On the Genealogy of Morality.
Promoting the concept of United States as a Judeo-Christian nation first became a political program in the 1940s, in response to the growth of anti-Semitism in America. The rise of Nazi anti-semitism in the 1930s led concerned Protestants, Catholics, and Jews to take steps to increase understanding and tolerance.
In this effort, precursors of the National Conference of Christians and Jews created teams consisting of a priest, a rabbi, and a minister, to run programs across the country, and fashion a more pluralistic America, no longer defined as a Christian land, but “one nurtured by three ennobling traditions: Protestantism, Catholicism and Judaism….The phrase ‘Judeo-Christian’ entered the contemporary lexicon as the standard liberal term for the idea that Western values rest on a religious consensus that included Jews.”
Anyone who is using the term “Judeo-Christian” is referencing, consciously or not, left-wing anti-Christian agitprop. There are no historical “Judeo-Christian” values; to the extent there is overlap they are Christian values.
Note that “Judeo-Christian” in its post-1940s revisionist usage is a part of the same program as the 1965 Hart-Celler Act. It was adopted specifically to redefine America and destroy the historical fact of America having been founded as a de facto Christian nation.
It is also worth noting that despite Islam being related to both Christianity and Judaism in precisely the same manner, we do not hear much talk of “Judeo-Islam” or “Islamo-Christianity”, much less take seriously the idea that Americans must defer to Muslims or grant them any special status on those grounds.
To claim “Judeo-Christian” is nothing more than recognizing Christianity’s roots in the Old Testament is akin to claiming that “Communism” just means people sharing with other members of their community. Moreover, to claim that Christianity is “Judaic” in that sense is to erase the other tribes of Israel; it would be 12 times more accurate to say “Hebreo-Christian”, “Israeli-Christian” or “Jacobite-Christian”.
