Conservatism Standing Like a Stone Wall

I’m going to post and comment upon the remarkable passage below for the benefit of those who may not have seen it in my Twitter excreta. Its author was RL Dabney, a 19th century Southern theologian and philosopher who also served as chief of staff to legendary confederate General Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson.

Upon seeing the quote pasted into another site’s combox, I was skeptical as to its authenticity. The complaint being so precise in contemporary application that it barely seemed plausible. History often plays the same notes, though rarely with identical lyrics. But from what corroborating evidence I could uncover, it apparently is legitimate. And if nothing else I suppose that offers some solace in the thought that dead men aren’t missing much. For very little changes within that castrated cohort called conservatives.

This is a group whose solemn responsibility since the mists of antiquity is to grumble about liberal advances while defending them to the death. If politics could pick their manservants, the Left would be pressed to find more dedicated staff. Of course men such as Mr. Dabney were hardly True Conservatives, having likely never urinated in a female designated stall. And what of his probable position on homosexual unions? To even speculate invites moral injury.

Though there are valid lessons in observing such an immutable mentality. It is invigorating to scold conservatives for failure to do what they have never done, though probably not profitable. They are designed as nature’s valets and hopeless when held to tasks beyond that modest capacity. Take over their institutions and your own janissaries await. True Conservatism can just as easily be confident nationalism as shadow liberalism.

But until its toy soldiers are turned to different purpose, we can expect our wallets (and societies) to continue their conservative makeover. Brother can you spare a $20?

image

Jackson was a scoundrel, a slave holder and a white supremacist who was involved in the removal of Indians and was completely opposed to paper money and was horrible to women,” said Kari Winter, director of the gender institute at the University at Buffalo.

Conservatives also supported the selection of Tubman for the $20 bill. National Review writer Charles C.W. Cooke tweeted: “Given the sheer number of blows that Tubman struck for liberty, she belongs on the currency more than most. Good choice.”

image

image

28 thoughts on “Conservatism Standing Like a Stone Wall

    • Probably not hilarious enough to put me in a laughing mood right now. I thought Cruzbio were cucks for nominating a bus delinquent for the $10 and $20, but this is just putrid. Not that I care about their cause, but if they want hero worship, then Aunt Jemima, Florida Evans, and Weezy Jefferson would be better choices, as they did way more to advance the acceptance of blacks into White America than either Rosa Parks or that 19th century subway vagrant. God, I bet she stank.
      Speaking of stank, if they go through with this wretched act, public health will suffer. I will personally pucker my asshole and use it to kiss Tubman’s juicy lips before spending any $20 bearing her image. Mind you, I don’t have any asshole infections or maladies, but it can’t be good for business. To paraphrase a famous Civil Rights figure, I pity the fool who touches it next, especially if I preface my shopping experience with a bag of Olestra potato chips. Chipotle will be safe, as I refuse to spend money there.
      I will also overwrite the word “Tubman” with six uncensored asterisks. That should bring a smile to the faces of some future buck-passers; and knowing it will scowl others’ will bring a smile to mine.

    • “Harriet Tubman was a freedom fighter in just the way that the Founders were. Same North Star. Same “promissory note.” Even higher stakes.”

      Even higher stakes.

      Men staggered half starved and barefoot into Valley Forge so their sniveling descendants could spit in their faces in order to be eaten last by the leftoid chupacabra. This site is a big reason why I haven’t completely given up hope yet. Maybe these trying times are our Valley Forge and men like you are our Washington and von Steuben. Keep up the good work.

  1. Do you mean to tell me that goys were working on their own demographic displacement long before all the Frankfurt School voodoo?

    • I think Francis Parker Yockey said that Americans have a natural preference for Cuckservatism, he tried to understand the complete Jewish take over of America well before the 1960s Civil Rights.

  2. My people didn’t even come to this country until the early 1900s and late 1960s and I hold Old Hickory in higher regard than cuckservatives who can trace their lineages back to the Revolution – pathetic. Hoard your Jackson $20s. When the rest of our currency collapses they’ll at least be backed by the meme standard.

  3. Pingback: Conservatism Standing Like a Stone Wall | Reaction Times

    • As they water your welfare check, I imagine so.

      This brain-stem logic of “I hate you, let me in” should be printed on T-shirts as the diverse world’s credo.

    • They are also planning to put three female “activists” on the back of Hamilton’s bill.

      The worst part was hearing Lew say he considers Hamilton a “hero.” Hamilton wouldn’t piss on Lew if he was on fire.

      • “Hamilton wouldn’t piss on Lew if he was on fire.” – I wouldn’t be too sure. Hamilton was in favor of a central bank, (which Jackson fought against) and represented NY bankers at the Philly pow wow. Ezra Pound wrote of his (meaning Alex) Hebrew blood.

      • I dunno if Hamilton had Jew blood or not, but it’s not surprising the Jews would claim that he did.

      • The jews aren’t claiming it, Ezra Pound did. I don’t know where Pound got his information but I do know Pound didn’t make claims lightly.

      • Alright. Then I wouldn’t be surprised if the black Hamilton play makes him fashionable to the Left so they dress up in the latest fashion and the Tribe “discovers” Pound’s claim.

      • To clarify; from what you’ve stated thus far, I completely disagree with your assessment of Hamilton. If you think the American Revolution was a mistake, then I can understand why you wouldn’t like Hamilton. If you consider the founding of America as a positive development, then it appears you would make a poor banker and are quite ungrateful.

      • I would make as poor a banker as Jefferson:

        “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered…. I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies…. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”

        And were do we find ourselves now??? I rest my case.

      • “I would make as poor a banker as Jefferson”

        Completely agree. Again, if you think the Revolution was a mistake, you would’ve been for a agrarian-populist like Jefferson and the colonies would’ve been back under the crown in no time (or really all you would’ve needed was for Hamilton to not have been trusted by Washington as I’ve found no evidence that any other founders had much of a clue regarding building an enduring nation. They wouldn’t have even been capable of preventing the Revolutionary soldiers from revolting or turning back to the crown within the first decade).

        “The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”

        LOL. So you’re against private bank currencies and fiat government currencies, but you want the “people” to control the currency? If you could please try to parse this statement into something intelligible, I would appreciate it.

      • “…colonies would’ve been back under the crown in no time” – really?, I guess we’ll never know.

        “The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.” – This means that the purpose of banks are for the good (well being) of the people/the nation NOT for the good (well being) of private bankers/shareholders/corporations. Because the real wealth of a nation, that is the productivity of a nation, is its people.

        The more interesting question is: Who those people are. But that is for another day.

        I apologize Porter for this intrusion into YOUR blog.
        Different T, I think we have said enough.

      • No need to apologize, Helvena. It’s a good debate.

        One additional element to consider is the spectrum covered under the rubric of “banker.” There are Wall Street investment banks, national and regional commercials, industrial banks, small community banks, foreign branches, credit unions, insurers, and the Federal Reserve. I think most people have in mind some amalgamation of the first and last when they use the term, though the overall ecosystem is broad and the roles within it often quite disparate.

      • Thanks for your patience Porter. Good point.
        It’s the Federal Reserve System that is the main problem. Our Congress that can’t or won’t control its spending comes in a close second in my opinion. I don’t agree with all of this video. I don’t have a problem with a fiat currency for example. Nationalizing our currency is a must.

        I’m sure the Fed has a different take.

      • Only made it thru half before the smell was no longer worth it.

        For those interested, Hamilton and the early republic is discussed around the 20 minute mark.

        The narrator constantly calls the monetary and banking system “deliberately confusing” and “full of confusing jargon.” I’m sure he would say physics is “too confusing and full of jargon meant to keep the public dumb” as well. The answer to his question: “Who are the Fed’s animated cartoons that talk down to its audience meant for anyway?” is obviously those just like the narrator. It would be humorous to know if the narrator knew that the chief opponents of the gold standard were actually the poor and farmers who considered such a standard as restricting credit creation too much for their prosperity.

        @ 38:40, the Fed even has a token black guy tell the whole world about their “evil conspiracy,” wonder what brought on that oversight. The Fed apparently missed a lot memos.

        The only saving grace on the horizon is that tech may enable us to GTFO and allow you to attempt survival on your own credit.

  4. It seems the more prescient line from Dabney is: “The only practical purpose which it now serves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy, from having nothing to whip.”

    From this perspective, that is the real concern with Trump and the “fall” of the GOP. That all we are witnessing is the recognition that current conservatism is too weak to satiate the progressives’ desires of whipping into submission and a new iteration of “conservatism” that is capable of providing “enough” exercise to Radicalism must be generated to further “progress.”

  5. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2016/04/24) - Social Matter

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s