The Myth of the Conservative Revolution

When Liberals aren’t pretending to be the Constitution’s BFFs (e.g. Slow Joe Biden’s bizarre call for more Originalists on the Federal bench), they’re insisting that the American Revolution was a “conservative” revolution.  The Founding Fathers were, after all, a bunch of CisHetPat White slave-owning gun nuts.  They still cite Charles Beard’s Marxist agitprop from 1913 as the gospel.  The Constitution, they argue, was never intended as anything more than a tool of the Pale Penis People to protect their entrenched “privilege.”

You don’t even need to know any history to disprove this.  All you need is the First Law of SJW: SJWs always lie.  The American Revolution was radical indeed, as Gordon Wood demonstrated in his creatively titled book The Radicalism of the American Revolution.*  If you do know any history, this “conservative revolution” stuff looks even sillier.  George Washington may have carried himself like an aristocrat (doubtless this is why he’s my favorite revolutionary), but guys like John and Sam Adams, John Hancock, and Alexander Hamilton were as radical as they come.  Hell, Thomas Jefferson was for all intents and purposes a Jacobin — hence that goofy “pursuit of happiness” stuff in place of Locke’s “life, liberty, and property.”  They had privilege, yes, but so does every Trust-Fund Trotsky.  The only difference was that these guys had courage, character, and principles…

….which I guess makes it a conservative revolution after all, those items being nonexistent on the Left, but whatever, the point is, revolutions are inherently radical.  The difference between griping about the government, versus shooting at government officials, is as vast as the difference between yelling “I’m gonna kill that guy!” at the dude who forgot to supersize your fries, and shooting up a McDonald’s.  No conservative is ever going to go to the gun unless his family’s back is unmistakably against the wall, and at that point, by definition he’s no longer a conservative.  Conservatives are loyal to traditions and institutions.  They’re why he has a family in the first place.  If those have grown so corrupt that only rebellion will do, then how can he possibly remain loyal to them?

As the Z Man points out today, it’s the so-called “conservatives” who are contemplating (metaphorically, FBI goons, metaphorically) rebellion.  James Comey is unquestionably guilty of treason, but he won’t even see an hour in the slammer, much less the short end of a long drop.  If you need any more proof that “democracy” as currently conceived is fatally flawed, there you have it.  The Constitution isn’t a living document, it’s a dead letter.  The only way a system of government designed for White, Christian, frontier-dwelling farmers can work is in a nation of White, Christian, frontier-dwelling farmers.  We haven’t had one of those since at least 1861.  If some anti-Charles Beard wanted to write A Cultural Interpretation of the United States Constitution, it’d be one sentence long: “The laws, customs, and form of government of a state are the expression of the soul of its people.”**

Some form of essentialism is true.  Biology being what it is, it can’t be otherwise.  If you want to label this a “conservative,” even a “reactionary” view, be my guest… but you’ll be flying in the face of 100 years or more of mandatory make believe.  What’s more radical than that?



*Sorry, cheap joke.  But if you need proof that Wood was on the money, and utterly demolished arguments like Beard’s, all you have to do is look at that wiki entry.  It’s one of the seminal works in the field, every single Americanist is familiar with it, it’s still assigned in colleges and graduate seminars across the land, and Wiki…. gives it three sentences.
**That’s Gustave Le Bon, quoted from memory, but close enough.
Loading Likes...

9 thoughts on “The Myth of the Conservative Revolution

  1. WOPR

    I ordered the book. No one but Washington could have kept the Continental army in the field and from rebelling. The American Revolution simply had a providential amount of people with ability, intelligence, and character.

    We are fast heading towards revolutionary times. I figure either a decent economic downturn or a regional war will shatter the cracked edifice. Based on history though, I don’t think we want to be the guys who overthrow the existing order. We want to be the follow-up guys that take over. The initial winners rarely hold power because they usually are trying to still maintain a lot of the existing order. Plus, they get blamed for failing to turn things around.

  2. Pickle Rick

    It was a conservative revolution in certain aspects. Unlike the French or Bolsheviks, essential structures of government bridged the revolution. The Massachusetts Assembly , the Virginia House of Burgesses, local justice and militias, all endured. The legislatures of the nascent American states were not replaced with a “People’s Revolutionary Committee” or some “Popular Tribunal” or a “People’s Army”.
    That distinction is crucial. Washington wasn’t going to be America’s Cromwell.

  3. MBlanc46

    Perhaps revolutions can’t be conservative, for semantic reasons. But counter-revolutions can be. Our goal is not to overthrow tradition, but to restore it, and perhaps to renew it. If not everywhere, at least in spaces that we can carve out for ourselves.

    1. Pickle Rick

      Ah, but restoring traditional white culture and behavior would itself be a revolutionary act today. Besides, we’ve gone too far down the path to restore anything. The conditions that created that are gone. We’ve got to build anew on a foundation of tradition, but we’re never going to be able to restore it as it existed 30 years ago, much less as it was 70 or 170 years ago. That’s chasing something impossible to catch. The past is another country- they do things differently there.

  4. contrariandutchman

    The arrow of time points in one direction only.

    No matter how much we might want to, we cannot reverse past events. The Daimyos of Satsuma and Choshu might -say- they wanted to revert to the past, and might even mean it, but they could only start something radically new and give it a thin veneer of conservatism by calling it a restoration and making the nominal emperor its leader.

    When the current order in the West collapses, what replaces it will be radically new as well.

  5. Maus

    The biggest difference between Us and Them is that we read books, lots of them, and they listen to stories, preferably told by tranny freaks. But seriously, Sev is quite right to observe that We have families (or support the institution), putting them first because biology > culture > economics. They don’t have children or actively despise them. Indeed, they act perpetually childlike with their tantrums and selfish demands. If they act like unruly children, they need to be treated as such. The government of a country (patria, from the L. for father, pater) should assist in providing the proper discipline, nor hinder it. Our government has capitulated to the Children and this threatens Our families. The back is very nearly against the wall. If we fail to act, our children will curse us for forgetting the Fourteen Words. That text is of far greater importance than the U.S. Constitution at this particular moment in our history.

  6. Publius

    It’s wierd.

    On the one hand, the AmRev was chock full of notions, like denying monarchs the power of the purse and the Rights of Man, which seemed entirely radical to most of Eighteenth Century Europe. And yet, they didn’t lick it off the grass, and it wasn’t all Social Contract philosophe-rie, either, however much Jefferson used Locke to gussy up the Declaration.

    Local Assemblies running the show was simply what these guys knew. They were the heirs of a political tradition going back to Cromwell and the Magna Carta. From where they sat, it was the Parliament in London that was causing the trouble, throwing bullshit taxes at them to pay for a war they hadn’t started, and for which they’d paid their share in blood (It ain’t like the Mowhawks were rampaging through Manchester after Braddock got his ass handed to him on the Monongahela). So they were trying to preserve, not to overthrow, the integrity of their existing political institutions.

    And as the American G.I. might have put it, they preserved the hell out of it.

  7. MBlanc46

    PR: “Renew”, “Build anew”, different language, same concept. You can’t step into the same river twice, yet, it is the same river. Every plank and line in the Argo had been replaced by the time that Jason returned, yet, it was still the Argo. Let’s get the counter-revolution done, then, over brandy and cigars, we can debate the question of identity through time.

Comments are closed.