Those Who Sleep in Truckle Beds

“In reality, what the conservative wants is the approval of the Left and there is no limit in how far he will degrade himself to get it.”

ZMan, “The Virtual Theater Returns,” The Z Blog (April 26, 2022)

“He that is beaten may be said
To lie in honor’s truckle bed.”

Samule Butler, Hudibras (1663)

This may be ZMan’s greatest insight.  Conservatives have imbibed an inferiority complex and consequently crave approval by the Left.   To be a modern American conservative is to fantasize that a patronizing Lefty will one day condescend to clasp one’s hand and say, “you, my friend, are not as stupid, hateful and vulgar as the other conservatives.”

It is in the hope of realizing this fantasy that a modern American conservative is forever trimming his opinions, removing those of which the Lefties especially disapprove, and adding those that the Lefties especially require.  It is this craving, fantasizing and trimming that makes modern American conservatives what Robert Lewis Dabney called the “shadow” of the Left.

“Overcompensation” is one key symptom of an “inferiority complex.”   Since conservatives are, for instance, routinely represented as persons who harbor racial attitudes that are morally and intellectually inferior to those of the Left, conservatives overcompensate by making a cult of Candice Owens and conspicuously worrying about the welfare of black people.  The charge of inferior intellect drives them into grandiloquence and pedantry; the charge of hate drives them into pusillanimity and philanthropy; the charge of sexism drives them into white-knighting for feminist harpies who hope that this white knight and the dragon he fights will succeed in killing each other.

To be a modern American conservative is thus, in short, to be on a lifelong quest to prove that one does not, in any respect whatsoever, resemble Archie Bunker.

* * * * *

To truckle is to obsequiously submit to degradation.  It is to bow and scrape and tug one’s forelock in the anxious hope that by these acts one will win the favor and escape the wrath of one’s master.  The word truckle comes from the inferior “truckle bed” of a servant that was, in days of yore, stowed beneath the big bed of his master.  A truckle is specifically a small wheel on which such a bed (also called a trundle bed) is rolled back and forth from beneath the big bed.

Thus when Butler wrote,

“He that is beaten may be said
To lie in honor’s truckle bed,”

he meant occupy a position inferior to, not only that of the victor, but also that of a man who preferred death to surrender.  Thus the full line reads,

“If he that in the field is slain,
Be in the bed of honor lain,
He that is beaten may be said
To lie in honor’s truckle bed.”

* * * * *

Every thinking Christian has felt the urge to truckle to the worldly philosophers, and by so doing sleep in the little bed that is beneath the bed of his master, but that is, at least, in his master’s house.  And many have yielded to this urge and trimmed their opinions, hoping that some godless goofus will one day condescend to clasp their hand and say, “you, my friend, are not as stupid, hateful and uncouth as the other Christians.”

* * * * *

It is better to sleep rough and out of doors than it is to sleep grateful for the thin tick and blanket of a truckle bed.  This is because the only way to win the approval of your enemy is to become his sidekick, his servant, or his slave.

14 thoughts on “Those Who Sleep in Truckle Beds

  1. Admiration from people you despise is humiliating. If I taught Spanish the world would be my oyster. If I engaged in what I regard as nonsense philosophy it might have helped my career. However, I don’t want to do either of those things.

    I have to admit that a couple of times in the last year or so some weaker students have liked me but only because my classes represented a relief from ideological conformity. In the past it was the smarter ones. I still get a few of those, however.

  2. It is, or at least ought to be, humiliating. But we should never understate the psychological cost of being despised by one’s peers. It is especially hard for people like you and I to stand up under the imputation of of low intelligence and moral turpitude. I know I struggle with the temptation to try to prove to lefty academics that I’m not like the other gap-toothed hicks.

    My classroom experience has some parallels to yours. The general trend in human geography is to talk about whatever trendy fad the students are primed to get jazzed about. Let’s talk about the “geographies” of hookups with cell phones, for instance. If you can work in the way that climate change threatens to disrupt hookups with cell phones, so much the better. I’ve gone in the opposite direction and talk about why the things on the map are were they are, and what difference it makes. It is whispered that I do this for want of the wit to keep up with the times.

  3. Conservative? What’s that even mean is the root of the problem. Few who think of themselves as conservatives know.
    Let’s start from first premises. What is a conservative supposed to be conserving? The people. Full stop.
    A people become a people evolving in relative sexual isolation in a geographical area. Thus the root of the word nation. Until the current year it was understood a nation is by definition an ethnostate. ( I’ll get to the anglosphere eye that are already triggered in a minute)
    Within that geographical womb a biological feedback loop develops a culture specific to that people that makes them not just culturally but physically a specific people and keeps them that way.
    So in order to conserve your people a conservative must defend not only the blood but the soil where the culture is nourished and developed. It’s worth noting the culture defends the people both against outside and inside assaults.

    Religion is usually me of the pillars of a culture. Within it usually is their proto culture their taboos and customs often biologically important. These proto strategies like mating become enshrined as sacred.
    Often other things that have helped the preservation of these people take on a sort of quasi sacredness. Say the divine right of kings or free markets. After a while people forget these are merely tools the people developed during certain conditions that may or may not still serve or rather conserve, they become mistaken for what needs to be preserved. You might find people of good will defending things they think conserve the people their nation and culture that do not in fact.
    We must pause for an observation. Since agriculture our culture has a greater evolutionary pressure than mere environment though the races had already differentiated greatly already. But as some races tech exploded even culture could not keep up. Also we seldom drop genes they get repurposed or lay dormant. So we have this random environment a random mutation response a out of sync cultural response. The idea that we can develop some software that will work on this buggy hardware we carry is kinda ridiculous thus the meme of fallen man is useful. We just need to survive till we can start from scratch or die trying or be redeemed. That said we ought to be cautious about updates.

    Ok why do western “conservatives” always lose. They not conservatives in the true sense of trying to conserve their own blood soil and the parts of their culture that truly conserve them. They’re the well meaning people above defending capitalism or Christianity or the constitution etc.

    Jesus and Jefferson were radical leftist revolutionaries.
    But most conservatives don’t understand this. The left understands this perfectly so constantly asks the left what would Jesus and Jefferson do? So called conservatives have to admit Jesus would white knight the whore about to be stoned. Jesus would say unless you’re all saints you must defund the police and make martyrs out of criminals. Jesus would say the letter of the law doesn’t matter it’s the spirit of the living constitution that matters. Jesus would say forget your family and your nation and follow my social justice revolution. I don’t say this happily I liked my catholic upbringing I love western civilization but I also can’t pretend Jesus of Nazareth would be a conservative. Any honest christian can admit this. Christianity has two other major problems for a conservative it’s irrational. It’s not all the crazy attempts to reconcile the old and new books into a internally consistent theology. Faith can handle that ok. It’s more essential. Christ teaches this world is not real. What a rational man would concern himself with is folly. That one should act irrationally because you will be rewarded with a heavenly world. It can’t be overstated how destructive this is. The west has produced a dozen out of a dozen of the great human civilizations because of our superior ability to reason. The third problem with Christianity is it’s universal. Unlike most religions it encourages entryism it begins as a Jewish heresy the rabbis understood what a threat to the conservation of the Jewish people and culture it was and killed Christ.

    It’s true this universalism as well as the leftist altruism is why Christianity served the European people for a long time. The altruism accrued to the various European and fringe European peoples imperfectly binding us in a sort of meta tribe we called Christendom for a while. But our resulting success shrank the world and our stupidity in slavery empire colonialism combined with these universalist leftist irrational Christian slave morality is now turned on us. We are now the Roman’s. Red pilled Christian’s will argue that at some point in history some ruler forced some priests to emphasize aspects mostly of the Jewish Old Testament that support authority over Jesus actual philosophy therefore we can make it work. I really wish it were so but it isn’t some wag probly a Jew will always come along and say what would Jesus do and any serious Christian will have to admit te truth.

    Jefferson rightly thought he’d was smarter than the king and so he and his smart white male rich friends ought to rule. Over production of elites. But like an idiot he spoke a loud that god did not actually give kings the divine right to rule it was just a way to prevent a lot of wasted infighting to sacrifice the schelling point. And of course no sooner than he breaks this taboo with a lot of loft lefty rhetoric constitutional prose that a cascade of lower castes declare themselves similarly equal. There’s a direct link between Jefferson’s revolution to the French Revolution to the Russian revolution to the woke mob.
    Again no honest constitutionalist can really deny the implications of Jefferson’s thinking.
    We red pilled even cuckservatives are aware of the moral hazards of socialism. But how many so called conservatives are aware that until recently capitalism was seen as antithetical to throne and alter hierarchy. That it was understood to be subversive of power structure and a threat to long held culture and custom. As well as exploitive of the masses. I am not none of those alleged neo nazis that favor national socialism. But I am clear enough to realize capitalism has done far more damage to our culture and people than communism. I also realized it’s not true that any restrictions on capitalism destroys it. It thrived in so it union black markets under dictators kings quasi socialist Nordic countries and communist fascist whatever china. Truth is it’s kinda hard to hurt so outlawing porn or forcing corporations to build American or whatever wouldn’t hurt it a bit.

    Anyway this is too long and there’s so much more but you get the gist. conservatives lose because they’re defending leftism they just want a little leftism like Jefferson just wanted a little democracy. That’s not possible.

    The other major issue which is related but different is what actual conservatism looks like would be abhorrent to 99.99999% of people who call themselves conservatives. While it’s a lot to do with being marinated in Jesus and Jefferson you could go back say even 100 years or less and read what mainstream not necessarily right wingers thought about race and gender and such. It was commonplace to understand ourselves white men as the owners of the world the other people mere chattel. But as we began to listen to outsiders and wreckers under their thrall about Jesus and Jefferson we became squeamish
    The thing is this evolutionary game doesn’t give a shit about Jesus or Jefferson they play by Omar’s rules “ it’s all in da game yo” so if not the Han then the cockroaches but mature will not countenance slackers and faggots.

    • I think you overstate the otherworldliness of Christianity, and also the worldliness of the rationalists. The incarnation doesn’t make much sense if the world is not real. I do agree that creedal conservatism is a pathetic sham and that genuine conservatism will always be intimately tied to blood and soil. Against your critique of Christianity I would place the fact that nationality flourished in Christian Europe, and that post-Christian Europe (and America) has reverted to de facto empire.

      • Thanks for reading my scribbling I’m not educated believe it or not can’t write better.
        When I talk to serious Christian’s about existential issues moral hazard economic debt reality, wars for empire,dysgenic policy,race gender realism, etc it’s inevitably “ gods got a perfect plan” “god wins in the end” “ we’ll soon be in heaven” “ give to ceasar turn the cheek etc basically nothing should be done no need to worry or act unpleasant because this world is ultimately unreal. It’s magical thinking.
        I think Christianity says the world is a sort of virtual reality where we prepare for the real real heaven.No matter what we do here it can be forgiven and it will be set right precisely because of the incarnation The consequences of reality are redeemed.
        The problem is what it would take today to conserve us is pretty ugly but every days to toll rises.
        Yes humans are innately tribal so Christianity didn’t wipe that out immediately. In fact as I mentioned on one level it brought us closer. Christianity spread through Europe and Rome collapsed it developed parochially. And I’d agree there were always European nations some more distinct or autonomous than others but nations still despite the claim of modernists.
        But once new European empires began to rise and vie for global rule technology allowed religion to be weaponized things changed. Universalism allowed this demanded the prehistoric humans we found in the lands we discovered be baptized.
        Remember pre Jewish Marxist leftism is explicitly Christian anti slavery Protestantisms shakers quakers proto feminists and post Christ Christian Unitarians. Now we are cooking. Then eventually mass communication and media allows self appointed priest some not even Christian to interpret Christianity. These baptized savages are now new citizens freed slaves freed women in countries of mixed European nationality under democracy. Jefferson and Jesus words can be deftly mixed and matched to uneducated but legally voting populations. How long ago were we told massive Hispanic immigration was good because they were natural conservatives meaning they were catholic. The same process is behind the lgbt tranny thing people who may no longer even think of themselves as Christian still have Christian ethos and are told lgbt are just the bullied the hated the downtrodden needing a neighbors love
        It could even be true Hester Prynn no doubt got a raw deal but she needed stoning so half of the children in Wooster mass wouldn’t be born out of wedlock. But Jesus wouldn’t stone the whore so the puritans stopped stoning them so we had to let them vote to let in the Hispanics and the lgbt. And so it goes. I used to think maybe Catholicism can remain conservative I still root for the orthodox but it’s hopeless. The theology is dysgenic. We’d be better off converting to Judaism if we believe then we’d still be saved.

      • The naive Christianity you describe in your first paragraph certainly exists, and destruction of this naive Christianity is one purpose of the Orthosphere. And Christianity can certainly decay into the ressentiment of Nietzsche’s slave morality, but a healthy Christianity transcends the world of wealth and power, and does not simply turn the tables. Christ said that poverty is not a mark of God’s disfavor, but he did not say it is a mark of God’s favor. I think we can agree that decadent Christianity is horrible, and that the ethos without the metaphysics is absurd. I am by no means certain that this decadence is reversible.

    • Jesus did not “white knight” the adulteress; He pointed out that the mob was, at that very moment, breaking the very Law they were purporting to uphold. Remember that the Law required that both the adulterer and the adulteress be punished at the same time, yet the mob only intended to punish the adulteress (the adulterer is never even mentioned in that incident). More generally, Jesus explicitly stated that He did not come to abolish the Law/Prophets, but to fulfill them, and that no part of the Law would be removed until heaven and earth disappeared (Matthew 5:17-19).

      Additionally, Jesus never said one should abandon family/nation to follow a social-justice revolution; He said one should follow Him, even *if* that requires abandoning one’s prior relationships. This is entirely rational and conservative. Remember, Jesus is God; therefore, He is the One who created families and nations in the first place. However, God (the Creator) is more important than what He has created; therefore, one must prioritize God above all else. Furthermore, the highest purpose of created things is to glorify God; therefore, the highest purpose of families/nations is to glorify God (and any family/nation which opposes this purpose is, by definition, aberrant). However, since God created families and nations, it would be preposterous to claim that there is an inherent conflict between them.

      • It’s hard to discuss these things with men of faith. First I don’t wish to be offensive nor misunderstood to simply be another anti Christian. I had a good experience growing up catholic in NYC the church in that film Brooklyn was still in existence despite V2 as I described in the above post even then the church was parochial some polish Monseigneur, Ukrainian nuns,Italian or Irish priests were much more rooted in their own community traditions including how their church had been for centuries than what some distant Vatican was up to.
        But when ( I got thrown out of school A LOT) I eventually ended up in an upper east side parish school where the more cosmopolitan class lived it was different they read the Times and watched public television things began to change and eventually trickled down to even the ethnic parishes. BTW I’m English Irish German despite the tag.

        I digress I just wanted to say I’m not trashing the church for lulz. I lean towards theres a creator and all we can know about his will for us is what we learn about creation. I’ve spent most of my life defending the church to anti Christian’s. Even moldbergs blaming the bloody prots irks me although as I also wrote above early leftism is distinctly Christian. What moldberg fails to notice is that leftism is a sincere albeit naive desire to improve our civilization. Then there’s the wrecker leftism which seeks to divide and conquer the former often using the latter.

        Look no doubt brilliant men have crafted clever arguments in good faith why Jesus was not a SJW. But as someone well versed and not antagonistic to the faith but no longer invested. One who at one time found Jesus morality reasonable.Who’s father was almost ordained. And who maintained a reactionary conservative ideology through the 60s and 70s even as a child and young person. That Jesus you describe strikes me as contrived. The theology you describe as eisegesic. You’re cherry picking the totality of Jesus message is what’s important.
        Even if I were wrong it simply not the common understanding of Jesus by the overwhelming majority. What appeals to them about Christianity. If push were to come to shove they would abandon it or ignore this interpretation. But I don’t think I’m wrong I think intelligent conservative men such as yourselves know this but are wedded to your faith on one hand and reason on another and are like all of histories brilliant Christian apologists trying to resolve this cognitive dissonance. I realize this is an impasse. Let me suggest a solution. Abandon this idea to use Christianity as a conservative schelling point. Maintain your private resolution.

        He certainly was white knighting. I have lived in orthodox Jewish neighborhoods. They won’t shake your hand you’re unclean. They have similar attitudes towards all women Jesus surrounded himself with women raising their status. It’s important to understand the very first step in leftism is the emancipation of women. This does not mean we can not love them but we must never give them equality. Euro men always make this mistake and crash their civilizations.
        women can always be sure their children are their own. Men can not. It is much easier to police womens sexuality than mens. Contra Christianity perfect justice is not possible but civilization can not last without imperfect justice thus the different standards.
        The specific case is clear the woman was caught in the act guilty. Jesus argues that crimes can not be punished by anyone who has sinned. This is absurd and the exact same argument as the left uses today.yes if a man fucks another’s wife he’s stoned. Makes sense so odd he wasn’t on trial. Maybe the husband already killed him or the pharasies maybe he was a Roman soldier wadya gunna do it’s immaterial she was guilty and he couldn’t make the hard choice that the survival of our species requires.

      • Matthew, yours is a good example of the ill-effects of Christianity. The ways of interpretation are so vast, confusion inevitably arises. Regarding stoning of the whore, I recall Jesus stating “you who is whithout sin, cast the 1st stone.” Nothing there about equity of punishment for the adultrer that I recall. This is a bedrock of those who would insist that no one else is capable of making judgement on anyone else for any supposed moral crime. The danger in this outlook should be obvious to any thinking person, but then thinking is no longer allowed if moral judgement is the result…and down the rabbit hole we go.

        Jesus did indeed say that a man must leave his family, and everything, to follow him, or he will never be able to enter the kingdom of heaven. It was unequivocal in my mind, and has caused me many lost years living under that confusion between the command and an inborn healthy conservative nature. There are other writers who say similar things without the baggage that comes with Jesus’s teachings. Marcus Aurelias’ Meditations and the Bhagavat Gita come to mind, with the latter being not necessarily from a foreign culture, but likely from Indo-European or Aryan men who migrated from our common ancestral homelands from ages past. Thinking along those terms would suit us better as a culture, IMO, than trying to follow the New Testament. You claim there’s no inherent conflict in Christianity, but I wholeheartedly disagree, with heavy heart.

  4. I’d like to add a observation. One of our strengths but also our weakness is an ability to suppress the natural organizing principle in favor of organizing around ideas. It allows us to more quickly transcend cultural restraints perhaps no longer serving. But it blinds us to what we can’t truly escape and ought to in all instances be our measure.


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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.