Why would anybody want to have a coin with an ape on it?

The U.S. Mint has decided to depict Lady Liberty as an ape on a new $100 gold coin. For whatever reason, there are people in the Treasury Department who have a weird obsession with putting non humans on coins and currency.

Daily Mail:

The US government on Thursday issued a new commemorative collector coin featuring Lady Liberty depicted as a black woman – the first time in history that the famed symbol of Americana is portrayed as an African American.

The 24-karat gold $100 coin was unveiled to mark the US Mint and Treasury’s 225th anniversary.

The 2017 American Liberty 225th Anniversary Gold Coin shows the woman’s head in profile with a crown of stars.

It features the year of the mint’s founding, 1792, as well as 2017.

The mint says the other side of the coin will depict an eagle in flight.

It was designed by Justin Kunz, an accomplished artist and illustrator whom the mint has commissioned for past works on coins, according to its website.

The Treasury Department headed by the Jew Jacob Lew announced last year that they had plans to eventually replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill with a female monkey named Harriet Tubman.

These are not good decisions. The United States of America was founded by men of White European descent. It is highly disrespectful and offensive to the nation’s founders for depictions of subhuman animals to be placed on American coins and currency.

Donald Trump needs to immediately revoke the decision to have Andrew Jackson removed from the $20 bill. He should also launch an investigation into how the Treasury Department is making these decisions. There is obviously something very wrong if they think this type of thing is OK.

The plan to put Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill is an attack on Whites, period.

This woman is in no way historically relevant. No one even knows who she is.

There are several American Blacks who would have been much more logical picks, if this was simply about celebrating an accomplished Negroid. These include:

• Michael Jordan
• Jimi Hendrix
• Mike Tyson
• Marvin Gay
• Charlie Parker
• Jay-Z

I would personally feel most comfortable with either Tyson or Parker, but all these people accomplished much more than Harriet Tubman, who was specifically an anti-White who worked to deprive Whites of their rightful property.

The only purpose of the Tubman bill is to attack White achievement – not to promote Black achievement.

But that is all the Black movement and the larger SJW movement is about: attacking Whites. It has nothing to do with actually bettering any of these supposed victims.

The fact of this made clear by the Black response to the bill’s announcement.

For Very Smart Brothas (kek), the Negroid Damon Young writes:

The list of “things that tickle the fuck out of me” is a living and breathing one. Which is necessary because I occasionally find more things to tickle me. And, occasionally, things that tickled me before no longer do.

Included on this list are things such as my daughter’s laugh, the last hour of Akeelah and the Bee (the single ticklingest movie ever), finding money in pockets and car dashboards, unexpected bacon, and Vimeo twerk compilations. (Conspicuously absent? Actually being tickled. Because tickling is torture.)

And after the news of Harriet Tubman’s face replacing Andrew Jackson’s on the 20 dollar bill, I had to make a new addition to this list. It’s a scenario that’ll take place several years from now.

A man will enter some type of establishment. A bar maybe. A bank perhaps. Maybe even a bookstore. In my scenario this man is in his mid-forties. And possesses a slight stubble. He’s wearing chinos, a blue shirt, and brown shoes. He’s not a particularly handsome man, but not particularly unhandsome either. Think Nicholas Cage. Not that he looks like Nicholas Cage. But he’s on the Nicholas Cage handsome level. Anyway, a transaction will occur. Perhaps he will buy something. A latte. A bagel. A garden hose. Mints. Or maybe he will ask for change.

And then it will happen. He will be handed a 20. And this will be the first 20 he’s physically held with Harriet Tubman’s face on it. He knew this was going to happen. He remembers being dismayed by the news about it in 2016, and he also watched a couple recent news stories reminding people the Tubman twenties would be in circulation soon. But he just..forgot. He just didn’t realize it would be so soon. So sudden. So present. And when that 20 touches his hand for the first time, he recoils in horror. And makes a face like he was handed a bag of wet cat poop. But it’s a surreal horror, because although that 20 dollar bill has her damn fucking face on it, it’s still $20. And $20 is still $20. So he grudgingly and painfully puts it in his wallet. Making sure to separate it from the other bills. Because his wallet will stay segregated. It’s the least he can do. The only tiny victory he can muster. And, as he walks out — day ruined — he angrily gulps his latte. But he forgets the latte is hot and burns his throat. And he leaves the store yelping “Damn you, Harriet! Damn you to the Hell you came from!”

And then he finishes his shift at Office Max.

See that?

Openly, this monkey is praising the bill as a way to attack Whites.

Not a way to celebrate any alleged Black achievement.

Damon Young

If Blacks actually cared about that, they would be enraged that some random human trafficker from a hundred and something years ago they’ve never even heard of is being put on the bill instead of Mike Tyson or Charlie Parker.

You would think Treasury Secretary Jack Lew’s decision to replace Andrew Jackson with Harriet Tubman on the twenty-dollar bill would have provoked a massive conservative backlash. But you would be underestimating the extent and speed of Conservatism Inc.’s transformation into Cuckservatism Inc.—submitting to, and even slobbering over, the very forces it is nominally pledged to resist.

Some individuals, notably Donald Trump, along with some of his high profile supporters and sympathizers like Pat Buchanan, Ben Carson, Greta Van Susteren, and Ann Coulter did indeed oppose Lew’s move.

However, when Donald Trump called the move “pure political correctness,” Red State’s  Leon Wolf [Email him] said that it was “evident that he is once again signaling to his white supremacist basis of support” [Trump’s Hypocrisy on Harriet Tubman “Political Correctness” Proves that he is Actively Courting Racists, April 21, 2016]

And Republican consultant Liz Mair (the woman responsible for ads featuring semi-nude photos of Melania Trump) similarly tweeted that Trump’s opposition to Tubman was designed to court “white nationalists.”

So Trump's upset about Harriet Tubman going on the $20 bill? Wow. I didn't see that pander to white nationalists coming…

— Liz Mair (@LizMair) April 21, 2016

Reality check: If opposing Tubman on Political Correctness grounds makes you a “white supremacist,” then even the most tepid neoconservatives of 20 years ago were far more racist than Trump.

Trump, after all, still stipulated that Tubman was “fantastic” and suggested she might deserve a place on U.S. currency—just not at the expense of Jackson. But back in 1992, when the National Endowment for Humanities created the National Standards for United States History, Lynne Cheney (Dick’s wife and former chair of the National Endowment for Humanities) objected that Tubman simply did not merit the attention she was getting:

Harriet Tubman, an African-American who helped rescue slaves by way of the Underground Railroad, is mentioned six times. Two white males who were contemporaries of Tubman, Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee, get one and zero mentions, respectively. Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, Jonas Salk and the Wright brothers make no appearance at all.

[The End of History, Wall Street Journal October 20, 1994]

Stanley Rothman, Althea K. Nagai, and Robert Lerner wrote a critique of high school textbooks, Molding the Good Citizen, which leading neoconservatives like Nathan Glazer and Cheney endorsed enthusiastically. The authors criticized texts that they said were responsible for “more students knowing about Harriet Tubman than George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Joseph Stalin, or Winston Churchill.” The pre-purge National Review summarized their critique by writing that textbooks were “bowing to feminism and left-wing black politics by overstating the importance of such historical figures as Harriet Tubman.” [Battle of the Books, by Mark Gerson, August 14, 1995].

William J. Bennett similarly complained that “something approaching 85 percent of the 17 year olds in America know who Harriet Tubman is, while only about one-third of our high school seniors can place the Civil War in the right half century” [The War Over Culture in Education, Heritage Foundation, September 5, 1991].

As Catherine Clinton observed in her 2004 biography, Harriet Tubman: The Road to Freedom, “Tubman’s name became a hot button for conservative critics, and she became a symbolic ‘whipping girl’ for political correctness.” Similarly, in his 2007 book, Harriet Tubman: Myth, Memory, and History, Milton C. Sernett similarly noted that “Tubman had become the iconic embodiment of African American history –‘politically correct’ on two counts: race and gender.”

If anything, Establishment conservatives should now be more skeptical of elevating Tubman than they were in the 1990s. Although she had by then become a major figure in high school textbooks and in dozens of children’s biographies based largely on the Communist Earl Conrad’s propagandistic exhumation of her in the 1930s, no historian had written a serious biography of her until the early 2000s [The Moses Of Her People, by James M. McPherson, New York Review of Books, March 11, 2004, subscriber link. See also James Fulford’s Harriet Tubman—Gun-Toting Republican, Delusional Narcoleptic, And/Or Creation Of Communist Propaganda? May 15, 2015]. These biographies, including Clinton’s and Sennett’s cited above, found that many of Tubman’s already meager accomplishments had been exaggerated or even invented.

Instead, however, the vast majority of Conservatism Inc. commentators have chosen to celebrate this latest effort to make Tubman equal, if not superior, to the Founding Fathers and other white male heroes. Whereas Respectable Right commentators of just a couple decades ago complained about Tubman’s overemphasis in textbooks, Eli Lehrer [Email him] claims at National Review that the radical Tubman was more important than “the description of her as an ‘Underground Railroad conductor’ that appears in my son’s elementary-school materials and many popular accounts of her life.” Lehrer concludes:

Harriet Tubman was a black, Republican, gun-toting, veterans’ activist, with ninja-like spy skills and strong Christian beliefs. She probably wouldn’t have an ounce of patience for the obtuse posturing of some of the tenured radicals hanging around Ivy League faculty lounges.

[What They Didn’t Teach You in School about Harriet Tubman, April 21, 2016]

Where once for conservatives Tubman was “a symbolic ‘whipping girl’ for political correctness,” National Review just ran a blog post Harriet Tubman Is a Great Choice, Not a Politically Correct One [by Jim Geraghty, April 21, 2016]. And National Review’s Charles Cooke tweeted “What is ‘politically correct’ about a gun-toting Christian revolutionary who helped John Brown and willfully defied federal law?”

Needless to say, National Review Editor Rich Lowry [Email him] is especially effusive about Tubman—sample quotes:

• “Literally a freedom fighter.”
• “A biopic-worthy life of bravery and idealism”
• “Tubman is inarguably an exemplary figure”
• “The “Moses” of the Underground Railroad”
• “A biopic-worthy life of bravery and idealism”
• “A symbol of all the nameless persons held in bondage in early America”

What’s In Your Wallet, NRO, April 22, 2016

While the neoconservatives once complained that Tubman was elevated to be equal to the founders and great Americans of the Civil war, Cooke [Email him] now asserts on Twitter that Tubman was indeed as important: “Harriet Tubman was a freedom fighter in just the way that the Founders were. Same North Star. Same ‘promissory note.’ Even higher stakes.”

Red State’s Leon Wolf even suggests that Tubman was as, or even more consequential, than Lincoln and Grant, in the fight to save the Union and abolish slavery.

There are so many figures who were central to our great Civil War, both in the military sense (like Grant) and the political sense (like Lincoln). But the Civil War was, at bottom, a spiritual fight. It was won on the battlefields of Shiloh and Gettysburg, but these battles would never have been fought if not for the inspirational figures like Frederick Douglass, John Brown, and Harriet Tubman.

[Harriet Tubman is an Excellent Choice for the $20 Bill, Red State, April 20, 2016]

It would take volumes to debunk all the myths about Tubman, but it’s worth noting that her new Conservatism Inc. fans particularly tout her fervent Christianity. But as James M. McPherson noted, she suffered from a head injury which caused “what her biographers variously term ‘temporal lobe epilepsy’ or ‘narcolepsy’ or possibly ‘cataplexy.’” And as Kate Clifford Larson explains it in her biography of Tubman, Bound for the Promised Land: Harriet Tubman, Portrait of an American Hero, Tubman’s head injury “coincided with an explosion of religious enthusiasm,” driven by a “lifetime of potent dreams and visions that, she claimed, foretold the future.” In any other historical figure, this apparent heterodoxy would generate as much unease as Mitt Romney’s Mormonism. But Conservatism Inc. needs it to sway the rubes.

When Big Brother finally breaks Winston Smith in George Orwell’s 1984, Smith does not acknowledge defeat. Instead, he describes his prior hatred of Big Brother as a “cruel, needless misunderstanding”. The novel ends: “It was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.”

This pathetic Conservatism Inc. embrace of Tubman is no different. Rather than fight for principles they professed to believe just a few years ago, they have “won a victory” over themselves. In defeat, they have elected to believe they are victorious.

If we had  men  like Rich Lowry instead of Andrew Jackson during the Seminole Wars or the War of 1812, they’d be pretending that the Scott Massacre or burning down the White House was their idea.

Donald Trump, Glorious Leader of the White Race, has come out and defended our heritage against the vicious Jews who are plotting to replace Glorious Leader (1828) with a talking monkey on the $20 bill.

New York Post:

Donald Trump on Thursday called Andrew Jackson’s ouster from the $20 bill an act of “pure political correctness” and said Old Hickory should stay put — even if it means printing a new currency denomination.

“Andrew Jackson had a great history. I think it’s very rough when you take somebody off the bill,” Trump told NBC’s “Today” show. “Andrew Jackson had a history of tremendous success for the country.”

…

“Yes, I think it’s pure political correctness (to replace Jackson). (He’s) been on the bill for many, many years and really represented somebody that was really very important to this country.”

The face of Jackson, a slave-holder who was America’s seventh president and who has been roundly criticized in modern times for forcing Native Americans off their land, will be bumped to the back of the $20s when new bills are designed and unveiled in 2020, officials announced Wednesday.

The only reason GL (1828) forced those savages off “their” land is to protect the White people they kept attacking and slaughtering. They were killing kids, raping and killing women – it was a horrorshow with these tree-monkeys.

So when anyone says Jackson was wrong for removing corn stew, what they are actually saying is that more White children and women should have been murdered by these red barbarians.

And these idiot Blacks whining about it know absolutely nothing. Jackson defended Negroes as well as Whites from the red menace. During the War of 1812, at the Battle at Fort Mims, this terrorist Tecumseh sent his half-breed generals, Peter McQueen and William Weatherford, in to slaughter all the unarmed Black slaves along with the Whites.

The Red Sticks – Tecumseh’s Creek Indian terrorist group led by the higher-IQ half-breeds – were ISIS-tier. Jackson put them down, but didn’t slaughter all of them like he obviously should have, and a bunch of them – including Weatherford – escaped and joined Seminole terrorists in Florida.

And Jackson himself was half-SJW. When Weatherford eventually surrendered, he didn’t have him executed, instead letting him move to Alabama and return to his initial profession as a plantation owner. Negro slave plantation owner, by the way.

Jackson also adopted a red Indian child, apparently due to White guilt. The boy was an orphan from the war he won against the Creek terrorists. He raised the boy beside his own biological son, and even tried to get him into West Point before he died.

So honestly, there is nothing anyone can complain about with this man – whether you’re a racist or an SJW, there are things to admire in him.

But he was a strong White male, so much be destroyed – burned on the alter of Black Justice.

[See also: “It’s Time”—For Affirmative Action-Currency to Symbolize Affirmative-Action Post America]

Occasionally, one gets the feeling that the Main Stream Media doesn’t actually do anything but reprint the press releases of various lefty organizations, the more asinine the better. Thus, following the results of an online poll in which Harriet Tubman defeated Eleanor Roosevelt by 118,328 votes to 111,227, one Dawn Dugle at USA Today screeched, “America wants Harriet Tubman on $20 bill“ [May 12, 2015].

Actually, one random activist organization generating clickbait content for an increasingly frivolous MSM wants Tubman on the $20. And the reason it wants Tubman on the $20 is because she was black and because it is a useful way to remind everyone of how evil, racist, and guilty America has always been.

Will this image be staring up from your wallet anytime soon?  Probably. What’s to stop Obama from declaring it so? As the USA Today article points out,

It doesn’t take an “Act of Congress” – it just requires the Secretary of the Treasury to make the change.

That man is Jack Lew, appointed by President Obama, and confirmed by the Senate in 2013.

Women on 20s hopes the more than 600,000 voters in the online campaign will convince the President to use his influence and make it happen.

America made Obama President because he was black (though it didn’t make his wife any happier). America may soon make Hillary Clinton President because she’s a woman. Why not put Tubman on the $20 because she’s a black woman?

The historic American nation could use the reminder they are ruled by people that despise them. Clumsy Soviet style agitprop may just be what Middle America to awaken to its occupation and remember who is actually responsible for creating and sustaining this country.

Andrew Jackson, a war hero, a populist, a strong leader, and an opponent of centralized power (and central banking) to boot, doesn’t really have the same appeal anymore. He actually did things, possessed agency, and strengthened the country.

Today, the way to be famous, moral, and powerful is to claim things you could never have created yourself and display your weakness and ineptitude as a moral claim on the accomplishments of others. It’s not that Andrew Jackson doesn’t fit modern America. It’s that modern America doesn’t deserve Andrew Jackson.