leaders gathered to celebrate the centennial of one of the nation’s
most esteemed political personalities. Little did those assembled know
this otherwise jovial event would spark the most disputed controversy
of the past year.
In his now famous remarks, Senator Lott joked at this collegial gathering,
“I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for
president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest
of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these
problems over all these years, either.” Little did the Majority
Leader realize this lighthearted jest would unlock a Pandora’s Box
containing the numerous assumptions and sentiments elites would rather
not have discussed or analyzed.
Most of the criticisms of Lott’s comments fail to contextualize
them to the historical era drawn into focus and fall short in adhering
to a set of principles those raising this ruckus agree to apply objectively
across the board without out first referencing an individual’s multiculturalist
From the reaction to what was said, one would assume Lott had suggested
Black folk belong out in the fields singing songs and picking cotton while
he sits on the porch in a white Col Sanders suit sipping sun tea. These
criticisms by multicultural zealots betray an ignorance of history usually
reserved for public school teachers.
While few would find actual segregation beyond simply disagreeing with
the entrenched civil rights bureaucracy morally acceptable today, if one
is going to throw themselves into conniption over comments barely alluding
such conditions, one should at least take the time to understand some
of the reasons behind the Dixiecrat response to the social pressures afoot
in America in 1948. After all, relativists urge us to suspend judgment
when confronted with other anthropological outrages such as Eskimos eating
their elderly; don’t Southerners deserve the same kind of respect?
The positions taken by the Dixiecrats were more a stance against Communism
than about blatant hostility towards Blacks. It must be remembered at
that time world Bolshevism was on the prowl sniping at various social
issues in the hopes of igniting a full-scale revolution with the hopes
of destroying America’s constitutional republic.
John Stormer in Death of A Nation pointed out that in 1925 the Communist
Party, USA promoted the following attitude regarding racial agitation:
“The aim of our party ... among the Negro masses ... is to create
a ... movement which will fight and lead the struggle of the Negro race...”
FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover saw the Communists accomplishing this goal
in the following manner: “Communists seek to advance the cause of
Communism by injecting themselves into racial situations ... (1) to intensify
the friction between Negroes and Whites...(2) to foster domestic disunity
by dividing Negroes and whites into antagonistic warring factions, (3)
to undermine and destroy established authority, (4) to incite Negro hostility
towards law and order, (5) to encourage and foment racial strife and riotous
activity, .. and (6) to portray the Communist movement as the only force
capable of ameliorating the conditions of the Negro..”
So even though at the time Senator Thurmond overstated his case somewhat
in declaring that Whites of the South would not allow Blacks into their
homes and churches, his fears of ethnosociomanipulation were not without
legitimacy in light of the conspiratorial attempts to impose a totalitarian
government upon the United States bent on transforming every sector of
society in its own image.
In their attempt to position themselves in the feeding-frenzy as to who
among Conservative ranks appeared the least “racist”, the
Family Research Council asked, “And what are these ’problems’
Sen. Lott suggests would have been eliminated had a segregationist been
elected president?” There are quite a few actually.
It must be remembered that Strom Thurmond was only one man and as such
he could not have stopped the tides of history. However, as such he could
have channeled them into a more constructive course.
It has been said that only Nixon could go to China, meaning it takes a
strong hand to negotiate a fair deal for all parties. Had someone like
Strom Thurmond assumed the office of Chief Executive back then, a settlement
might have been worked out where Black folks would have eventually gotten
the rights due them such as free speech and to make free market transactions
and Whites would not have had to put up with an incessantly growing list
of demands that can never be satisfied nor should be under traditional
conceptions of justice.
Having now achieved equality with Whites, radicals today agitate for outlandish
reparations checks. Had a President been more willing to put a gentle
but firm foot down back then, the likes of Julian Bond and Randall Robinson
might be more appreciative of the freedoms they and “their people”
enjoy today. Had Whites developed more of a backbone back then dealing
with these kinds of issues, then maybe today this country wouldn’t
be facing an overwhelming flood of immigration that imperils our very
linguistic survival and cultural well-being but about which very few are
willing to speak out against.
Lott’s critics aren’t confining their condemnation to the
recent comment. They are instead dragging up things from nearly 20 and
30 years in the past, in particular Lott’s defense of Bob Jones’
tax exemption despite the universities prohibition against interracial
dating at that time.
What business should the aforementioned restrictions on courtship be of
the government anyway? Are we going to penalize religious institutions
every time one pursues an opinion contrary to the sensibilities of the
prevailing elite but in no way infringes upon matters of public safety?
Should we snatch the tax exemption from the Catholic Church because it
only allows single priests, thus “discriminating” against
Frankly, one wonders what the big deal is anyway. No one was forced to
attend BJU. Left to themselves, to the chagrin of social engineers, most
people tend to seek companionship within their own phenotype.
Most of the elites elevating this issue to an obscene level of importance
don’t even live around any Black people, much less interact with
enough of them to end up marrying one. I don’t remember running
in to Ted Kennedy at Prince George’s Plaza in the Maryland suburbs
or the day Jack Kemp moved in down the street.
Even more odious though than any offense Senator Lott is alleged to have
uttered is the outright hypocrisy reveled in by those making the biggest
fuss about Lott’s comments. Such paragons of cross-cultural enlightenment
are themselves guilty of far-more serious transgressions against uprightness,
propriety, and even morality itself than Lott‘s romatization of
the past in his misconstrued attempt to honor an accomplished colleague
he brought the ethical authority of his office to bear against the former
majority leader and did little to come to the defense of a former ally,
perhaps we should first turn our scrutiny toward the President of the
United States himself. If Lott’s praise of Thurmond’s past
equates with things in that past no longer acceptable among civilized
men, then shouldn’t the President be held to the same standard?
If so, perhaps it should be George W. Bush who should be called upon to
resign as well.
Earlier in 2002, George W. Bush awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom
to former South African President Nelson Mandela. This octogenarian is
hardly the cuddly hoary-haired grandfather figure as portrayed in mainstream
academic and media circles.
In fact, Mandela could very well be one of this nation’s most wily
adversaries. For while most Americans readily exhibit proper contempt
for the likes of Saddam Hussein and Yasir Arafat, Nelson Mandela has ingratiated
himself to ruling liberals to such a degree that it almost approaches
blasphemy to say anything negative about the man. That certainly hasn’t
stopped him, however, from speaking ill about the United States by snuggling
up to our most implacable enemies.
This world leader is such a friend of the U.S. that he has openly sided
with our enemies in reference to the war against terrorism. Back in June,
Mandela expressed sympathy for the Libyan operative convicted in the Lockerbie
bombing, claiming this poor soul is subject to cruel and unusual punishment
because he has no one to talk to (it should be remembered those who lost
someone in that tragedy can‘t talk to their loved ones either).
It must be noted that Nelson and his former love Winnie possess links
to the practice of necklacing where tires soaked in gasoline are put around
the necks of opponents and set on fire --- can’t get much more cruel
and unusual than that.
Mandela is not the only rabble rouser from the Dark Continent making overtures
of questionable sensitivity against those of Caucasian origins. In Zimbabwe,
that countries President Mugabe is engaging in a spate of persecution
that would warm Hitler’s cackles, violently seizing lands from Whites
in his own campaign of Lebensraum and deliberately starving other Black
tribes. But it must be remembered that such things simply don’t
compare in importance to birthday party remarks.
If you don’t really care much about Africa and are more concerned
about hypocrisy on the home front, there’s plenty to keep you entertained
here as well. Ironically, most of it stems comes from those squealing
the loudest over Lott’s alleged vocal impropriety.
New House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said of this affair, “Lott
can apologize all he wants. It doesn’t remove the sentiment that
escaped from his mouth that day.” Maybe this same reaction should
be applied to Representative Pelosi, and in so doing we learn that she
is a far greater threat to America than Trent Lott could ever be. If birds
of a feather really do flock together, then Nancy Pelosi is one wicked
According to WorldNetDailycom, Pelosi is a leader of a faction within
the House of Representatives called The Progressive Caucus. This group
has worked closely with the Democratic Socialists of America, which according
to the WorldNetDaily article, fancies a tune with the following lyrics:
“Bourgeoisie.. We’ll kill you all with knives and guns.”
So in this woman’s warped mind, you’d better dare not step
on a Black person’s delicate feelings but there is nothing wrong
whatsoever with inciting acts of violence against middle class Americans.
Of the Republican Party’s lack of a backbone in the response to
the reaction against Senator Lott, NewsMax.com mused, “On second
thought, maybe Trent Lott should accede to Jesse Jackson’s demands
and resign. After all, any party that has this much ammunition and continues
to allow itself to be browbeaten on race without firing back probably
doesn’t deserve to lead.” Likewise, any society that so readily
acquiesces to the demands of its most disreputable malcontents exhibits
disturbing symptoms that it may be exuding its last breath before passing
into the graveyard of history.
Frederick B. Meekins
American WorldView Dispatch