We are the only site on the web devoted exclusively to intellectual conservatism. We find the most intriguing information and bring it together on one page for you.

Home
Articles
Headlines
Links we recommend
Feedback
Link to us
Free email update
About us
What's New & Interesting
Mailing Lists
Intellectual Icons
Submissions













 

Coloring A Lot Of The Truth
by Frederick B. Meekins
04 January 2003 

Looking back at the Trent Lott scandal: 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.

Recently Congressional 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 credentials.

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 the married?

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 .

Since 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 buzzard.

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.

Copyright 2002 by
Frederick B. Meekins
American WorldView Dispatch
http://americanworldview.tripod.com