← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Faust
Thread ID: 3989 | Posts: 10 | Started: 2002-12-13
2002-12-13 03:50 | User Profile
So What If Thurmond (Or Goldwater) Had Been Elected?
By Sam Francis
For one brief shining moment, it was beginning to look like Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott was taking hormone shots. First he endorsed sending troops to the border to resist invasion by illegal aliens. Then, last week, at a birthday party for 100-year-old Sen. Strom Thurmond, he virtually endorsed the South Carolina senator's presidential campaign 54 years ago?as a segregationist.
Mr. Lott has now apologized at least twice and cringed and groveled appropriately for saying something that deviates from egalitarian dogmas, but whether Mr. Thurmond's distinguished colleague from Mississippi was trying to utter some serious thoughts or had just swallowed too much eggnog at the birthday bash seems an open question.
No sooner had his words escaped the senatorial lips than he was denounced by Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the Washington Post editorial page, and?the world's greatest expert on What Should Have Been?Al Gore. Alerted by the baying of the leftist pack from which they take their cues, neo-conservatives like the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol and the failed and forgotten Jack Kemp soon chimed in. [VDARE.COM update: THIS JUST IN! President Bush has joined Sharpton, Jackson, Kristol and Kemp in denouncing Lott, although he seems more willing to accept Lott?s apology.]
Mr. Jackson demanded that Mr. Lott resign as Majority Leader, while Mr. Sharpton denounced his remarks as "blatant racism" and vowed to wage a national campaign against him. Mr. Gore, in his ponderous way, held that what Mr. Lott said was "fundamentally racist," "divisive," and "divisive along racial lines."
But of course, Mr. Lott said nothing whatever about race. and never even mentioned race at all. What exactly he did say was:
"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."
What exactly Mr. Lott meant by his remarks remains unclear, but several different interpretations of them are possible, and Mr. Lott and his defenders have invoked all of them. Nevertheless, what Mr. Thurmond's States Rights Party mainly stood for was racial segregation, and Mr. Lott knows that. The party was set up in protest of the Truman administration's endorsement of legislation against segregation, and those who supported the Thurmond candidacy?nearly 1.2 million voters?almost certainly did so because they supported segregation.
So, was Mr. Lott right? If the rest of the country had voted for Strom Thurmond in 1948, would we "have had all these problems over all these years"? Well, you never know, of course, but probably not.
In the first place, had Strom Thurmond been elected president in 1948, such paragons of legal reasoning as Earl Warren and William Brennan would never have seen the inside of the Supreme Court. Not only Brown v. Board but also the Miranda, Escobedo, and several other major decisions that revolutionized American government and tossed much of the Constitution in the office shredder would never have soiled the law books. Judicial precedents that consolidated the Court's immense power today would never have been established.
Mr. Lott should ask his critics if it would be OK to say he wishes Barry Goldwater had been elected president in 1964. Mr. Goldwater, though not a segregationist, voted against civil rights legislation for precisely the same reasons Mr. Thurmond gave?it violated states rights.
Would racial segregation have survived? De jure segregation was eroding in the southern states anyway. De facto, most sociologists will tell you the nation's schools today are at least as segregated as they were in the 1950s. So are housing patterns. So what? People of the same race tend to prefer each other's company.
But what we almost certainly would not have enjoyed had Mr. Thurmond become president are the fruits of forced racial integration as it was imposed in later decades: the tidal wave of black crime against whites that is now commonplace; black race riots from Detroit and Watts to Los Angeles in 1992; the virtual destruction of American cities as a black underclass, protected by the federal government, pushed out whites terrified for their own lives and those of their families; the destruction of American education and the transformation of the schools into day-time prison camps for hoodlums. No forced busing; no affirmative action; no "hate crime" hypocrisy; no "Afrocentric" or "multiculturalist" garbage poured into our children's heads. Probably no mass immigration. No self-hate for whites. No guilt. No fear.
In fact, had the conservatism of a younger Strom Thurmond prevailed, there's little reason to doubt the United States and much of the rest of the world would be better off than they are today under the reign of terror and chaos that prevails as the chief legacy of liberalism.
Instead of denouncing Mr. Lott, Americans?liberal and conservative, black and white?ought to think hard about the important and unsettling truth he accidentally uttered.
COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
If you want to email or print out, format by clicking on this permanent URL: [url=http://www.vdare.com/francis/lott.htm]http://www.vdare.com/francis/lott.htm[/url]
Related threads:
So What If Thurmond (Or Goldwater) Had Won? [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=3&t=4868]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...t=ST&f=3&t=4868[/url]
Lott under fire [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=3&t=4779]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...t=ST&f=3&t=4779[/url]
Vacant Lott -The GOP and the Ghosts of Mississippi [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=3&t=4845]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...t=ST&f=3&t=4845[/url]
More Lott [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=3&t=4854]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...t=ST&f=3&t=4854[/url]
2002-12-13 13:56 | User Profile
Originally posted by Faust@Dec 12 2002, 22:50 **But what we almost certainly would not have enjoyed had Mr. Thurmond become president are the fruits of forced racial integration as it was imposed in later decades: the tidal wave of black crime against whites that is now commonplace; black race riots from Detroit and Watts to Los Angeles in 1992; the virtual destruction of American cities as a black underclass, protected by the federal government, pushed out whites terrified for their own lives and those of their families; the destruction of American education and the transformation of the schools into day-time prison camps for hoodlums. No forced busing; no affirmative action; no "hate crime" hypocrisy; no "Afrocentric" or "multiculturalist" garbage poured into our children's heads. Probably no mass immigration. No self-hate for whites. No guilt. No fear.
In fact, had the conservatism of a younger Strom Thurmond prevailed, there's little reason to doubt the United States and much of the rest of the world would be better off than they are today under the reign of terror and chaos that prevails as the chief legacy of liberalism.
Instead of denouncing Mr. Lott, Americans, liberal and conservative, black and white, ought to think hard about the important and unsettling truth he accidentally uttered.
**
Excellent Francis. Many, many Americans secretly and maybe overtly agree with Trent Lott. I know I certainly do, and I know Francis does too. Lott spoke the truth, things would've been better if the country rejected intergration. Let's face it. I just want to see Lott take this opportunity to buck the system and become a maverick.
Trent Lott and Tom Tancredo, 2004 anyone?????
2002-12-13 16:04 | User Profile
These kinds of flareups have of late been able to burn for a moment, then die down. Perhaps with no major terrorist incident to flog mercilessly, the press needs to fix on this one to keep the cycle driving.
But the way this story lit up, then kept flaming and building has to be the result of overt inner party manipulation- isn't that obvious to the general public? Isn't it likely that the speed and detail of the original reports- and the heavy volume of followups- indicate an inside campaign against Lott?
I think Lott needs to look at his staff and find out who is pulling a Roy Cohn. And if he weathers this storm he should start doing some deep research on the Bush family history- although with his tepid response to this lynching, it may well be that some other closet skeletons are being rattled by his enemies in case he decides to show some guts and fight.
2002-12-13 16:47 | User Profile
But the way this story lit up, then kept flaming and building has to be the result of overt inner party manipulation-isn't that obvious to the general public? Isn't it likely that the speed and detail of the original reports- and the heavy volume of followups- indicate an inside campaign against Lott?
weisbrot,
This may very well be the case. The "follow-up" story is a favorite device the media can use to keep the pressure on someone and stoke the fires.
I was privy to certain events that showed me that, once. The details aren't important, but the broad outlines and methods I witnessed are noteworthy, though, because they are recurring patterns one sees all the time.
The AP news service attempted to resurrect a local story that had died down, months later after the event. They were unable to run a "follow up" (the precise term the reporter used) because the story was dead and there was nothing more to say--the issue had become irrelevant. I learned a lot from the very fact that the reporter was inquiring, though.
What I found most interesting is the specific amount of time that had elapsed between the time of the original event and the time the "follow up" was to be printed. The timing would have been designed to keep a politically-charged issue afloat artificially, by stretching things out over the long haul. I had no choice but to conclude that someone, somewhere with an agenda had their contacts in the media launch their "follow up," (since things otherwise would have naturally been forgotten) and the timing was not coincidental. It was a clear case of media agenda-setting, manufacturing crises so that they can report on them, and serve their political agenda at the same time.
In Lott's case, because of the political circumstances, TPTB seek to compress the "follow ups" into one continuous crisis designed to drive Lott from office. It's the very opposite of what I saw, where they had spaced it out, but it's still the same effect and the same goals they're after, just tailored to the particular situation.
2002-12-13 18:16 | User Profile
Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Dec 13 2002, 12:47 ** This may very well be the case. The "follow-up" story is a favorite device the media can use to keep the pressure on someone and stoke the fires.
I was privy to certain events that showed me that, once. The details aren't important, but the broad outlines and methods I witnessed are noteworthy, though, because they are recurring patterns one sees all the time. **
As have probably many of us here, I've also had some inside witness to similar events. The story from Chronicles, below, details what happened to our minister when he stood up to a local chosenite rabbi. What the article doesn't reveal is the depth of the hatred thrown at Mickler, and the absolute complicity in the hate campaign against him by the local newspaper and TV/radio media. Outright and absolute lies by the good rabbi were published unquestioningly. Dr. Mickler surprisingly survived the onslaught, due at least in part to the very strong support of the church.
Since re-reading this story has my blood boiling once again, I may repost it as a topic in Culture Wars if no one objects. This episode was what led to my own awakening to what is happening in our culture and why.
VITAL SIGNS: RELIGION
Gods of Inclusion by Mark Tooley [url=http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/November2001/1101Tooley.htm]http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicl.../1101Tooley.htm[/url]
Although America remains overwhelmingly Christian in affiliation (if not necessarily in practice), the connoisseurs of multiculturalism like to pretend otherwiseóoften rather insistently. Public events involving religion must acknowledge Zoroaster and Zeus as much as Moses and Jesus. Multiculturalists find claims about the exclusive truth of any religion, particularly Christianity, especially offensive. They eagerly denounce as a bigot any Christian or Jew who insists on adhering to the First or Second Commandment, even within the confines of his own community.
This attitude, although supposedly sensitive and inclusive, is really insulting to the true believers of any religion. The underlying assumption is that either all religions are equally true or no religion is really true. Multiculturalists have faith in multiculturalism, but little else. And they jealously practice their own inquisitions to guard the dogmas of their secular faith.
One such inquisition was recently waged against a Methodist minister in Marietta, Georgia. For seven years, the Rev. Randy MicklerÃÂs 6,300-member Mt. Bethel United Methodist Church has hosted the baccalaureate service for the graduating seniors of Walton High School. The service, which is a voluntary event for the students, has been Christian.
This year, members of the high schoolÃÂs baccalaureate committee wanted to alter that focus. They requested that Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and even Wiccans be incorporated into the service and that Christian symbols in the sanctuary, including the cross, be covered and references to Jesus Christ be omitted. A rabbi was also invited to deliver the sermon.
Mickler agreed to the last request, although he insisted that the rabbi speak from a podium instead of the pulpit, which is reserved for Gospel preachers only. As for Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and Wiccan involvement, Mickler said no. He also firmly rejected disguising the church's Christian identity.
FULL STORY AT THE LINK
2002-12-13 22:01 | User Profile
Spread the word, Weisbrot.
2002-12-14 20:01 | User Profile
A revealing story, weisbrot. The power of personal testimony and experience should not be underestimated.
These events seem to be touching people's lives with increasing frequency, and much of it in the public eye, such as the mob lynching of Trent Lott. I wonder how many times things like this have to happen before a critical mass is formed that prompts people to take action against it.
A thick blanket of thought-monitoring and speech control has descended upon the American people. Many Americans strike me as apathetic in the way they perceive and respond to these events--events that really are open attacks on them and their way of life. Maybe a lot of them think this is something they see happen to people on TV or in the newspapers. They need to get the message that these things can easily happen to them.
2002-12-15 04:03 | User Profile
Weisbrot, this is off-the-charts important. Thanks for it. But there are deep difficultites, not only with the Methodist pastor's accomodation of the multiculturalist's demand, but with the Chronicles' analysis of it as "preaching Christ" vrs. "PC".
"Political correctness" has become one of those undefined terms whose usefulness depends on what it negates, but is negated when that is misdefined.
The good pastor should go further: he not only, internally, refuses to let them take away his inner spiritual bond with his calling, and congregation; he tells them their behavior has proven its intrinsic superiority. Explaining, if asked why, the New Testament.
From there, he can take it anywere he, or his children, or his congregation, or the children of his congregation, want to take it, but that is where it stands.
If they wanted to enter his church doors, or park on his property anymore, they would be required to worship the true God. He can keep his own language clean, but if he wants others to speak for him objectively, I would be happy to go down and ask, bullhorn, Why should he be requried to kiss their ass? This is another ultimate reversal-issue that can't be allowed to slide by untagged, even though it doesn't cut just the way its drawn -- but almost. The principle I see is: the community's multiculturalism over riding the religiously experienced reality of the church sancturary, itself, and what it means, and has meant, that it exists.
The Jew must be made to understand, in dealing with Christians on any level, in my opinion, that there is something he/she isn't getting, which you have, and they don't. They don't see that, but a part of them knows its true. It is that part that seeks confirmation, the way immigrants seek "America", as Brimelow pointed out. To provide confirmation certainly need not be harsh, but it becomes so, and quickly, if taken advantage of, so that what might be given by grace, if the spirit moves, is demanded under law.
The pastor has bred hate, in the long run, by not being more abrasive, now. Just like Lott apologizing. Its not a passing thing. It defines the situation. John Wayne Lott, pride of the Old South. That's what the in-fighting was about -- how to handle the South, and Methodist pastors who might get out of line. Its called R-e-p-u-b-l-i-c-a-n politcs, run behind the scenes by the same pathological liars and psychotic killers that pulled off Vietnam, via Nixon.
What do they think we are? (we=Protestant Christians)
2002-12-16 17:54 | User Profile
Originally posted by wombatnine@Dec 15 2002, 00:03 **But there are deep difficultites, not only with the Methodist pastor's accomodation of the multiculturalist's demand, but with the Chronicles' analysis of it as "preaching Christ" vrs. "PC".
"Political correctness" has become one of those undefined terms whose usefulness depends on what it negates, but is negated when that is misdefined.
The good pastor should go further: he not only, internally, refuses to let them take away his inner spiritual bond with his calling, and congregation; he tells them their behavior has proven its intrinsic superiority. Explaining, if asked why, the New Testament.
From there, he can take it anywere he, or his children, or his congregation, or the children of his congregation, want to take it, but that is where it stands.
If they wanted to enter his church doors, or park on his property anymore, they would be required to worship the true God. He can keep his own language clean, but if he wants others to speak for him objectively, I would be happy to go down and ask, bullhorn, Why should he be requried to kiss their ass? This is another ultimate reversal-issue that can't be allowed to slide by untagged, even though it doesn't cut just the way its drawn -- but almost. The principle I see is: the community's multiculturalism over riding the religiously experienced reality of the church sancturary, itself, and what it means, and has meant, that it exists.
The pastor has bred hate, in the long run, by not being more abrasive, now. Just like Lott apologizing. Its not a passing thing. It defines the situation. John Wayne Lott, pride of the Old South. That's what the in-fighting was about -- how to handle the South, and Methodist pastors who might get out of line. **
Very good points. Lott's situation has little to do with two-party partisan politics and everything to do with furthering the cultural marxist multicult agenda. Similarly, this minister had been identified as a target and was set up not by a youthful MTV zealot but almost certainly by organized groups operating against the interests of white Western culture.
Which three-letter acronym comes to mind, in both cases?
I think the response, some of which is below, was at least adequate. The story in Chronicles had a bit of spin applied by Tooley for his own purposes, but in my opinion the response- which was given to an open congregation- was anything but accomodating. As for the misuse of the term "PC", I've heard the minister define it fairly well in other contexts and addresses. I'm not sure that delving into Frankfurt School topics would be an accessible approach. And I have no idea if he would agree with the assertion that PC unleashed by an ethnic group as an offensive weapon, although of course it was. But he generally gets it right when describing the effects and agenda of PC.
Take a look at the full sermon, and note the words directed to the Ohio and Indiana UMC. This kind of response takes the sort of brass not seen in the faltering Catholic church (or elsewhere in the UMC, for that matter) or anywhere in politics.
The measure of success in this instance is whether or not the media attack dogs are called off, to my mind. And this incident was allowed to fade away, once the press mongrels had seen their prey could bite back. I'm not so sure that will be the case with Lott.
[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=14&t=4886]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...=ST&f=14&t=4886[/url]
*My single purpose as an ordained minister in the United Methodist Church is to preach Christ. Political correctness is not a deity here...
I am not obliged nor are you to sacrifice our faith in order to accommodate the faith of non-Christians. In the past few weeks, I have been asked to pray in this church but not use the name Jesus Christ. Iââ¬â¢ve been asked to cover the crosses in the church because they might be offensive to non-believers...Iââ¬â¢ve said ââ¬Ånoââ¬Â to each one of these requests. Itââ¬â¢s absolutely amazing to me how people who push tolerance will push anything except tolerance of Christian faith even when it is expressed within its own church. There is no hatred in any way for anyone who does not profess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. I am the senior pastor of this church and until my ordination has been changed, my ordination as a minister of Jesus Christ means I will decide who preaches from this pulpit and who does not. The past four days, I have been attacked, slandered and lied about by every media available and for whatââ¬âbecause I dare to preach Christ and Him alone...
Jesus Christ is the personification of God and any exclusion of Him in a sermon distorts Godââ¬â¢s word according to my faith. Itââ¬â¢s amazing, the media is willing to publish any story that you think might attract the most attention regardless of the validity of the story...
Youââ¬â¢d never allow the details of the matter to get in your way. I wonder why havenââ¬â¢t you printed or broadcast anything about the failure of rabbis across our nation to allow a Christian minister to preach Jesus Christ in their temple...
It does not matter, the Wiccans, the Buddhists, the Moslems, the Hindus and yes to the Jews, your view of Godââ¬â¢s word is different from ours...
Jesus Christ is the personification of God and any exclusion of Him in a sermon distorts Godââ¬â¢s word according to my faith. *
2002-12-17 00:45 | User Profile
If we had 5000 preachers like him in this country our problems would be over quick.