Starting with first principles and the scientific method
America First Books
Featuring ebooks that find a truer path in uncertain times

Kevin Alfred Strom Archive

   

A Decent Burial:
Trend Lott and the
Death of Conservatism

American Dissident Voices broadcast
December 21, 2002
by
by Hadding Scott
broadcast by Kevin Alfred Strom

 

Welcome to American Dissident Voices. Today's program, which I call "A Decent Burial: Trent Lott and the Death of Conservatism," was written by National Alliance member Hadding Scott and prepared for broadcast by yours truly, Kevin Alfred Strom.
 
Recently there has been a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth in the media and among media-puppet politicians because Mississippi Senator Trent Lott, at a birthday party for the centenarian senator from South Carolina, Strom Thurmond, said something really good and wholesome. Lott said: "I want to say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of him. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either." Any sensible White person aware of the motives behind Thurmond's departure along with other Southern Whites from the increasingly anti-White and anti-Southern Democratic Party would have to agree that what Trent Lott said was true. Let us look at the historical context which gives Senator Lott's statement its meaning.
 
In 1948, after anti-White policies were approved at the national Democratic convention, many of the delegates from Southern states simply got up and walked out. They formed their own party, the States Rights Democratic Party, nominating (at that time) Governor Strom Thurmond as their presidential candidate, and the Governor of Mississippi as their vice-presidential candidate. Former South Carolina Governor John West was himself a law student when Strom Thurmond was Governor of South Carolina and presidential candidate of the States-Rights Democratic Party, also known as the "Dixiecrats." Governor West recalled, "There was a tremendous emotional fear among the white community that integration would mean white girls dating black men, amalgamation of the races ... the feeling was, I hate to say it, overwhelming, if not unanimous among the white community." Motivated by a visceral revulsion in foreseeing the pollution of their race under the policies of Harry Truman's proposed "Fair Dear," their highest hope in the 1948 election was not to win the presidency; no, that was out of the question. What they did hope was to spoil the election by forcing it into the House of Representatives, so that the interests of Southern White people would not be treated so contemptuously again. Strom Thurmond declared during the campaign, "All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches." And the Dixiecrats' party-platform stated, "We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race." The presidential candidate of the impromptu political party espousing this principle was favored by Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and South Carolina. The Dixiecrats' rebellion, although it failed in its immediate objective, nonetheless accomplished some good. It set a precedent in the minds of Southern people, so that the "Solid South" would no longer support the Democrats uncritically as it had since the Civil War.
 
Even a rebellion that is not successful in itself, and even a rebellion which has no chance of success, can still bear some fruit in the long term. Harry S. Truman was reelected -- just barely -- in spite of the Dixiecrats, but with Southern support wavering he could no longer do as he pleased. Expectations that the anti-White so-called "Fair Deal" would be speedily enacted following the election went unfulfilled, because the fight with the Dixiecrats in Congress continued. Truman appointed a "Committee on Civil Rights" to fill in the details of his program of gradual genocide of the White race, which would have included an end to the poll taxes which discouraged extremely improvident people in Southern states from voting, a federal usurpation of authority from the states in cases of lynching, enforced negation of private employers' right not to hire Blacks, mandatory desegregation of interstate transportation, and the attachment of non-discrimination requirements to federal grants-in-aid. This whole program of anti-White genocide was stalled because of the Dixiecrats, with the only exception being desegregation of the armed forces. White conservatives, once having taken an attitude of rebellion against the anti-White Democratic Party, slowly began to vote for Republicans for president and other offices; one may say that the Dixiecrats are the people who, by drifting toward the Republican party, have enabled it to compete again in national politics, and at the same time, their presence in the Republican Party, in persons such as Strom Thurmond and younger men like Jesse Helms and the much younger Trent Lott, has moved that party to the right. The Dixiecrat's rebellion and its aftermath supply a shining example of how radicalism and a dialectical process in events can work not only for the Left, but also for the Right, whenever the Right has the courage to be radical and combative.
 
That failed effort also benefited Strom Thurmond personally, giving him important political experience, and winning deep-seated loyalty in his home state. In 1954 he was elected to the Senate as a write-in candidate, where he became a tireless opponent of anti-White measures. In 1957 Strom Thurmond set a record that still stands by filibustering against a so-called "civil rights" bill for 24 hours and 18 minutes.
 
It was this younger and more vigorous Strom Thurmond for whom Trent Lott was expressing specific admiration on the centenarian senator's birthday, not the already very elderly senator who sometimes appeared to have lost sight of everything that he stood for, as when he voted to extend the Voting Rights Act in 1982 and voted -- against Trent Lott -- for the national Martin Luther King holiday. Of course an 80 year-old man does not have the energy for struggle that the 46 year-old Strom Thurmond had, and I do not see these failings in old age as a sign that his more heroic positions were in any way inauthentic.
 
In praising the presidential bid of Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott was saying something with which all sane White people must certainly agree. For a White person to join in with the Jew-dominated media and to disapprove of a rebellion under such circumstances, is to disapprove of the survival of one's own kind.
 
Trent Lott's politics in the Senate have agreed with his praise of the young Strom Thurmond, and the voters of Mississippi have approved of Lott's politics. In 1979, Lott was part of a bipartisan movement to make a constitutional amendment against school busing, which failed by only seven votes. In the 1980s, Lott was opposed to extending the Voting Rights Act and opposed to establishing "Martin Luther King Day" as a federal holiday. On the Voting Rights Act, in 1981, he was one of 17 Republicans and seven Democrats, including most of the Virginia delegation, voting against extending that law, which struck down obstacles between non-Whites and polling places.
 
In 1981 he was one of 17 Republicans and 7 democrats who voted against extending the Voting Rights Act, which had struck down literacy tests and other hindrances to non-White voting.  Also in 1981, Lott filed an amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court in defense of tax exemption for Bob Jones University, which was under attack for its prohibition of interracial dating. Much was at stake in the Bob Jones case, because a favorable ruling would have benefited hundreds of other White "segregation academies" established in the wake of integration orders. In 1983, Lott was one of 98 House members, most of them Republicans, who opposed the King holiday. Despite having taken all of these horribly "racist" positions, a 1995 poll by Political/Media Research Inc. indicated that Lott earned the second best constituent ranking in the Senate with a 75 percent positive rating. No doubt, there are many Mississippians who believe as Lott does.
 
Lott's career has been one of opposing anti-White policies, wherein he has avoided saying that he was opposed to these policies because they were harmful to White people. When interviewed about his opposition to the King holiday by Southern Partisan magazine, Lott justified his position in terms of technicalities:
 
"Look at the cost involved in the Martin Luther King holiday and the fact that we have not done it for a lot of other people that were more deserving."
 
Lott thus confined himself, as is typical for conservatives these days, to complaining about side-issues, about costs, and about a lack of equitability in the choice of subjects for a holiday. The perennial battle cries of so-called conservatives these days, whom too many people still think are defending the interests of our race, are, "That's not fair!" and "That's going to cost a lot of money!" It is truly pathetic. The posture of the conservatives is completely defensive. They really act like they have been whipped before they have even put up a fight. In effect they are begging for mercy on our behalf -- mercy which neither they nor we will receive. I don't know about you, but I feel embarrassed and disgusted that this is the most ardent advocacy that our race receives in national politics. Surely the race that produced virtually all of modern technology and culture, and which dominated the entire world only a few decades ago, deserves a better advocacy than this perennial whining about expenditures and unfairness.
 
Lott's comment about Strom Thurmond was something other than the usual pitiful complaining about unfairness and expenditures, which conservatives are customarily allowed to do. It amounts to a radical criticism of the status quo in this country. This country took a wrong turn by not electing Strom Thurmond in 1948, and is in trouble because of it. That is the gist of what Trent Lott said.
 
Of course this has drawn criticism from the enemies of our people, who benefit from the sad situation that we are in today. The last thing that the Jews who manipulate our political and our cultural life want, is for our people to be reminded that our society was not always the way it is now. If things were not always going the way they are now, then there is no particular reason to regard the current state of affairs as sacred and unalterable, which is what we are supposed to think. We have been led into circumstances that are designed to destroy our race, and we are expected to finish out the history of our race with blinders on, offering little or no resistance to our Jewish sheep-herders. But when somebody reminisces out loud about the fact that we were not always headed toward our doom as we are now, that lets just a bit of light in through the blinders and shows our people that a different way was and is possible.
 
Trent Lott's subtly stated but radical critique of the current anti-White status quo received only slight notice in the initial reporting on Thurmond's birthday party, and no negative comment at all except in an internet piece (on talkingpointsmemo.com ) by one Josh Micah Marshall, a gentleman for whom it may or may not be a coincidence that he has two Jewish names.
 
But late that afternoon Lott's office was contacted by the Jewish-owned Washington Post's reporter Thomas B. Edsall, who has made a name for himself by journalistic sniping at, and "outing" of, various public figures who seem as if they might have some concern for the interests of White people. Edsall confronted Lott's assistant with the implications of what Lott had said, and received the reply, "Senator Lott's remarks were intended to pay tribute to a remarkable man who led a remarkable life. To read anything more into these comments is wrong." This was not the first time that Edsall had preyed on Trent Lott. Most notably Edsall had plagued the Senator regarding his association with the non-radical though pro-White Council of Conservative Citizens. Since Edsall was no friend of the senator's, nor of our race I should add, subsequent to the opaque response from Lott's office, Edsall solicited criticisms of Lott's praise of Strom Thurmond from various so-called conservatives like the Jew William Kristol, who is of course no friend of White segregationists, although Zionist segregationism suits him just fine and should be supported at all costs.
 
(I should note here that Trent Lott, like most Southern Conservatives, is a slavish supporter of the Zionist state, and perhaps his support for the Jews in this respect bought him a little temporary indulgence from the Jews of the media regarding Black-versus-White issues, but in the end it does not seem to have been worth much. Why should it, when slavishly pro-Zionist politicians are a dime a dozen?)
 
On Saturday, December 7, the second day after the birthday party, the Washington Post, alone of all the major media, put out a story highlighting the radical implications latent in Lott's casual statement. It was titled, "Lott Decried For Part Of Salute to Thurmond," which is a somewhat ironic title because there was essentially no public criticism of the statement until Edsall solicited the criticisms of Black Democrat politician John Lewis, and Jewish "neoconservative" William Kristol, which he printed in his story. In case anybody didn't get the point, Edsall concluded with a brief rehash of Lott's informal association with the Council of Conservative Citizens and finally a reaction from the organization's director , who said simply, "God bless Trent Lott!" If Edsall had solicited more comments like that last one, he could have titled the story, "Lott Praised for Salute to Thurmond."
 
This is a clear example of how the Jewish-owned media create a story that reflects the Jewish bias, and in this case it is a manufactured story that appears likely either to 1) lead to the resignation from the Senate of a future majority leader, who has displayed pro-White sympathies, or, 2) if Lott remains in the Senate and persists in the kind of craven behavior that he displayed Monday night on Sumner Redstone's Black Entertainment Television, he will so busy proving that he is not a "racist" that he will have no independence whatsoever.
 
This sad dilemma is, however, Trent Lott's choice. The coward dies a thousand deaths, and Trent Lott has died a few of them. Lott's response was to do what conservative politicians typically do when they say what is really in their supporters' hearts: he backed down. He denied that he believes what he said he believes, and he denied that he believes what millions of dispossessed White men and women -- especially in the South -- believe very strongly. By backing down and dissimulating like this, Lott evidently thought he could make his political life easier and more secure. He had saved himself once before through this kind of dissimulation. In 1999, after the Jews raised a fuss over Trent Lott's informal connections to the Council of Conservative Citizens, he sent an apology to the head of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, Abe Foxman, claiming, "I can't imagine being associated with an organization that promotes any form of racial supremacy." [March 18, 1999, ADL website] That apology in 1999, that denial that he knew that the CCC was pro-White, was certainly not believed by very many informed people -- and at this point it is incomprehensible that he could lie his way out of another such accusation. It should have been obvious that no person of at least moderate intelligence could believe that Trent Lott did not mean what he obviously did mean. In lying, not only did Trent Lott make himself look ridiculous; he gave anti-White buffoons like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Maxine Waters the opportunity to stand on the moral high ground, accusing Trent Lott with some rather obvious facts. This was also not the greatest moment for the few Conservative would-be apologists for Lott, like Pat Buchanan, who could do no better than to ask the "benefit of the doubt" for him.
 
Since the basis for defending Trent Lott's praise of Strom Thurmond had been established by Trent Lott himself, as essentially a denial of what he obviously meant, rather than a righteous defense of the right to champion our race, there was no way that these die-hard, true Conservatives could come across in this argument as anything other than political shysters. Trent Lott has embarrassed himself and his defenders embarrassed themselves in trying to defend his indefensible position, and the weakness that Trent Lott displayed is an embarrassment for all of us as White people.
 
Why sully good, clean concern for one's race with sleazy sophistry and lying? Why was it necessary to lie, as if being concerned for the survival of one's race were dishonorable? Surely the Conservative penchant for complaining about double standards could applied to the double standard that denies only to Whites the right to champion their race. Suppose that Trent Lott, instead of alternately denying and apologizing for an astute observation about what is and is not beneficial to our race, had held his head high and made the undoing of all the damage done since 1948 into his new political theme? What if he had said, yes, I am interested in how issues affect my race -- as are the people of Mississippi whom I represent? If Trent Lott had responded to the challenge of the Jewish media this way, with a courageous affirmation, instead of the coward's way of denial and pretended guilt which he has taken, he would have set an example of defiance for the many still-proud White people of this country that would have made the example of the Dixiecrats pale in importance. The media-Jews would have ended up wishing that this was one can of worms that they had never opened. If Trent Lott were really like the Dixiecrats of 1948, that is what he would have done.
 
On next week's program, we'll continue our discussion of Trent Lott and the utter worthlessness of the "conservative movement" in the battle for the survival of White people, White culture, and White communities. Be sure to join me again next week for part two of "A Decent Burial: Trent Lott and the Death of Conservatism."
 
Remember, you can subscribe to a monthly magazine which gives you the text of every American Dissident Voices broadcast in permanent, printed form. It's called Free Speech and we'll send you a twelve-issue subscription for $40 per year. You'll receive an illustrated printed copy of each and every ADV broadcast for all 52 weeks of the year. Help keep American Dissident Voices on the air with your monetary support, and help spread our message of hope by sharing the printed articles in Free Speech magazine. Write to National Vanguard Books, PO Box 330, Hillsboro WV 24946 USA, or subscribe online at the National Vanguard Books site, www.natvan.com.
 
Until next week, this is Kevin Alfred Strom reminding you to love your race.



.




For the latest contact, donation, and other update information regarding Kevin Alfred Strom, please visit his web page at Americafirstbooks.com. Please also visit kevin-strom.com, and revilo-oliver.com. Prices, addresses, and availability information pertaining to materials cited in his works are subject to change.

Please also visit the America First Institute donation page.

 

 

 

Flag carried by the 3rd Maryland Regiment at the Battle of Cowpens, S. Carolina, 1781

© America First Books
America First Books offers many viewpoints that are not necessarily its own in order to provide additional perspectives.