NOTE: PLEASE say if you DON'T want your name and/or email address published when sending VDARE email.
From: Southern Sympathizer
So, it's the morning after. The smoldering, mutilated corpse of Trent Lott still turns slowly from the tree in the town square, where the Good Ole Boys hung him up last night. And over to the Court House steps, where a small, shocked, crowd has gathered in the cold early sunlight, swaggers Jonah "Alaska" Goldberg. Shifting his cocktail canapé into his cheek, he pulls a flask of white wine spitzer from his overalls, spits, and announces that the old guys weren't tough  enough - things are going to be different hereabouts from now on. 
And he's right. The younger generation of Neocons has proved  they can stir up a mean lynch mob. The older generation failed to grasp the lethal possibilities created by a generation of brainwashing about American history. Starting now, when Alaska and his sidekick, Big David Frum , start working the bars and levees where the poor white trash of the media world gather of an evening, the establishment will get nervous.
White Southern men can forget any hopes of national political leadership roles (unless they are total Scallawags  of the Clinton/Gore stripe). And any tolerant reference to – much less involvement in – the seismic political shift which brought the South into the Republican Party, thus creating the political prospects which attracted the Neocons to become "conservatives" in the first place, will be a death warrant.
The South's job is to vote and shut up .
But what was it all about? Other than facilitating a generational shift amongst the neos and making helots  out of the Southern Republicans?
Peter Brimelow observed in Alien Nation  that "the Constitution announces its purpose is "to form a more perfect Union… [for] ourselves and our posterity" – the Founders' posterity, not posterity in general." (Pp. 209-10).
Strom Thurmond took his stand in 1948 essentially on the proposition that the South should be run for white Southerners . Ariel Sharon today stands on the proposition that Israel should be run as an equally ethnically particularist polity.  Either could be deemed unseemly - or honorable. Yet a kindly reference to the former destroys a leading American politician. For the latter – if arguably indirectly – America appears about to go to war, enrage over a billion Muslims , and expose its population to who knows what encore to the 9/11 atrocity.
What is the difference?
About the only benefit of the Lott lynching has been briefly to lower the volume of shrieks of bloodlust emanating from NRO  and its absurdly pompous "At War" section, which has called for the overthrow of a ridiculous number of Arab governments in the past 15 months.
So presumably these young men can now take the time to explain why they insist on the anathematization  of the Dixiecrat/Anti "Civil Rights" movement (while of course reaping its fruits professionally), and at the same time demand war in the interests of a regime at least as ethnocentric – but foreign. 
December 22, 2002