Dr. Martin Luther King Jr..

Lady Eagle,

But not only are those of us who remember and can post credible links and headlines - not only are we liars - we are bigots, too! And proud of it! Not an ounce of shame.
And those are our good points!

Those are your words, not mine.

I'm well aware of the history you have cited, regarding Bayard Rustin and many others from the civil rights movement being Communists, having long ago read Alan Stang's It's Very Simple, published by the John Birch Society. It was an excellent book. But I also know that a leader in the JBS and frequent contributor to their magazine was Medford Evans, who was also a member of the White Citizens Councils (of Mississippi, I think). I was a member of the JBS many years ago, and I am grateful to them for the education by them as to the nature of Communism, and it's own reaches into our government and society, but racism is evil. . But I'm also aware that the Ku Klux Klan was an evil organization. Stormfront.org is a racist organization and mioque was being extremely polite in avoiding giving them that label. The logo used on Stormfront's web page is a KKK symbol and proudly proclaims "White Pride". For someone who has been so quick to label herself a bigot, and proudly so, and who has attacked those who "use 'race'" as a label, it would comforting to get a response from you whether you in fact subscribe to racism of any kind, including Stormfront's brand.

And, no, Lady Eagle, I haven't made race an issue now. You have done so yourself in proudly wearing the "bigot" label. You can attach the little laughing smilies if you want, but there's not much funny about it.

 

mioque,

Stormfront, sponsor of the MLK page linked by LE, webpage also includes links to:

Don Black (former Grand Dragon of the Alabama KKK)'s website.

Revilo Oliver (a particularly repulsive racist).

The "Aryan Women's Page".

Frankly, I care not a whit for the factualness of LE's link re MLK, I think she should disavow any sympathy for the host, Stormfront, and its disgusting allies on the racist right.

 

Lady Eagle, I will add that I do take some comfort in the Israeli flag avatar that you wear, so I am quite hopeful that I have misunderstood you.

 

You have - I was being sarcastic / facetious, which seems to be the best way around here to cope with personal attacks.

Either that, or from now on, maybe I will do this:



But I would be careful around here of admitting anything from John Birch Society is good as the JBS has been maligned on this board.

 

MLK was not a racist?

 

Lady Eagle,

Thank you very much. It is truly a relief, but I remain disturbed at the citation to Stormfront. Perhaps there was no other source for the material you cited. As I indicated, there were many links between the civil rights movement and the Communist Party. This does not mean that there were not very real positive products of the civil right movement. There were certainly those within, or even leading the movement, who sought simply subversion of the country, but Jim Crow deserved subversion and rooting out. Is it a violation of private property rights to tell someone that he must serve food or rent a room to black people? Yes, I agree that it is, but it is no less evil to imply that blacks are lesser citizens, or humans, by denying them equal access. An entire race of people was denied the blessings and rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and in the Bill of Rights. Yes, there have been negative effects in the long run, such as the push for affirmative action, which is wrong and should not be law, but it is no less one of the fruits of white racism in the South than it is a misguided, wrongheaded and no less racist pursuit of power by the civil rights industry.

I am chagrined no less than you at the weakening of the Tenth Amendment which is partly the result of the Civil War, though I believe it was accelerated by FDR and the New Deal, along with liberal philosophy penetrating the judiciary through academia and law schools. However, Madison warned that the greatest threat to liberties were from the states. He was defeated in his attempt to limit state action and perhaps rightfully so, but we paid a price for that with the Black Codes and Jim Crow.

 

As a johnny-come-lately to this debate, I agree that MLK was a theological liberal who denied the basic tenets of Christianity. Also, there is no doubt that he was a womanizer. Ralph Abernathy documented that MLK was a womanizer, and no one has ever bothered to refute it. As for the communist ties, I think that he was a mooch who took money to fund his movement wherever he could find it. Sooner or later, MLK Day might have its name changed but never underestimate the cynical political motives involved.

 

Lady Eagle,

But I would be careful around here of admitting anything from John Birch Society is good as the JBS has been maligned on this board.

And I have done my part in that direction. While I acknowledge their contribution to a proper understanding of Communism, I disagree with them on the New World Order, though once a "believer" in that myself. That one of their targets, the Council on Foreign Relations, has included such staunch conservatives as Jeane Kirkpatrick, Elliot Abrams, William F. Buckley, Jr. among its members makes the JBS look silly in attacking it. The CFR is certainly dominated, as is the foreign policy establishment and academia in general, by liberals, whose philosophy, as described by James Burnham, certainly is internationalist and anti-nationalist in outlook. It was this realization that led me to drop from the JBS.

 

The question still remains for KenH and Lady Eagle (and PA Jim if he wishes):

Do you deny that there were beneficial results from the civil rights movement? Was it, on net, a good thing?

 

John F. McManus, The New American

"On December 8, 1975, for instance, the Washington Post pinpointed New York attorney Stanley Levinson as the "important secret member of the Communist Party" who was discovered by the FBI to have been King’s mentor, financier, and confidante for 12 years. The Levinson relationship began during King’s meteoric rise to national prominence. In her memoirs, King’s widow described Levinson’s contributions to her husband’s work as "indispensable." Levinson even wrote speeches for King.

In 1957, perhaps stimulated by Levinson, King attended and taught at a training school in Tennessee where he was photographed with Communists Carl and Anne Braden, Abner Berry, and Aubrey Williams.

In 1960, King hired one Hunter Pitts O’Dell to his staff. When O’Dell’s position as a member of the National Committee of the Communist Party was revealed in 1961, King supposedly fired him. But it turned out that rather than discharging this key Red, he had transferred and promoted O’Dell to a higher post within King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference. When O’Dell was again exposed, King went through the same routine of announcing his dismissal. But a check by United Press International found him still employed by King’s organization."

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1999/01-04-99/king_myth.htm

 

and.....?

 

FTR, I really don't think there is enough collective emotional maturity on this board to discuss the pros and cons of the civil rights movement without someone resorting to namecalling and cries of "bigotry" or "racism" or "prejudice" or even "hate speech." You should have read some of the insults hurled at me in the past for being opposed to the US open borders.

So I opt out, speaking only for myself - not for PA Jim or Ken.

 

Click here>>>Was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. A Christian?

 

LadyEagle
"I really don't think there is enough collective emotional maturity on this board to discuss the pros and cons of the civil rights movement without someone resorting to namecalling and cries of "bigotry" or "racism" or "prejudice" or even "hate speech." "

NOT FAIR!
I wanted to get in at least one deathhreat.




On a more grim note, I fear it is very telling LadyEagle that you didn't simply tell fromtheright that you were all in favour of the Civil Rights Movement, but that you were disappointed with it's leadership.

 

You know King by his works. He took money from communists, hung out with ladies of the night according to Ralph Abernathy and others, and believed in non-Christian liberalism. King was a hypocrite personally.

There is plenty of evidence that Columbus was a devout Catholic who said that the Holy Spirit was leading him. There is plenty of evidence that Washington was a devout Anglican from his writings and his actions and deeds. And there is evidence that Lincoln became a regular church-member Christian just before he was murdered.

None of your points stand.