Myths of Martin Luther King

www.lewrockwell.com ^ | January 18, 2003 | Marcus Epstein

[CyberCowboy777]

I agree that there were those that would use the debates to further a racist agenda.

But too many on the Right are given the label and so the debate is tainted. Really the entirety of the Right is considered disqualified because the actions or thoughts of a few.

In reality many democrats were involved in the same agenda or worse and yet most do not disqualify them from the debate.

This is a case of forced perception.

[CyberCowboy777]

I do not know anything of the plagiaries.

I do know that I question the integrity of the man as I do of JFK.

[Bogolyubski]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but (as mentioned in the article), King's longtime freind and associate told of the long, unending, unrepentant adulteries in the book "And the Walls Came Tumbling Down." And, yes, it's also quite accurate that King supported the racial preferences that were ultimately given the Orwellian label of "Affirmative Action" starting around 1965.

He also effectively renounced adherence to any shred of actual Christianity (which he labeled as "fundamentalism") in favor of the leftist "social gospel." In genuine Christianity, he would have been forced to renounce any position of spiritual authority in light of his utterly depraved lifestyle (repeated group sex with prostitutes). King is nothing but a pot-metal god manufactured by the leftist media, and we all are now expected to worship at the altar.

[Cowboy Bob]

In addition to his dissertation many of his major speeches, such as "I Have a Dream," were plagiarized,...

If this is true, how could the family hold copyrights on them?

[Restorer]

At the time, the vast majority of the racist "conservatives," as opposed to the just not interested conservatives, were Democrats. Somehow the Democrats have managed to make most Americans believe George Wallace and Bull Connor were Republicans.

Very odd.

I believe an extremely good case could have been made for a truly conservative activist civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s. It's a truly great tragedy that the case wasn't made, allowing conservatism to be tarred with the racist brush among the ignoranti.

[RLK]

Why is a man once reviled by the Right now celebrated by it as a hero?

-------------------------------

Because the lies, distortions, and purposefull omissions created to transform King into a saint have grown so powerful that few people have the courage to confront them. And because few people now have enough respect for themselves and the constitution to either recognize or care about the infringements upon personal choice or individual freedom that the civil rights movement imposed.

[marron]

The times were complicated.

That the old Jim Crow South was immoral should be plain on the face of it. But if you were a "conservative" from the South, you probably did not see it at the time, or if you saw it, you probably didn't see a solution.

This is where terms such as "conservative" and "rightist" get confusing. Jim Crow was a Democratic Party institution. The oppression of Black citizens can be reasonably laid directly at the feet of Democrats, who resisted extending full citizenship rights to Blacks for most of a century following the end of Reconstruction. If you consider that the Democrats were also the Slavery party in the south, and the slavery appeasement party in the North, their history of racial oppression goes back considerably further.

We use "conservative" typically to refer to classic liberalism, whigism, which is to say respect for individual liberty and limited government. The article refers to the proponents of Jim Crow as "conservatives" and "Rightists", but this is correct only if by conservative you mean "traditionalist" rather than "classic liberal". And rightist is correct if what you mean is nationalist.

It is this confusion of terms that allows Democrats to avoid responsibility for 150 years of racialist oppression, while ignoring that Republicans fought for color-blind citizenship all throughout the bad old days, and continue to fight for it into the present day.

The "states rights" issue also complicates the discussion. Republicans believe in the 9th and 10th ammendments, which means that they certainly believe in "states rights". Power is intended to be divided between different levels, and different departments, as a bulwark against abuse by any one institution. If the feds are out of control, you have state and local law to provide a check on their power. Likewise, if local authorities are out of control, there are state and federal authorities that can be called on to intervene.

But for Democrats, "States Rights" was perverted into a justification for the oppression of their black citizens.

Republicans always opposed this perverted version of "states rights". And it is this perversion that now makes it difficult to have a reasoned discussion of the real, constitutional, issues. Any discussion of the 9th and 10th ammendments recalls the old Democrat position, and almost ends the discussion before it starts. Again, its a propaganda ploy, intended to lay Democrat crimes at Republican feet. We must not sit still for it.

Finally, most civil rights legislation has been passed by the Republicans, historically, sometimes with and sometimes without Democrat support. Republicans were certainly uneasy with certain provisions of the 1965 law, on constitutional grounds, and I well remember the concerns and the discussions. The party was torn between the need to be faithful to the constitution, and the desire to put a quick end to Jim Crow.

It is sad and sick to see the Democratic party now claiming credit for a fight that they were on the wrong side of for a century, back when to be a Republican in a southern town was to be a very lonely man.

As for Martin Luther King, to prove that he was a flawed man is to prove nothing. Jim Crow was immoral. To fight it was dangerous and lonely, and I have nothing but respect for anyone who got out of their easy chairs and into the fight. We all believe that, if it came right down to it, we would be willing to put our lives on the line for freedom. But it did come down to it, and it was a flawed preacher, and his flawed followers, who stood up. For all of his flaws, he is the bigger man than his detractors, who were content to see oppression continue into yet another generation.

His views on some issues insured that he would never be a Republican. But his opposition to Jim Crow put him squarely in line with the Republican party principles, and squarely against the institutional Democrat party . We should not now let the Democrats tell our history. They have a lot to answer for. Lets let them answer for it.

[rdb3]

Thanx for the ping, Ben.

Great posts, Restorer.

Now, I have a question. Why is it that no one will ask the most obvious question when it comes down to King and the Civil Rights Movement? That question is simply this:

Why was someone like King needed in the first place?

That's the question no one seems to want to ask, ponder, or answer.

Birth of Tha SYNDICATE, the philosophical heir to William Lloyd Garrison.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

[Restorer]

What you said. Better than I could.

[joesnuffy]

Seditious material...even if it is the truth

[rdb3]

You get it, marron. You truly do.

Birth of Tha SYNDICATE, the philosophical heir to William Lloyd Garrison.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

[secretagent]

Thanks marron.

[rdb3]

And because few people now have enough respect for themselves and the constitution [sic] to either recognize or care about the infringements upon personal choice or individual freedom that the civil rights movement [sic] imposed.

Okay, RLK. Now tell me, why did anything have to be done for "civil rights" that would lead to such an extent as this?

Birth of Tha SYNDICATE, the philosophical heir to William Lloyd Garrison.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

[RLK]

I am disinterested in being diverted from the primary issue. In the name if civil rights we have been bullied into surrendering rights no people who want to remain free should ever surrender. The first principle of a free society is that social and economic interactions occur on the basis of mutual agreement between participating parties. Any violation of that is a crime against freedom and humanity. The civil rights movement forced demands upon other people and hence violated that prime principle. I find my life and the lives of others subject to review and enforced social servitude as a result of the King legacy. I'm not a toy for others to play with or command.

[Pelham]

Good Question considering King died in 1968 and Reagan was only in his first term of being the Governor of California

King would easily have known of Reagan's politics. Reagan was a hardly a novice in conservative politics in 1968. He became a national political figure as early as 1964 from "the speech" he gave in support of Goldwater.

[rdb3]

I am disinterested in being diverted from the primary issue.

The "primary issue" here is King and what led up to his ascention in our history. Therefore, one cannot be intellectually honest while ignoring the situation(s) that made people like King not only come forward, but necessary.

In the name if civil rights we have been bullied into surrendering rights no people who want to remain free should ever surrender.

"Bullied." That's an interesting choice of words. "Surrendering rights." There's another. Also, when was this nation ever truly "free?" I'll await your response.

The first principle of a free society is that social and economic interactions occur on the basis of mutual agreement between participating parties. Any violation of that is a crime against freedom and humanity.

This begs the question of your stance on anti-miscegenation laws prior to 1964. Care to share them? And, again, when was this nation ever truly "free?"

The civil rights movement forced demands upon other people and hence violated that prime principle.

"Forced demands." Another interesting choice of words.

I find my life and the lives of others subject to review and enforced social servitude as a result of the King legacy.

I can't resist. You find your life being "subject to review and enforced social servitude?" Are you realizing what you are saying?

I'm not a toy for others to play with or command.

I'm glad that you are not a "toy." And you should not be one, either.

Birth of Tha SYNDICATE, the philosophical heir to William Lloyd Garrison.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

[rdb3]

...as usual, emotions not intellect lead the Amerikan sheeple.

Excuse me, but, spelling America and/or American with a "k" makes it difficult to take you seriously.

I have more respect for my nation than that. And if you love this land, so should you have that respect.

Birth of Tha SYNDICATE, the philosophical heir to William Lloyd Garrison.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

[TaZ]

"Excuse me, but, spelling America and/or American with a "k" makes it difficult to take you seriously.

I have more respect for my nation than that. And if you love this land, so should you have that respect."

I have no respect for a populace that through its ignorance, apathy or scheming has subverted the original intent of the Founding Fathers into a statist run socialist tyranny.

[rdb3]

I have no respect for a populace that through its ignorance, apathy or scheming has subverted the original intent of the Founding Fathers into a statist run socialist tyranny.

I see.

So when are you leaving?

Birth of Tha SYNDICATE, the philosophical heir to William Lloyd Garrison.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.