--> Martin Luther King Jr. <-- Options

[yo pusha]

Who was Martin Luther King Jr. really?
- Was he a communist adulterator?
- Was he a criminal betrayer of even the interests of his own race?
- Was he a great civil rights leader?

Useful Links
- http://www.martinlutherking.org/ (Anti - MLK)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King (Pro - MLK)

interesting topic that i would want to learn more about. debate!

[*tweeak*]

Read his "Letter from Birmingham Jail." Long, but worth it.

Honestly, he was not a communist adulterator or a criminal betrayer of even the interests of his own race. Absurd accusations. I'm not seeing how MLK.org is anti-MLK either.

Skipping over the communist thing entirely, how did he criminally betray his own race? He communicated with not only the influential people of his own race, but those such as clerfymen from other religions and races as well. Equality. Is equality not the ultimate goal? Did he betray them by not protesting violently? By winding up in jail? By not waiting for the "right time" before taking action? By dying? (willing to be he didn't have too much say in that one).

Do have anything that even begins to back up the opposing view? Right now, having read MLK's letters and studied him in various ways, that those suggestions seem so outlandish, I don't even know how to begin to present good arguements against it.

[*kryogenix*]

Read his "Letter from Birmingham Jail." Long, but worth it.

Honestly, he was not a communist adulterator or a criminal betrayer of even the interests of his own race. Absurd accusations. I'm not seeing how MLK.org is anti-MLK either.

Skipping over the communist thing entirely, how did he criminally betray his own race? He communicated with not only the influential people of his own race, but those such as clerfymen from other religions and races as well. Equality. Is equality not the ultimate goal? Did he betray them by not protesting violently? By winding up in jail? By not waiting for the "right time" before taking action? By dying? (willing to be he didn't have too much say in that one).

Do have anything that even begins to back up the opposing view? Right now, having read MLK's letters and studied him in various ways, that those suggestions seem so outlandish, I don't even know how to begin to present good arguements against it.

martinlutherking.org is run by stormfront.org. Those guys are white supremacists and neonazis.

[*tweeak*]

Ah. Then maybe I should have actually clicked the link about spreading the message, rather than assume it meant MLK's dream

But so now, do you really think that white supremicists are going to make any points that are actually worth listening to? Come on now. That's not a very reliable source.

[ComradeRed]

Martin Luther King did commit adultery. That is a fact; the FBI caught him in a Motel screwing a woman other than his wife. He also had some communist sympathies.

This does detract from the fact that he was a great civil rights leader.

[*tweeak*]

But being an adulteror and having communist sympathies are too entirely different things. Also, communism as an idea isn't so evil as everyone interprets it to be, so I don't see how that's supposed to mean anything anyway

[ComradeRed]

Yes, communism is quite evil. It's loosely based on armed robbery and is an entirely indefensible philosophy. It also inevitably leads to a police state because it tries to make war on mutually beneficial activities (i.e. trade and employment). We see the costs involved in prosecuting things like drug use, where no one is there to report a crime. How does one prosecute voluntary trade (people who are good at trade inevitably make more money than others--leading to inequality--but both people are still better off, so obviously no one will report the crime)?

The most socialistic philosophy that can be logically defended in Rawlsianism, which says that an economic system should be set up such that the poorest person is best off (this is a halfway philosophy between capitalism and communism because, under communism, the incentive for work is so low that even though everyone gets an equal share of the economic pie, the pie itself is so small that the poor could actually be worse off with a bigger piece of a smaller pie).

[yo pusha]

But so now, do you really think that white supremicists are going to make any points that are actually worth listening to? Come on now. That's not a very reliable source.

Well then, please attempt to prove their arguements wrong. From what I can tell, all of their arguements are factual and they site sources. Looks legit to me, although it is probably not unbiased. Interesting forum as well, check it out and make your own conclusion.

I'm not seeing how MLK.org is anti-MLK either.

Did you even click the link? lol

But so now, do you really think that white supremicists are going to make any points that are actually worth listening to? Come on now. That's not a very reliable source.

Like I said before, all of their information looks to be legit. Although I do not think being an adulterator takes away from MLK's accomplishments, it is undoubtable that he is one.

01/19/98 Newsweek, Page 62

January 6, 1964, was a long day for Martin Luther King Jr. He spent the morning seated in the reserved section of the Supreme Court, listening as lawyers argued New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, a landmark case rising out of King's crusade against segregation in Alabama. The minister was something of an honored guest: Justice Arthur Goldberg quietly sent down a copy of Kings account of the Montgomery bus boycott, "Stride Toward Freedom," asking for an autograph. That night King retired to his room at the Willard Hotel. There FBI bugs reportedly picked up 14 hours of party chatter, the clinking of glasses and the sounds of illicit sex--including King's cries of "I'm f--ing for God" and "I'm not a Negro tonight!"

Note: What is not mentioned in this article is that Martin Luther King was having sex with three White women, one of whom he brutally beat while screaming the above mentioned quotes. Much of the public information on King's use of church money to hire prostitutes and his beating them came from King's close personal friend, Rev. Ralph Abernathy (pictured above), in his 1989 book, "And the walls came tumbling down."

Sources:

Newsweek Magazine 1-19-1998, page 62

Once again, check out their forums if you have the time. All of them are intelligent people; I do not agree with their ideas, but it is something to think about. Totally different from the uneducated redneck KKK member I had once pictured.


Also, what about Mr. Bayard Rustin? The main person behind all the gatherings and marches, Bayard Rustin was a homosexual. When the FBI threatened to reveal that MLK and Rustin had a homosexual relationship, MLK fired Mr. Rustin.


More Links
- http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2269
- http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1292
- http://web.archive.org/web/20041116083826/...plagiarism.html
- http://www.martinlutherking.org/articles/t...ing_holiday.pdf

What do you think?

[*tweeak*]

Well then, please attempt to prove their arguements wrong. From what I can tell, all of their arguements are factual and they site sources. Looks legit to me, although it is probably not unbiased. Interesting forum as well, check it out and make your own conclusion.

If you read my first post, I covered that. And I have my own conclusion. And whether facts are true and cited or not, that doesn't mean that they couldn't have been construed in the wrong way. They're white supremesists. Of course they're biased.

Did you even click the link? lol

Yes, dammit, try reading everything I've said. I clicked the link, and on the surface, it really isn't that obvious. I didn't have the time then to actually dig around and read things, so once I did it became fairly obvious.

Like I said before, all of their information looks to be legit. Although I do not think being an adulterator takes away from MLK's accomplishments, it is undoubtable that he is one.

Yes, I'm not denying it was a fact. But honestly, that doesn't matter, as you agreed. It's completely irrelevant, so I really don't see why it should even be mentioned (not to forget about it, but it doesn't pertain to this).

Once again, check out their forums if you have the time. All of them are intelligent people; I do not agree with their ideas, but it is something to think about. Totally different from the uneducated redneck KKK member I had once pictured.

Delightful. No, stereotrypes are not alll true. Hence, stereotypes. But Hitler was an intelligent person as well, and that hardly made him right.

Also, what about Mr. Bayard Rustin? The main person behind all the gatherings and marches, Bayard Rustin was a homosexual. When the FBI threatened to reveal that MLK and Rustin had a homosexual relationship, MLK fired Mr. Rustin.

Ok, what about him? No one is nominating MLK for sainthood. People make mistakes. Humans are flawed. None of this, however, takes away from the things he actually did accomplish in the racial movements.

So my conclusion on who he was really? A well intended man who accomplished a lot but made mistakes like the rest of us. He did far more good than evil for the world, so I hardly think those details make much difference in the long run. And intelligent and fact based or not, one should not form opinions based on white supremisists. Not to say that it isn't worth reading, but I cannot honestly consider that what they have to say actually means anything.