Monday, January 20, 2014

Milking MLK

Well, it's that day again, Martin Luther King day, and all the usual baloney is being put out.  Among them, the goofy idea that he was a Republican.  He was NOT. And that he was not just a civil rights leader, but also wanted "economic justice." That's actually true, except that "social justice" is a sort of opposite to plain "justice," and it consists of taking money away from people who have earned it and handing it to people who haven't.

There's a lot of good stuff on the net today about it all, and this is from one post:

When the Communists took over a country, one of the first things that they did was to confiscate all the privately-held weapons, to deny the people the physical ability to resist tyranny. But even more insidious than the theft of the people’s weapons was the theft of their history. Official Communist “historians” rewrote history to fit the current party line. In many countries, revered national heroes were excised from the history books, or their real deeds were distorted to fit Communist ideology, and Communist killers and criminals were converted into official “saints.” Holidays were declared in honor of the beasts who murdered countless nations. Did you know that much the same process has occurred right here in America?

Every January, the media go into a kind of almost spastic frenzy of adulation for the so-called “Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr.” King has even had a national holiday declared in his honor, an honor accorded to no other American, not Washington, not Jefferson, not Lincoln. (Washington and Lincoln no longer have holidays — they share the generic-sounding “President’s Day.”) A federal judge has sealed the FBI files on King until the year 2027. What are they hiding? Let’s take a look at this modern-day plastic god.  (Read the rest HERE.)

And another:

Like the “Sharpeville massacre” in South Africa,[1] and the USA’s “Wounded Knee” confrontation between US troops and Indians,[2] the exaggerations of the authorities’ reaction to the civil rights marches and protests in the Southern states during the 1960s, led by Martin Luther King, provides world Liberaldom and its string-pullers with a moral rectitude analogous to the heart-rending account of Holocaust survival in works such as Binjamin Wilkomirski’s Fragments: Memories of a Wartime Childhood,[3] and an major part of the ongoing Black history narrative brought to scholarly credibility by Basil Davidson’s magnum opus,[4] or Alex Haley’s Roots,[5] a brilliant history of Black Slavery and literary plagiarism.[6] Every white state or former white state that has a significant non-white population has its own non-white narrative, whether they are stories of the Reconstruction Era Ku Klux Klan, New Zealand’s Parihaka “invasion,”[7] Mandela’s “Long March to Freedom,” for the benefit of global capitalism, or the mythic “extermination” of the indigenous Tasmanians.[8]

With the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington,[9] and with the current agonising on the impending death of Nelson Mandela,[10] we are indeed fortunate to be living at this time, to be reminded simultaneously of the heroism and vision of both King and Mandela. In particular, they are lauded as examples of a Christ-like passive resistance, of love of one’s enemies and of turning the other cheek; as the paragons of all that could be godly in humanity, if only we could follow the examples of these humble, noble darkies.  (The rest HERE.)

And finally, this:

There is probably no greater sacred cow in America than Martin Luther King Jr. The slightest criticism of him or even suggesting that he isn’t deserving of a national holiday leads to the usual accusations of racist, fascism, and the rest of the usual left-wing epithets not only from liberals, but also from many ostensible conservatives and libertarians.
This is amazing because during the 50s and 60s, the Right almost unanimously opposed the civil rights movement. Contrary to the claims of many neocons, the opposition was not limited to the John Birch Society and southern conservatives. It was made by politicians like Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, and in the pages of Modern Age, Human Events, National Review, and theFreeman.
Today, the official conservative and libertarian movement portrays King as someone on our side who would be fighting Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton if he were alive. Most all conservative publications and websites have articles around this time of the year praising King and discussing how today’s civil rights leaders are betraying his legacy. Jim Powell’s otherwise excellent The Triumph of Liberty rates King next to Ludwig von Mises and Albert J. Nock as a libertarian hero. Attend any IHS seminar, and you’ll read "A letter from a Birmingham Jail" as a great piece of anti-statist wisdom. The Heritage Foundation regularly has lectures and symposiums honoring his legacy. There are nearly a half dozen neocon and left-libertarian think tanks and legal foundations with names such as "The Center for Equal Opportunity" and the "American Civil Rights Institute" which claim to model themselves after King.  (More HERE.)


  1. Eager Young LiberalJanuary 20, 2014 at 11:58 PM

    The FBI had several plans to kill him, the reason they are sealed is because it was filled with men who hated him for his work and they are hiding their vile purposes. Was he perfect? No, but he did act out of love, something that you and your ilk cannot claim. In the speech which you doubtlessly wont listen to he says that the logical end of racism is genocide. I believe he is right, and for that reason we need a MLK day, and for that reason racism cannot be tolerated

    1. Instead of defending a serial plagiarist, a race hustler, a philanderer, pro- Communist, a phony Christian, a phony Baptist minister, agitator, serial drunk, hooker renting charlatan, it maybe more worth your time and effort to study Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdick, someone MLK plagiarized.

    2. Eager Young LiberalJanuary 21, 2014 at 3:59 PM

      I have, and I admire them both for their work. Thank you for not bringing up Chuck Baldwin again, he is the king of phony Christians

    3. PS: Eager Young Seminarian, I think you will enjoy reading Fosdick, I think he will up your alley.

    4. No, you just disagree with Baldwin, you're entitled to your opinion and I to mine.

      On top of my head, I would say A. A. Allen was the king of phony Christians, that is excluding Jesse Jackass and Al Charlatan.

    5. Eager Young LiberalJanuary 21, 2014 at 4:28 PM

      I am going to be very clear about what I say next so it is not misunderstood. Racism exists in this country, I am not claiming it of any individual, but it does exist, Nightline even did a story on it last week. There is no positive aspect to racism, it is hate, hate without reason or logic. It has hurt people, and I will not accept any defense of lynchings. Martin Luther King Jr. was a man, a flawed human man, he had his faults, maybe he cracked under pressure who can say. But even with his faults, he did believe in Christian love, and he did hope for a future where such love existed between every person. Even if you disagree with Martin Luther King Jr. you can agree with that, and instead of feuding over the faults of a man, the better option is to remember the world that existed and work so that it will never exist again.

    6. Eager Young LiberalJanuary 21, 2014 at 4:44 PM

      I have read a few of his (Fosdick) sermons. I do disagree with Baldwin, but he did not attend an actual seminary and he has an honorary doctorate from the same institution that told him he was a pastor, yet he still likes to title himself Dr. The danger I see with Baldwin is he incites violence, nationalist violence. His highest authority is the Constitution and he has hijacked Bonhoeffer to make claims which Bonhoeffer would never support. Frankly he has no idea what he is talking about, and supports racists in his church while undermining actual pastors. There are plenty of frauds in the Christian church, people who use the faith for their personal gain, people like Joel Osteen come to mind.

    7. Which racists did he defend in his church?

      Does he advocate nationalist violence or defense against a tyrannical government?

      Jesse Jackass and Al Charlatan never went to an actual seminary either.

      I don't agree with Baldwin on everything he says but what I like about him is:

      1). He is consistent in criticizing the government regardless if the president is a democrat or republican, or for that matter, a "liberal" or "conservative"

      2). He doesn't invoke divine rights of kings argument in defending any president.

      3). He doesn't say be passive to tyranny and evil because the rapture is coming.

      I agree on Joel Olsteen, I get the feeling that he thinks that his congregation is stupid.

      A. A. Allen was a "faith healer" in the '50's and '60's that claimed he could resurrect the dead then found he had a problem when believers started to send him their dearly departed.

      Another interesting person to read about would be Booker T. Washington.

    8. Eager Young SeminarianJanuary 27, 2014 at 3:02 AM

      I would call it nationalistic because he he considers himself a patriot, and bases his call to violence on national pride. If you were fighiting tyranny you would probably rely on "human rights". While he does refer to "rights" they are generally things like the 2nd amendment, which you would only count as valid if you consider the Bill of Rights authoratative. If he was beginning from a general call against what he saw as tyranny, than he might as well be using a list of rights from Monaco. If it was a call against tyranny, than that is just a weak argument. And he often refers to men like Washington to build up a kind of fervor, and if we are being true to history, Washington was no great liberator, we as a country have really diefied him. If it was a call to justice than it would not only target American pastors his call would be more ecumenical. You can take these arguments or not, thats the way I see it, and I see his message as a danger. As for racists, he has April Gaede and her PLE group.

      While youre right he is consistent, but he is consistent because he sees them all as being too liberal. His consistency reminds me of the demotivational poster of consitency.

      I would not use any divine right argument either, and I do not think anyone has for the last few centuries. And the simple explanation for that is, I see authority being with God alone. And frankly when you look at the very early church including Luke/Acts (same author) and Paul, theyre apologetics to the Romans, and the way they saw fit to relate to the governing bodies is not the same that I believe that the modern church does. Just as I do not believe churches need to be organized to resemble Acts churches.

      I hate rapture talk, it only came up less than 200 years ago, but somehow its proponents have convinced the US that it is the reading the church has always had. But most, not quite all, denominations reject the rapture as a misreading. My pacifism does not come from a belief in the rapture but pacifism does not mean apathy. Baldwin will bring up Bonhoeffer all day long but to be honest I don't think he has actually ever read him. Bonhoeffer was a pacifist, a complicated one, but still a pacifist. He did not believe in general violence, but still believed in being a "spoke in the wheel", and his actions came from his idea of being a burden bearer for others. His one acts of sin, he believed was for others, plus he had all of those nationalistic German Christians to deal with, which Baldwin resembles in many ways.

      Joel Olsteen is pretty awful, I mean I understand why people want to believe in prosperity gospel, I really do, but theres no support for it. He is the only one prospering off these poor peoples dreams and he is doing so much harm to their future with a loving church by swindling them. I am not certain if he is just an uneducated moron of a con man, but considering the amount of attention he has had from real pastors, I suspect the latter, he should be more than educated by now.

      In general I cannot stand faith healers, I mean I hope that one will heal through God, but until then I will try to heal people's spiritual wounds, and consider the faith healers a bunch of frauds.

  2. For the enjoyment of some and the annoyance of others I post these two vids: