Good or Bad for the Jews

"Good or Bad for the Jews"

Many years ago, and for many years, I would travel to Morocco to visit uncles, cousins, and my paternal grandmother. Some lived in Tangiers;...

Monday, January 18, 2021

On Martin Luther King

On the occasion of MLK Day here in the USA, I repost a little something I wrote back in 2014--seems like a hundred years ago. A few minor edits, nothing major.

January 21, 2014
The Legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. 

Yesterday was Martin Luther King Day in the US; the TV and other media were full of stories about King and his times, and what it all means today. He has been compared to Gandhi and Mandela, become an icon for American "progressives," and, of course, a historical symbol of the nonviolent civil rights struggle of the 1950s and 1960s. He won the Nobel Peace Prize, almost every major American city has a thoroughfare named for him, and, as noted, we have a national holiday in his honor--making him and Columbus the only ones to have such holidays. Gunned down in 1968, at the age of thirty-nine, he left the civil rights movement to less capable and less visionary successors who undermined his legacy and his goal of a color-blind nation.

Was he a great man? 

He showed great courage, commitment to his cause, insistence on nonviolence, strong political and leadership skills, patriotism, and became a highly eloquent spokesman for civil rights. "I Have a Dream" is one of the great speeches in the English language. King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" more than equals any Thoreau or Gandhi writings, and is not something that today's civil rights leaders, such as they are, could match, nor could the typical graduate of almost any university in the world today. (The letter's pacing, erudition, and, above all, the surgical preciseness with which it takes down opposing arguments bring to mind General Sherman's letter to the Mayor of Atlanta.) King's life made a difference to millions of people. The answer, therefore, to this paragraph's question is yes, he was a great man.

That said, serious problems exist with some of the narrative spun about King, in particular, and the civil rights struggle, in general. Part of the problem, of course, is that King died young, enabling others, as happened with the two Kennedy brothers, to fill in the rest of the story and use it to further certain political agendas. King died short of his fortieth birthday; had he lived longer, presumably he would have evolved and, possibly, become a very different man than he was when he died--we will never know. What we do know is that the Democratic Party and their "progressive" media and education machines have rewritten the history of the civil rights struggle. This was driven home to me some years ago while visiting a college campus. The students assumed King was a Democrat, and the segregationists confronting the peaceful marchers, and using fire hoses, snarling police dogs, and truncheons, and wearing white hoods were Republicans. They assumed a Republican killed King--today's college kids probably believe the Tea Party had him killed. That the exact opposite is true, shocks many. King came from a staunchly Republican family--his father, a prominent rights leader in his own right--endorsed Richard Nixon against JFK in the 1960 presidential election. The Democrats had a one-party lock on the South. The party of slave owners and secessionists, had become the party of Jim Crow, school segregation, anti-miscegenation laws, poll taxes, and on and on.

Many Americans, not to mention foreigners, do not realize not only that the Republican party formed in opposition to slavery and that Lincoln was a Republican, but that famous Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, whose rulings dismantled the legal basis for segregation and put serious limits on the power of police, was a former Republican Governor of California. It was, furthermore, war hero and Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who sent troops to Arkansas to enforce court-ordered desegregation at Little Rock Central High School. Congressional Republicans were the main supporters of civil rights legislation; their votes ensured passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, over the opposition of a significant bloc of Democrats--let us also not forget that Congressional Democrats for years blocked Republican efforts to pass federal anti-lynching legislation. All this, of course, is history, but an important chunk of American history that is being lost, distorted, or otherwise flushed down the memory sewer--along with the fact that anti-leftist J. Edgar Hoover proved the most formidable foe of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), an organization founded and staffed by Democrats, such as long-time Democratic Senator Robert Byrd.

Before I return to King, let me address another issue that has been badly distorted and become something of a meme among the quasi-literate left. I refer to the idea that the parties "switched places." This is something I have heard from some lefties who, knowing the true history of the Democratic and Republican Parties when it comes to race and civil rights, try to argue that that was then, and this is now. Since FDR, or so, they argue the parties "switched" places on the race issue, with Republicans taking the role of protecting white privilege and keeping minorities, especially blacks, down. The truth is quite different. What happened was that the old party of slavers, segregationists, lynch mobs, and secessionists figured out that government programs and intervention would serve to deprive Republicans of a significant voter bloc. They aimed to keep black Americans dependent on the largess of government and Democrat-run urban political machines. Anyone who doubts that should read the crude comment in which President Johnson revealed the real purpose underlying his massive social program expansion, i.e., to keep black Americans voting Democratic. The Democrats succeeded in this objective.

Back to King and the civil rights movement. By the time of his death, King was losing control of the movement. It was fragmenting. King's vision of a nonviolent effort had come under assault by radical elements. The messages of non-violence and a concentration on individual liberty were losing traction. The thirty-nine-year-old King seemed old, thundering out a message from another time. A new generation of black activists, inspired by the increasingly confrontational and violent atmosphere in the country, challenged King for the spotlight, and found allies in violence in the largely white anti-Vietnam War movement. The civil rights struggle increasingly became part of the noise of the very bad closing years of the 1960s, years which saw bloody race riots shake nearly every major American city, and numerous acts of domestic terrorism. In addition, what had been a largely grass-roots, private sector movement was being sabotaged by growing government involvement. Many black leaders got siphoned off by government programs to "fight poverty." Activists increasingly focused on getting handouts to their followers rather than, as noted above, on King's more lofty, ancient-sounding focus on liberty, and the goal of having people judged not by their color but by the "content of their character." This new generation of government-oriented and dependent leaders did not fit in with King's conservative, Southern, church-based movement. They wanted racial turmoil, not racial harmony. We need also remember that Attorney General Robert Kennedy had King under FBI surveillance, including the making of compromising tapes of King's extra-marital liaisons, providing the government excellent blackmail material against him.

All these factors, in my view, had begun to take a toll on King; he aged dramatically in appearance, and started talking about issues not directly related to the civil rights struggle, e.g., the Middle East, Vietnam. Had he lived longer, we likely would have seen King becoming radicalized, pushed leftward as he sought to retain control of the movement--but, as noted before, we will never know.

In sum, he was a great man with a great vision. His successors, many of them frauds of the first rank, largely have not been faithful to that vision of liberty and color-blindness, and we all have suffered for it.


  1. He hoped for equality but that appeared to be a bridge too far for some as it wasn't profitable. So now we have the replacement word "equity" which sounds catchy but is a dressy way of stealing equality for the aggrieved.

  2. Sad that so many so close to him are the way they are.

    As an example; Back when I was an IT Project manager I had to visit my customer in New Jersey 2 or 3 times a month. I live in Atlanta so My companies preferred airline was Delta. Since I traveled so much I was a Platinum Medallion frequent flyer member and frequently got bumped to first class. My company would only allow 1 business class trip a month. They were a bit cheap but if you traveled like I did you would be in first class most trips because of being bumped up.

    On a trip I had paid for business class. As I was waiting for the flight Coretta Scott King was at the Delta counter demanding that her economy seat and companion be upgraded to first class. The woman working the counter was explaining that first class was full. Mrs King got louder which caught the attention of a Delta supervisor. That supervisor bumped me and another passenger to economy. I was given 4 upgrade vouchers as compensation and basically told not to make any waves as it was a Delta policy to bump up Mrs King's ticket every time she flew.

    After I had used up my Delta vouchers I contacted my client's travel department. They were able to transfer my Delta miles to Continental for their OnePass frequent flyer program. I flew Continental for the rest of the time I was with the company.

  3. Since BLM matters most of all to NBA,
    I 'spect the ChiComs will continue to
    back their NEW dark-skinned Big Bro's even
    more than their own light-skinned lil Bro's.
    Seems the reformed GOPe are on the same page too...
    ...Oooops Dozed off~~~ while Watching a Wildlife film, on wolves
    ...Woke Up~~~ when they mentioned~~~The'BullMoose
    weighing in at:
    1500 lbs was, 2nd only to the BISON at,
    2000 lbs, Shazzam~~~ EUREKA! Great Name
    for a New Party of U.S. Republic loving types!
    GO BISONS! TRAMPLE BULLmoose'BUllSh!t...
    AnyhOWl, that's what came to me on MLK day!

    That, and a great Diplomadic quick READ on MLK, to share with my close to home, Scientist, especially since Hillsdale College,
    just sent their 2021 Survey on Education in FLa:

    Ouest 2, Got my full attention, and thought I'd better solicit an informed answer from the resident 'summa cum laude' grad, right after she reads the above insightful piece: "On Martin Luther King" by WLA

    Question 2 Reads: "Do you think colleges and universities in Florida,
    under the influence of "political correctness" are promoting socialism and other ideas destructive of liberty?"

    A Great Lesson Plan for Tomorrow,
    I may not sleep a wink~~~
    On Watch~~~
    "Let's Roll"

  4. What about MLK's "indiscretions" with women other than his wife?

    1. From the Host's 2014 re-Post, above Para. 6 & 7 (see below), didn't provide the salacious details, but does illustrate that Dmemocrat pols hadn't evolved their thirst for immoral detail, to destroy men/women when politically convenient. Funny tho, that both of Bobby's brothers, were exposed for their abuse of women, who might have lived a better, if not longer life, had they not become entangled with the 'creme de la creme' of sick Democrat dickheads!~~~

      "We need also remember that Attorney General Robert Kennedy had King under FBI surveillance, including the making of compromising tapes of King's extra-marital liaisons, providing the government excellent blackmail material against him.

      All these factors, in my view, had begun to take a toll on King; he aged dramatically in appearance, and started talking about issues not directly related to the civil rights struggle, e.g., the Middle East, Vietnam. Had he lived longer, we likely would have seen King becoming radicalized, pushed leftward as he sought to retain control of the movement--but, as noted before, we will never know."

  5. Wild Badger Applause, for a very well written post!

  6. Follow the money. Any good or great idea can be compromised by people who go from broke to wealthy in a short span. Like most idealists King surrounded himself with lesser men, particularly ones who saw a profit emerging.

  7. Since I'm 77 years old and lived through the Cultural Revolution, I am going to disagree with you regarding the political transformations of the 60's.

    In 1960, both the Republican and Democrat Partys were Big Tent parties. The Democrat Party ranged from outright Stalinist Communists to segregationists. The segregationists were arguably the dominant wing, especially because they held all the committee chairs in Congress. The Republican Party ranged from fiscal conservatives like Taft and libertarians like Goldwater to liberals like Rockefeller. It's liberal/progressive wing was dominant, and the Republican Party was on average to the left of the Democrat Party. Certainly it was to the left on race matters, its old historical claim to being.

    In the 70's, the communist wing of the Democrat Party staged an intra-party coup and seized control. Hence McGovern, Mondale, Carter, Dukakis, Kerry, Biden. The coup drove out anyone to the right of Carter and all the segregationists. It cannot be denied that the Democrat right wing defected to the Republican Party and turned the South solid Republican until recently.

    As a result, the modern Democrat Party is a socialist party with a dominant cultural communist wing. It is also a black, brown, Jewish party with a strong anti-White message. It's still racist, but the roles of aggressor and victim in the party have changed.

    Harris, AOC, Keith Ellison et al are the future leadership of the Democrats. Pelosi, Schumer et al will fade into the background.

    A similar, almost mirror image process occurred in the Republican Party. All the old liberals (e.g., Jay Rockefeller) moved to the Democrat Party. Today the Republican party is a center-left party with a dominant liberal wing. (Name one liberal program or dogma the leadership opposes.)

    So, the claim that the parties switched roles is sorta true, more true than you representation.

  8. Catching up on stuff here so pardon the late reply. Democrat segregationist congressmen in the 1960s stayed in Congress into the 1990s, as Democrats. They stopped talking in favor of segregation but never spoke against it either (to first approximation). No Republican ever openly supported segregation, and that includes former Dems who switched parties.