The Politically Incorrect Truth About Martin Luther King Jr.

Crucifer

BANNED
Banned
Public Statement by eight Alabama clergymen
Denouncing Martin Luther King's efforts, April 12, 1963

Gee, you mean a bunch of white guys in 1960's Alabama didn't like the black guy in their ranks? What a revelation.
Or even more, a bunch of white bishops and a black Baptist minister- you may as well be tossing a Muslim in a Late age inquisition chamber.

I did some digging on Sanger and it seems to me like there's some things that are just flat out lies about her. Not that I agree with her or Planned Parenthood, but there's immediate suspicion when something is argued from both sides of the fence. Calling Sanger racist while also putting her and King in the same boat? That means more than likely something is not accurate.
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I took a bit of truth from the leftwing Time Magazine article to make my point.

That would be the same Time Magazine who praised Fidel Castro by calling him "The George Washington of Cuba".


How about Ho Chi Minh? Was Ed Sullivan (the columnist) fooled by him as well? King not only associated with communists, he spoke highly of numerous communists as well, not just Fidel Castro.

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ther-King-Jr&p=5311830&viewfull=1#post5311830

One more thing Aaron: The article that you linked was written by Jeff Mackler who is a staffwriter for Socialist Action.

https://socialistaction.org/
 
Last edited:

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Public Statement by eight Alabama clergymen
Denouncing Martin Luther King's efforts, April 12, 1963

Gee, you mean a bunch of white guys in 1960's Alabama didn't like the black guy in their ranks? What a revelation.

It's been established already that numerous black clergy spoke out against King. Why are you so concerned about skin color when it comes to people speaking out against King and his communist tactics?

did some digging on Sanger and it seems to me like there's some things that are just flat out lies about her. Not that I agree with her or Planned Parenthood, but there's immediate suspicion when something is argued from both sides of the fence. Calling Sanger racist while also putting her and King in the same boat? That means more than likely something is not accurate.

Did you by chance "dig up" the contents of her speech when she spoke to the women of the KKK? It must have been accepted by the Klan well, as in Sanger's own words

"In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered." (Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, P.366)
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
So you don't think Sanger was a racist?

I think it's difficult to believe that anyone comfortable with accepting an invitation from a group of women affiliated with the Klan wouldn't have issues on the point, but then as far as I can tell she only did that once. And maybe she did it to advance what she counted wisdom, even among people she may have counted fools. Who needs it more?

She undoubtedly believed in eugenics, but that's not necessarily the same animal as racism, except to those who set the standard by race. Du Bois, a black writer, thinker, and advocate, subscribed to many of its tenets. There were doubtless some racists who latched on and wrote about eugenics, trying to make the two strains integral, but they simply weren't.

Jean Baker, who wrote a book about the life of Sanger, has said that Sanger was ahead of the curve in opposing segregation of races. Edwin Black, who wrote War Against the Weak, an attack on eugenics, said of Sanger, "[She] was no racist. Nor was she anti-Semitic."

I guess I missed your answer: Was Margaret Sanger a racist or not?
 

Crucifer

BANNED
Banned
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Public Statement by eight Alabama clergymen
Denouncing Martin Luther King's efforts, April 12, 1963



It's been established already that numerous black clergy spoke out against King. Why are you so concerned about skin color when it comes to people speaking out against King and his communist tactics?



Did you by chance "dig up" the contents of her speech when she spoke to the women of the KKK? It must have been accepted by the Klan well, as in Sanger's own words

"In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered." (Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, P.366)

I did a simple Google search of half the people listed and stopped once I got to the fourth white person. They probably are just speaking of the black community they serve which probably were a minority at those churches being that I've absolutely NEVER seen a Catholic, Methodist, or Presbyterian congregation that were predominantly black. African Americans are most generally Baptist especially the further South you go.

On the matter of 'communism', that's just a lame accusation. I've probably heard that word more in the two years Trump has been around then I ever have in my life- ANYTHING that doesn't fit into the bias of the Right is 'communism'.
Anything with a commonwealth value attached to it is Marx rearing his head or something. Go figure :chuckle:
Bringing up communism at this point is like another version of 'Godwins law'- as soon as something is compared to it the argument tends to just spiral down into lunacy.

And with Sanger, the fact that she perpetuated a defense of birth control and abortion, especially during her time, meant that she had to deal with people from basically every outlet of society. Hundreds of claims were made about her and most all of them outright contradict and cancel out each other.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
On the matter of 'communism', that's just a lame accusation. I've probably heard that word more in the two years Trump has been around then I ever have in my life- ANYTHING that doesn't fit into the bias of the Right is 'communism'.
Anything with a commonwealth value attached to it is Marx rearing his head or something. Go figure :chuckle:
Bringing up communism at this point is like another version of 'Godwins law'- as soon as something is compared to it the argument tends to just spiral down into lunacy.

you should research this better - the universities are hotbeds of marxist thought, spawning generations of SJW's and hardcore leftists

you want proof?

in what other election in america did a self proclaimed socialist get the attention bernie did in 2016?

and don't try to pretend it was because he was charismatic or a dynamic speaker :chuckle:
 

Crucifer

BANNED
Banned
you should research this better - the universities are hotbeds of marxist thought, spawning generations of SJW's and hardcore leftists

you want proof?

in what other election in america did a self proclaimed socialist get the attention bernie did in 2016?

and don't try to pretend it was because he was charismatic or a dynamic speaker :chuckle:

The professors are deciding on social democracy because they feel trickle-down economics is a one sided bunch of nonsense that fools have been duped into upholding by the rich appealing to their prejudices.
There's nothing to be gained from it other than a bunch of worthless jobs while the real wealth is distributed onto the industries.
As for the students themselves, they just want affordable education. And not just them but most Millennials for that matter because they feel they've been cheated out of it.

There's no reason for a lot of people to support the Republican palette because they blatantly don't care about anyone else. It's that simple really; there doesn't even need to be some slanted bias for people to just not want anything to do with conservatives politically.

And the only real presence of communism is in those Antifa members all being paid to stir trouble by the likes of those such as Soros- they're mostly in it for money because they're a bunch of broke college kids and are never to be heard of again once they graduate.
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
I can think of no better way to close this year's review of Martin Luther King than to review the life of Margaret Sanger.

Margaret Sanger (1879 – 1966) was a birth control, population control, and eugenics activist. She changed the world, but for the worse.

By 1911, Sanger had moved to New York City, where she became heavily influenced by anarchist, socialist, and labor activists. She began joining and participating in radical groups and causes.

In March 1914, Sanger published the first issue of her own paper, The Woman Rebel. ]Along with providing information about birth control, Sanger wholeheartedly supported the use of violence to achieve political, economic, and social goals. Case in point, the Lexington Avenue bombing. On July 4th of that year, a bomb accidentally exploded in a Harlem apartment, killing three men and one woman. The three men were planning to bomb the home of industrialist John D. Rockefeller, but the bomb exploded prematurely. The plan was devised at the Ferrer Center, an educational institution, which also served as the meeting place for a movement of radicals. Sanger lectured at the institution, and was active in the movement.

After the failed terrorist attempt, Sanger wrote a commentary, calling the deaths a display of “courage, determination, conviction, a spirit of defiance.” She argued the “real tragedy” was “the cowardice and the poisonous respectability” of the movement’s leaders who offered apologies, rather than defiance, for the episode. Sanger urged those in the movement to “accept and exult in every act of revolt against oppression,” including terrorist acts. She also published a complementary article that defended the assassination of political or industrial leaders.

The following month, August 1914, Sanger was indicted for inciting murder and assassination, and for violating obscenity laws.
But instead of facing the charges, she fled the country. On the trip to England, after the ship had entered international waters, Sanger instructed her supporters to distribute 100,000 copies of her pamphlet, Family Limitation. In February 1916, the charges were dropped.

In October 1916, Sanger opened America’s first birth control clinic. Located in Brownsville, New York, the clinic permanently closed a month later, after Sanger was charged with maintaining a public nuisance. In February 1917, she was convicted and given a thirty day prison sentence.

Also in February 1917, the first issue of Sanger’s journal, The Birth Control Review, was published. She was The Review’s editor until 1929, and used her editorials to promote birth control and eugenics. For Sanger, these issues were inseparable.

The word eugenics, which means well born, was coined in 1883 by Sir Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin. Positive eugenics was a movement that attempted to “improve” the human population by encouraging “fit” people to reproduce. Negative eugenics, conversely, attempted to “improve” the human population by discouraging “unfit” people from reproducing. The “unfit” people included the poor, the sick, the disabled, and the “feeble-minded,” the “idiots,” the “morons,” and the “insane.” And “discouragement” from reproducing included the use of force.

Sanger rejected positive eugenics, while embracing negative eugenics. She wrote, “Like the advocates of Birth Control, the eugenists, for instance, are seeking to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit. Both are seeking a single end but they lay emphasis upon different methods.” She stressed the need to merge eugenics with birth control, adding, “Eugenics without Birth Control seems to us a house builded upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the rising stream of the unfit.”

And Sanger advocated birth control backed up by forced sterilization or segregation to achieve her aims, writing, “While I personally believe in the sterilization of the feeble-minded, the insane and syphilitic, I have not been able to discover that these measures are more than superficial deterrents when applied to the constantly growing stream of the unfit. They are excellent means of meeting a certain phase of the situation, but I believe in regard to these, as in regard to other eugenic means, that they do not go to the bottom of the matter.” The bottom of the matter was “to create a race of thoroughbreds.” So the government, Sanger concluded, needed “to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring” and “to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.”

In her 1920 book, Woman and the New Race, Sanger wrote that birth control “is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives.”

She had a plan. And she was about to get an organization. In 1921, Sanger founded the American Birth Control League, which (following a 1939 merger with the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau and then a 1942 name change) became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. While the organization was growing, the close association between the birth control movement and the eugenics movement had made a name change necessary. Nazi Germany had implemented racial hygiene policies, including mass sterilizations, inspired by the eugenics movement in America. So “birth control” was removed from the name to create a new public image. The agenda, though, stayed the same. And in 1948, Sanger helped form the International Committee on Planned Parenthood, which (in 1952) became the International Planned Parenthood Federation...
Read more: https://www.liveaction.org/research/margaret-sanger-quotes-history-and-biography
 

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
no black person of any stripe would have been caught within a mile of her....
.

What about W.E.B. Dubious?
I remmember a black woman that was president of Planned Parenthood around the time of the Reagan administration.

And believing in Mark’s critique of capitalism and Marx’s ideas on communism are two different things.

America has many forms of socialism:
--Our military
--Police and fire departments
--Insurance pools
--the GI Bill
--Our highway system

The early Christian communities in Paul’s day were commanded to hold “all things in common.”

The Jews mandated forgiving all debts--public and private--every so often.
They also favored giving farm lands back to ssthe original family owners.
They also held that during every harvest, farmers should leave a set portion of their crops to the widows & orphans, the immigrant, the poor and the stranger.

The Jews, in effect, adopted socialism as a structure built in to their economy.
 

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
stupid

don't let it define you

Try and present an answer that does not use childish labeling and name-calling.


***Know what socialism is.
***Cast an intelligent eye on our American system.
***Find the commonalities and look for the patterns.

It’s no mystery.

And read your Bible.

Remember, Bible study is actually “studying the Bible!"

“ALL FOR ONE AND ONE FOR ALL."
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Try and present an answer that does not use childish labeling and name-calling.


***Know what socialism is.
***Cast an intelligent eye on our American system.
***Find the commonalities and look for the patterns.

you forgot step four

***Eat a jar of paste
 

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
Immature diversions has no part in adult dialogue.
I think it has something to do with the way we are raised.
 

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
"The George Washington of Cuba".

Careful, critical readers recognize this as a metaphor.

It does not say Castro was George Washington.
It says that Castro was the “George Washington of CUBA."
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
But would you be willing to give specific facts, data and evidence that Dubious was a communist?

Been there, done that.

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ther-King-Jr&p=3760843&viewfull=1#post3760843

tumblr_m2wvsctCBV1rqjxl8o1_400.jpg
 

Crucifer

BANNED
Banned
MLK was raised in an era that's different than today. What he stated was perceived differently back then, and even to himself was different than a person who would state the same today.

The big problem with the world at this time is it's ridiculous self-righteous attitude about history- going to go back and count the sins of people and conflate today's values with those of back then.
But then
Go and make excuses for ridiculous things that work for your worldview- Like the 'Old Law' for example: God wouldn't have had such harsh laws if the people's hearts weren't hardened. The zealotry of stoning someone to death for saying a word is a direct result of their own misgivings, which God availed to them nonetheless to keep sanctity in their ranks. But you'll go and chalk that up as holiness while calling Muslims evil for doing the same things.
Or
As a more recent example, how Abraham Lincoln was a straight up white supremacist but you'll no less deify him for ending slavery, which in reality was just for the purpose of breaking the Souths industry.

I mean come on now- if you're so set on demonizing historical people than why not just include all of them because none of them are perfect saints :rolleyes:
 
Top