Dr. King Urban Legends

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Wreckless,

You also misread (and misrepresented)the link regarding #4. If you’re going to set up a strawman, at least do it intelligently.

Can you put in a little extra effort and point out where I’m wrong?

You really should be ashamed of your behavior on this site.

You’re projecting your own situation on me again. You really have no shame do you?

If you take the cape off the grand dragon, you usually find a lizard.[/quote]

Wreckless,

Welcome to my trap. Your argument is:
“You question Dr. King’s private life and motivation. Therefore, you’re a rascist.”
Similar to: “You’re against Affirmative Action, so you’re rascist.”
Or: “You’re against government funding for Gay Pride courses at university. So, you must be a homophobe!”

Since these arguments are simply illogical, this means that you using them implies that you are either evil or stupid. I do not think you are stupid though. You had the opportunity to educate, but chose to denigrate. Instead of proving Dr. King was not a scum bucket hypocrit (you had your chance) you chose to attack instead, with fallacious reasoning at that.

Just like the libs who created the Great Society program to destroy black families, you are seething with hatred for Americans. You have been exposed for the person you are. You wish only for destruction, your own and for all that is good.

Your head will sit comfortably in my trophy case. Chalk up another one for the Headhunter!

62

[quote]
Wreckless,

Welcome to my trap. Your argument is:
“You question Dr. King’s private life and motivation. Therefore, you’re a rascist.”
Similar to: “You’re against Affirmative Action, so you’re rascist.”
Or: “You’re against government funding for Gay Pride courses at university. So, you must be a homophobe!”[/quote]

No, that’s not my argument.

My argument is that you jumped at this message that you found on the internet, about MLK brutalizing white prostitutes, so you took the chance to smear his name. You pretended to be an admirer.

You even decided to add some flavor to it by adding "I HAD read that he used to fuck white prostitutes while screaming: “I’m fucking for Jay-sus!!”. That was apparently on an FBI tape."

Well, if it’s on FBI tape, then in MUST be true, right?

Wrong.

You simply had to scroll down the link you provided to see that nearly all the allegations were proven wrong.

So my argument is not that you questioned his life and motivation. My argument is that you questioned him, but not the people who accused him. You simply took the accusations for granted.

AND ALL YOU HAD TO DO WAS TO SCROLL DOWN THE BLOODY LINK.

[quote]
Since these arguments are simply illogical, this means that you using them implies that you are either evil or stupid. I do not think you are stupid though. You had the opportunity to educate, but chose to denigrate. Instead of proving Dr. King was not a scum bucket hypocrit (you had your chance) [/quote]

And I did.

[quote] you chose to attack instead, with fallacious reasoning at that.

Just like the libs who created the Great Society program to destroy black families, you are seething with hatred for Americans. [/quote]

Well, I agree with you there. Really I do. “Just like the libs who created the Great Society program to destroy black families, you are seething with hatred for Americans.”

Let’s look at that sentence for a while.
The libs created the Great Society program to destroy black families. Well, that’s stupid and wrong.
I am seething with hatred for Americans. Well, that’s stupid and wrong also.

So you’re right: “Just like the libs who created the Great Society program to destroy black families, you are seething with hatred for Americans.”

Haha, you wish.
Everybody reading this list and with more than 2 braincells to rub together will clearly see who has exposed whom here. And whose head is sitting in whose trophy case.

BTW, it’s “racist” not “rascist”.

Knowing yourself is the basis of all wisdom.

63

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Just like the libs who created the Great Society program to destroy black families…
[/quote]

What exactly do YOU know about the health of black families before and after the creation of the Great Society program? Please, enlighten us with your…knowledge.

64

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
As a great admirer of Dr. King’s, I was shocked when I read some of this:

Dr. King plagarized his doctoral dissertation, and cheated on his wife repeatedly. He may not have even been named Martin!

I would like to hunt down and see if he used to beat white prostitutes. I HAD read that he used to fuck white prostitutes while screaming: “I’m fucking for Jay-sus!!”. That was apparently on an FBI tape.

Anyone know the real deal and a good read?[/quote]

Is MLK an icon because he was a saint or because he was instrumental in helping to break down racial barriers for all minorities?

Regardless of what he did in his private life, he still made great efforts in the fight for equal rights for all men. That is what he should be remembered for.

65

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Just like the libs who created the Great Society program to destroy black families…
[/quote]

It was not created to destroy anyone, but because the system has been manipulated for years for political reasons it did turn into something that was less than helpful for most all minority groups.

Any system that rewards failure is bound to produce failure.

66

"And no less an authoritative source than the four senior editors of "The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr.- - (an official publication of the Martin Luther King Center for Nonviolent Social Change, Inc., whose staff includes King’s widow Coretta), stated of King’s writings at both Boston University and Crozer Theological Seminary: “Judged retroactively by the standards of academic scholarship, [his writings] are tragically flawed by numerous instances of plagiarism… Appropriated passages are particularly evident in his writings in his major field of graduate study, systematic theology.”

67

I guess its okay to use disgusting speech, if its out of earshot of the worshipping masses. Its just a ‘cultural thing’ anyway.

“Abernathy, commenting on some fairly disgusting sexual references made by King in a surveillance audio tape, made some justification on cultural grounds. He said it was just the way they talked. King had far too much knowledge to have used that justification himself. That only gives insight into the issue, not justification. Snopes did a good bit of research into all this and has all the various quotes from King Sr., Ralph Abernathy and King’s biographer on their site.”

I, for one, am greatly saddened by what I read. I truly did have a very high opinion of this man. His ‘I have a dream’ speech is immortal. Guess I’ll have to just try to remember the public persona and try to forget the hidden things.

68

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I, for one, am greatly saddened by what I read. I truly did have a very high opinion of this man. [/quote]

You are neither saddened nor had a high opinion of the man. If you did, you wouldn’t have started this thread, nor would you have continued with spreading this “information”. If you were genuine in your feelings, you wouldn’t have had any part of this at all. You are twisted and are getting some sort of sick pleasure out of this. As usual, you are full of shit and have lowered everyone’s already low opinion of you on this board. I didn’t think it was possible, but you did it.

BTW, if you don’t like what I said, tough! The man made such a positive impact on this country and the world, for you to cheapen his memory by actively participating in the spread of this “information” is disgusting!

You may have a shitty opinion about me, and that’s ok, but ask yourself if you really feel good about bringing this topic up? What value have you really added by pursuing this thread? All it has really done is create an image of you on this board that you keep saying is false. By doing this, any time issues of race come up on this board, your opinion will be suspect.

You may say that I am being blind and following the masses or whatever crap you come up with. Whatever makes you happy. I don’t care. My feeling about this is that his personal life had absolutely nothing to do with the impact he has made on society. By attempting to bring things like this up, it is an attempt to diminish the legacy that he created. I find that HIGHLY offensive!

69

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
By attempting to bring things like this up, it is an attempt to diminish the legacy that he created. I find that HIGHLY offensive![/quote]

How does ‘truth’ diminish anyone’s legacy? If the legacy is based upon falsehood, then maybe it SHOULD be diminished anyway.

The man was a plagarist and a womanizer. He may have been deranged and beaten white prostitutes; we simply don’t know (though the FBI says he did). These are facts. If it disturbs your idolized view of Dr. King, you deal with it.

LBJ was beyond evil. You don’t see me idolizing the guy, though he did good things, like the Voting Rights Act.

Get over it, dude.

70

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
By attempting to bring things like this up, it is an attempt to diminish the legacy that he created. I find that HIGHLY offensive!

How does ‘truth’ diminish anyone’s legacy? If the legacy is based upon falsehood, then maybe it SHOULD be diminished anyway.

The man was a plagarist and a womanizer. He may have been deranged and beaten white prostitutes; we simply don’t know (though the FBI says he did). These are facts. If it disturbs your idolized view of Dr. King, you deal with it.

LBJ was beyond evil. You don’t see me idolizing the guy, though he did good things, like the Voting Rights Act.

Get over it, dude.

[/quote]

You mean the same FBI that was headed by J. Edgar Hoover? Because we all know HE was a paragon of virtue. He would never make shit up. Oh no, not him.

You are a tool.

Talk about making shit up. Nothing you just said about him being deranged and beating white hookers has been proven to be fact. It is all word of mouth and hearsay, but that has never stopped you before, has it? Show some OFFICIAL documentation and then maybe you’ll have something. Until then, you are just spreading crap as usual.

Again, nothing you have said has anything to do with what he has done for society. It is allegedly personal information not public information that had nothing to do with his work. This so-called ‘truth’ has nothing to do with his legacy. The only reason it is out there is for nutcases like you to find. This information doesn’t disturb my view of the man, it only bothers me that it exists to give sad people like you something to cling to so you can feel important because you have some “information” on MLK that the rest of the public doesn’t have.

You use LBJ as an example. LBJ did most of his dirt in public and it is documented. Public knowledge, you dipshit! And the things he did affected the public. Your example is bullshit on that level. It is also bullshit because you would never idolize him because he was a Democrat. You can’t even bring a decent example to try to support your stupidity.

Why don’t you talk about Ronald Reagan some of the evil shit he did? Oh yeah, that’s right he’s a white, male, heterosexual, Christian, American-born Republican so he gets a free pass from you.

I’ll get over it when you stop posting stupid shit. Since we know that will NEVER happen, I guess I’ll never get over it.

71

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
By attempting to bring things like this up, it is an attempt to diminish the legacy that he created. I find that HIGHLY offensive!

How does ‘truth’ diminish anyone’s legacy? If the legacy is based upon falsehood, then maybe it SHOULD be diminished anyway.

The man was a plagarist and a womanizer. He may have been deranged and beaten white prostitutes; we simply don’t know (though the FBI says he did). These are facts. If it disturbs your idolized view of Dr. King, you deal with it.

LBJ was beyond evil. You don’t see me idolizing the guy, though he did good things, like the Voting Rights Act.

Get over it, dude.

You mean the same FBI that was headed by J. Edgar Hoover? Because we all know HE was a paragon of virtue. He would never make shit up. Oh no, not him.

You are a tool.

Talk about making shit up. Nothing you just said about him being deranged and beating white hookers has been proven to be fact. It is all word of mouth and hearsay, but that has never stopped you before, has it? Show some OFFICIAL documentation and then maybe you’ll have something. Until then, you are just spreading crap as usual.

Again, nothing you have said has anything to do with what he has done for society. It is allegedly personal information not public information that had nothing to do with his work. This so-called ‘truth’ has nothing to do with his legacy. The only reason it is out there is for nutcases like you to find. This information doesn’t disturb my view of the man, it only bothers me that it exists to give sad people like you something to cling to so you can feel important because you have some “information” on MLK that the rest of the public doesn’t have.

You use LBJ as an example. LBJ did most of his dirt in public and it is documented. Public knowledge, you dipshit! And the things he did affected the public. Your example is bullshit on that level. It is also bullshit because you would never idolize him because he was a Democrat. You can’t even bring a decent example to try to support your stupidity.

Why don’t you talk about Ronald Reagan some of the evil shit he did? Oh yeah, that’s right he’s a white, male, heterosexual, Christian, American-born Republican so he gets a free pass from you.

I’ll get over it when you stop posting stupid shit. Since we know that will NEVER happen, I guess I’ll never get over it.[/quote]

“I’ll have them ni##ers votin’ Democrat for the next 200 years!!”
— LBJ (verified by 3 witnesses)

You’re being screwed by a lib/establishment that loathes you, Al. They despise you and are using you. 90% of black people do just as LBJ planned. You fell into their trap — YOU are the tool.

The source for the claims about Dr. King beating white whores is from an FBI assistant director. He was a lib and an admirer of King as well. Your argument is with him, though I think he’s dead. The other stuff WAS ADMITTED BY CORETTA and the Dr. King organisation itself. Go argue with them.

Based upon your paranoia and that exhibited by Harris and Prof X, I don’t think Dr. King’s teachings had too much influence on you. Is that the ‘good’ you refer to above? You need more study.

Now, Malcolm X, he da man! He’s worth studying and he wasn’t any goddamned hypocrit!

72

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Now, Malcolm X, he da man!

[/quote]

Doth mine eyes deceive me? A Malcolm X avatar and words of admiration? Don’t you realize that he was a Muslim, and considered by some to be a terrorist?! What would Ann Coulter say? :wink:

73

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Doth mine eyes deceive me? A Malcolm X avatar and words of admiration? Don’t you realize that he was a Muslim, and considered by some to be a terrorist?! What would Ann Coulter say? ;)[/quote]

Don’t play with the troll.

He’s just waiting for someone to point out various facts about Malcom X, so that he can then charge them as racists.

74

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

Now, Malcolm X, he da man!

Doth mine eyes deceive me? A Malcolm X avatar and words of admiration? Don’t you realize that he was a Muslim, and considered by some to be a terrorist?! What would Ann Coulter say? ;)[/quote]

Yep, I know all that. I like his honesty. He also loathes hypocrisy and ripped on the liberals, white and black. Also, any guy who can take white judges to be whipped by a black dominatrix (in his autobiography) and uses that to illustrate the hypocrisy of the ‘high and mighty’ is cool in my book.

I also regard hatred as a more honest emotion. If someone says positive things, there’s always a sliver of doubt. If they hate you, you know they’re being completely honest. (Can I guess how Vroom, Pookie, Harris, TME and so forth would respond to what I just wrote? :wink:

75

[quote]pookie wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Doth mine eyes deceive me? A Malcolm X avatar and words of admiration? Don’t you realize that he was a Muslim, and considered by some to be a terrorist?! What would Ann Coulter say? :wink:

Don’t play with the troll.

He’s just waiting for someone to point out various facts about Malcom X, so that he can then charge them as racists.
[/quote]

Nah, I’m not that two-faced. Malcolm is cool.

Don’t tell us what YOU’RE playing with this morning, btw. TMI!!!

76

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Nah, I’m not that two-faced. Malcolm is cool.

Don’t tell us what YOU’RE playing with this morning, btw. TMI!!![/quote]

Please don’t share your personal mental imagerie with us.

77

[quote]pookie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Nah, I’m not that two-faced. Malcolm is cool.

Don’t tell us what YOU’RE playing with this morning, btw. TMI!!!

Please don’t share your personal mental imagerie with us.
[/quote]

Hey, you brought it up (pun intended).

78

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
By attempting to bring things like this up, it is an attempt to diminish the legacy that he created. I find that HIGHLY offensive!

How does ‘truth’ diminish anyone’s legacy?[/quote]

The truth doesn’t. That’s why you use lies.

[quote] If the legacy is based upon falsehood, then maybe it SHOULD be diminished anyway.

The man was a plagarist and a womanizer. He may have been deranged and beaten white prostitutes; we simply don’t know (though the FBI says he did). These are facts. [/quote]

You see, there’s the lie. Right there. You make it look like it’s a fact that he was deranged and beat white prostitutes. But looking closer, that’s not a fact at all. It was J. Edgar Hoovers lie-machine that accused him of beating white prostitutes.
You had to choose between a black preacher, that you claim to admire and a fat white guy in a pink tutu.
You went with the story of the fat white guy (in the pink tutu). That says something about you.

Perhaps it means that you prefer fat white guys in pink tutus. We simply don’t know (but I think you do). And that’s a fact.

79

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
By attempting to bring things like this up, it is an attempt to diminish the legacy that he created. I find that HIGHLY offensive!

How does ‘truth’ diminish anyone’s legacy?

The truth doesn’t. That’s why you use lies.

If the legacy is based upon falsehood, then maybe it SHOULD be diminished anyway.

The man was a plagarist and a womanizer. He may have been deranged and beaten white prostitutes; we simply don’t know (though the FBI says he did). These are facts.

You see, there’s the lie. Right there. You make it look like it’s a fact that he was deranged and beat white prostitutes. But looking closer, that’s not a fact at all. It was J. Edgar Hoovers lie-machine that accused him of beating white prostitutes.
You had to choose between a black preacher, that you claim to admire and a fat white guy in a pink tutu.
You went with the story of the fat white guy (in the pink tutu). That says something about you.

Perhaps it means that you prefer fat white guys in pink tutus. We simply don’t know (but I think you do). And that’s a fact.

[/quote]

Stupidest post ever. I show documented facts, that Dr. King was a plagarizer and screwed around on his wife. I show pretty reliable evidence (though the final word won’t be in until 2027) that he beat white prostitutes. Yet you accuse me of making ALL this up.

Are you in a mental institution? When you DENY REALITY, that’s where you belong. I hope you are for the sake of your fellow Belgians. (I also hope that your cellmate is a 300 pound, horny former SS trooper aus Deutchland. You’ve been owned here and now he ‘owns’ you.)

80

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Stupidest post ever. I show documented facts, that Dr. King was a plagarizer and screwed around on his wife. I show pretty reliable evidence (though the final word won’t be in until 2027) that he beat white prostitutes. Yet you accuse me of making ALL this up.

Are you in a mental institution? When you DENY REALITY, that’s where you belong. I hope you are for the sake of your fellow Belgians. (I also hope that your cellmate is a 300 pound, horny former SS trooper aus Deutchland. You’ve been owned here and now he ‘owns’ you.)

[/quote]

Reliable evidence? Only when you take the word of a fat white guy in a pink tutu over that of a black preacher you claim to admire.

Talking about being owned. I have your balls on a platter.

But moving on.

The Martin Luther King You Don’t See on TV
By Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon
t r u t h o u t | Guest Contributors

Wednesday 04 April 2007 

It's become a TV ritual: Every year on April 4, as Americans commemorate Martin Luther King's death, we get perfunctory network news reports about "the slain civil rights leader." 

The remarkable thing about these reviews of King's life is that several years - his last years - are totally missing, as if flushed down a memory hole. 

What TV viewers see is a closed loop of familiar file footage: King battling segregation in Birmingham (1963); reciting his dream of racial harmony at the rally in Washington (1963); marching for voting rights in Selma, Alabama (1965); and finally, lying dead on the motel balcony in Memphis (1968). 

An alert viewer might notice that the chronology jumps from 1965 to 1968. Yet King didn't take a sabbatical near the end of his life. In fact, he was speaking and organizing as diligently as ever. 

Almost all of those speeches were filmed or taped. But they're not shown today on TV. 

Why? 

It's because national news media have never come to terms with what Martin Luther King Jr. stood for during his final years. 

In the early 1960s, when King focused his challenge on legalized racial discrimination in the South, most major media were his allies. Network TV and national publications graphically showed the police dogs and bullwhips and cattle prods used against Southern blacks who sought the right to vote or [the right] to eat at a public lunch counter. 

But after passage of civil rights acts in 1964 and 1965, King began challenging the nation's fundamental priorities. He maintained that civil rights laws were empty without "human rights" - including economic rights. For people too poor to eat at a restaurant or afford a decent home, King said, anti-discrimination laws were hollow. 

Noting that a majority of Americans below the poverty line were white, King developed a class perspective. He decried the huge income gaps between rich and poor, and called for "radical changes in the structure of our society" to redistribute wealth and power. 

"True compassion," King declared, "is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring." 

By 1967, King had also become the country's most prominent opponent of the Vietnam War, and a staunch critic of overall US foreign policy, which he deemed militaristic. In his "Beyond Vietnam" speech delivered at New York's Riverside Church on April 4, 1967 - a year to the day before he was murdered - King called the United States "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today." (Full text/audio here.) 

From Vietnam to South Africa to Latin America, King said, the US was "on the wrong side of a world revolution." King questioned "our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America," and asked why the US was suppressing revolutions "of the shirtless and barefoot people" in the Third World, instead of supporting them. 

In foreign policy, King also offered an economic critique, complaining about "capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries." 

You haven't heard the "Beyond Vietnam" speech on network news retrospectives, but national media heard it loud and clear back in 1967 - and loudly denounced it. Time magazine called it "demagogic slander that sounded like a script for Radio Hanoi." The Washington Post patronized that "King has diminished his usefulness to his cause, his country, his people." 

In his last months, King was organizing the most militant project of his life: the Poor People's Campaign. He crisscrossed the country to assemble "a multiracial army of the poor" that would descend on Washington - engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience at the Capitol, if need be - until Congress enacted a poor people's bill of rights. Reader's Digest warned of an "insurrection." 

King's economic bill of rights called for massive government jobs programs to rebuild America's cities. He saw a crying need to confront a Congress that had demonstrated its "hostility to the poor" - appropriating "military funds with alacrity and generosity," but providing "poverty funds with miserliness." 

How familiar that sounds today, nearly 40 years after King's efforts on behalf of the poor people's mobilization were cut short by an assassin's bullet. 

In 2007, in this nation of immense wealth, the White House and most in Congress continue to accept the perpetuation of poverty. They fund foreign wars with "alacrity and generosity," while being miserly in dispensing funds for education and health care and environmental cleanup. 

And those priorities are largely unquestioned by mainstream media. No surprise that they tell us so little about the last years of Martin Luther King's life.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/040407R.shtml

Is this the man you claim to admire HH? Or do you finally admit in lying about that?