Martin Luther King III (Socialist) vs. Alveda King (Capitalist)

Sure. I don't disagree with the sentiment. I don't think wealth should be redistributed by the government, but I'm working to redistribute economic power every day through other means.

I want a colorblind society and where people have liberty to create wealth for themselves, but Big Government / Socialism is not the answer.



Freeman Yearling has the Right Idea


1968: Black Constitutionalist, Freeman Yearling, Takes on the Establishment


In this clip: Joe Pyne hosts a crazy 1968 discussion of black issues between Rev. E. Freeman Yearling of the John Birch Society and L. C. Wheeler of the militant and anti-Zionist Black Cat's Bone organization.​


YouTube - Channel Ø #13 4/8 Joe Pyne: John Birch's Rev. Yearling Vs Black Cat's Bone's L.C. Wheeler

YouTube - Channel Ø #13 5/8 Joe Pyne: John Birch's Rev. Yearling Vs Black Cat's Bone's L.C. Wheeler

YouTube - Channel Ø #13 6/8 Joe Pyne: John Birch's Rev. Yearling Vs Black Cat's Bone's L.C. Wheeler
 
Palin supports the Free-Market...don't make me laugh! Hahaha. Same with Beck. Both phonie balogne Fascists.

As for MLK...troubled man in a troubled society who held anti-liberty views. If you are going to hold up a staunch defender of civil-liberties in regards to the problems faced by blacks, look to someone like Lysander Spooner, and other Abolitionists. They didn't support non-sense like reperations to be paid by society, a society in which a great many people never had, or never wanted slaves. Why the fuck should I be punished for what someone else did?

LOL. Let's just bash everybody. At least I give you credit for being consistent.

As for reparations, I assume you were against reparations for Holocaust survivors and Japanese internment victims as well? After all, many Germans didn't want to oppress Jews. Many Americans didn't sign on to putting the Japanese in camps. I could care less, I just like consistency.
 
I want a colorblind society and where people have liberty to create wealth for themselves, but Big Government / Socialism is not the answer.

I don't disagree and I said as much. In one of your links "condemning" King, he said he didn't want his program limited to blacks but to be open to oppressed people of all races. So he was being "color blind" even in his call for reparations. That said the great society was a failure. (I don't know how many times I have to say that before you realize I said that). But economic power does need to be redistributed. We live in a fascist society where the levers of government power are pulled for the benefit of the big corporations. It ain't "free market" and hasn't been for some time. This movement would be much better served simply emphasizing how truly anti free market our current system of corporate welfare and special laws benefiting corporate interests is as opposed to wasting time attacking someone who saw the same problem but proposed the wrong solution.
 
LOL @ the clips. I wonder are you familiar with the term "black cat's bone"?


I want a colorblind society and where people have liberty to create wealth for themselves, but Big Government / Socialism is not the answer.



Freeman Yearling has the Right Idea


1968: Black Constitutionalist, Freeman Yearling, Takes on the Establishment


In this clip: Joe Pyne hosts a crazy 1968 discussion of black issues between Rev. E. Freeman Yearling of the John Birch Society and L. C. Wheeler of the militant and anti-Zionist Black Cat's Bone organization.​


YouTube - Channel Ø #13 4/8 Joe Pyne: John Birch's Rev. Yearling Vs Black Cat's Bone's L.C. Wheeler

YouTube - Channel Ø #13 5/8 Joe Pyne: John Birch's Rev. Yearling Vs Black Cat's Bone's L.C. Wheeler

YouTube - Channel Ø #13 6/8 Joe Pyne: John Birch's Rev. Yearling Vs Black Cat's Bone's L.C. Wheeler
 
But economic power does need to be redistributed.

As long as the Government isn't involved in the Redistribution of Wealth / Economic Power. Accumulating wealth or giving wealth to charity should be done by your own will. Forced redistribution of wealth is stealing.
 
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein9.html

"In another article about Martin Luther King, Roger Clegg of National Review applauds King for speaking out against the "oppression of communism!" To gain the support of many liberal whites, in the early years, King did make a few mild denunciations of communism. He also claimed in a 1965 Playboy that there "are as many Communists in this freedom movement as there are Eskimos in Florida." This was a bald-faced lie. Though King was never a Communist and was always critical of the Soviet Union, he had knowingly surrounded himself with Communists. His closest advisor Stanley Levison was a Communist, as was his assistant Jack O’Dell. Robert and later John F. Kennedy repeatedly warned him to stop associating himself with such subversives, but he never did. He frequently spoke before Communist front groups such as the National Lawyers Guild and Lawyers for Democratic Action. King even attended seminars at The Highlander Folk School, another Communist front, which taught Communist tactics, which he later employed.

King’s sympathy for communism may have contributed to his opposition to the Vietnam War, which he characterized as a racist, imperialistic, and unjust war. King claimed that America "had committed more war crimes than any nation in the world." While he acknowledged the NLF "may not be paragons of virtue," he never criticized them. However, he was rather harsh on Diem and the South. He denied that the NLF was communist, and believed that Ho Chi Minh should have been the legitimate ruler of Vietnam. As a committed globalist, he believed that "our loyalties must transcend our race, our tribe, our class, and our nation. This means we must develop a world perspective."

Many of King’s conservative admirers have no problem calling anyone who questions American foreign policy a "fifth columnist." While I personally agree with King on some of his stands on Vietnam, it is hypocritical for those who are still trying to get Jane Fonda tried for sedition to applaud King."

As I recall, Dr. Paul applauded King on his call for peaceful civil disobedience; not for his policies.
 
As long as the Government isn't involved in the Redistribution of Wealth / Economic Power. Accumulating wealth or giving wealth to charity should be done by your own will. Forced redistribution of wealth is stealing.

Unless the money was already stolen in the first place. Ending the fed will be using the government to force a redistribution of wealth by stopping the central bankers from stealing. But taking money from people who haven't done anything wrong should be illegal. By the way, Jim Crowe was a form of stealing. It's a shame the JBS defended that in the name of "state's rights".
 
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein9.html



As I recall, Dr. Paul applauded King on his call for peaceful civil disobedience; not for his policies.

Your article rebuts itself. King "always being critical of the Soviet union" != "King sympathetic with communism". Furthermore I've looked up the Highlander Folk School. There is zero proof that it was a "communist front". The founders have always denied membership in the communist party. This is a guilt by association smear campaign. If King was a communist (and your article says that he wasn't) then Paul is a white racist (someone wrote the newsletters after all) and a socialist (associates with Barney Frank, Cynthia McKinney and Dennis Kucinich). Anyway, I'm done here. You want to believe the King smears go right ahead. Just don't complain next time the Pauls get smeared.
 
Your article rebuts itself. King "always being critical of the Soviet union" != "King sympathetic with communism". Furthermore I've looked up the Highlander Folk School. There is zero proof that it was a "communist front". The founders have always denied membership in the communist party. This is a guilt by association smear campaign. If King was a communist (and your article says that he wasn't) then Paul is a white racist (someone wrote the newsletters after all) and a socialist (associates with Barney Frank, Cynthia McKinney and Dennis Kucinich). Anyway, I'm done here. You want to believe the King smears go right ahead. Just don't complain next time the Pauls get smeared.

You are twisting big time, jmdrake. But, you already knew that.
 
Unless the money was already stolen in the first place. Ending the fed will be using the government to force a redistribution of wealth by stopping the central bankers from stealing. But taking money from people who haven't done anything wrong should be illegal. By the way, Jim Crowe was a form of stealing. It's a shame the JBS defended that in the name of "state's rights".

WHAT? Stopping the FED from stealing is using the government to force a redistribution of wealth? OMG, I've heard it all now. :cool:
 
Palin supports the Free-Market...don't make me laugh! Hahaha. Same with Beck. Both phonie balogne Fascists.

As for MLK...troubled man in a troubled society who held anti-liberty views. If you are going to hold up a staunch defender of civil-liberties in regards to the problems faced by blacks, look to someone like Lysander Spooner, and other Abolitionists. They didn't support non-sense like reperations to be paid by society, a society in which a great many people never had, or never wanted slaves. Why the fuck should I be punished for what someone else did?


Good point. It's better for those of us who know the truth to not be so willing to embrace errors for the sake of looking good politically.



There are better examples of liberty than MLK. In fact, there are many reasons libertarians could never agree with MLK.



He certainly did believe that the State can and should enforce redistributive "equality". By contrast, we believe that the State has only proved to enforce inequalities.



Also, remember the whole firestorm surrounding Rand when he first won the primaries? Yeah. Um, he was right.
 
Last edited:
I asked for proof that King associated with communists. You posted information from Tom Woods (who I personally think is an idiot) about his views on the civil rights act. I ask for an apple, you give me an orangutan. I guess I should have expected that.

I can provide you visual evidence through a picture. Here is Martin Luther King attending a Communist Education Seminar at the Highlander Folk School in Tennessee.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/king_jr-communist.htm
And his closer advisor, Stanley Levison, was a member of CPUSA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Levison

Don't get me wrong, I support King on matters of foreign policy of opposing US Government Aggression abroad , but unfortunately he supported it here at home through unconstitutional means of wealth redistribution and violation of personal property rights.
 
The Communists exploited the Civil Rights movement to push their anti-Capitalist agenda. Listen to the interview below.

no they didn't, the civil rights movement, or even the idea of civil rights, is inherently communist.

Capitalism does not recognize civil rights or equality.
 
The Jim Crow laws were state and local laws in the United States enacted between 1876 and 1965.

Ok


John Birch Society on the Jim Crow laws:


On the Civil Rights movement...Yes, we did end up on the losing side of trying to stop the expansion of federal government control over our lives under that banner.


good, we got some facts.

However, The John Birch Society never endorsed segregation.

you don't need to, just like you don't need to defend anti-gay discrimination, sometimes, the status quo is inherently unfair, to where doing nothing is in effect supporting oppression. But not surprising that JBS people like you, Jesuitically convince yourself that there's a difference between ACTIVELY DOING something and PASSIVELY ALLOWING IT.



The John Birch Society argued that the federal government should stay within its constitutionally defined restrictions of power. It argued for Jim Crow laws to be repealed at the state level. [/B]

Did it actually argue for Jim Crow laws be repealed? For moral reasons? Or did it respect States' rights to remain Jim Crow if that's what the State's people wanted?

Admittedly, that route would likely have taken longer and left the many victims of Jim Crow laws wanting.

which is JUST WHAT HAPPENS when you put principle before practicality and morality. In other words, JBS constitutionalists are more obsessed with the Constitution than they are with what is right, what is moral.

And yes, we admit that most of the leaders of The John Birch Society not being directly affected by the worst elements of segregation, could more freely choose to stand on the principle that the Federal government, restricted by the U.S. Constitution, had no authority to enact the civil rights laws.

admission of how convenient your choice is, is always nice.​
 
Thomas E. Woods Jr: The Civil Rights Act was UnConstitutional, Statist, and a Failure

if this allegation is true in any honest sense, then again, communists DID NOT hijack or abuse the civil rights movement, Civil rights Act, or any legislation aimed at achieving equality. The goals of the civil rights movement, was properly, explicitly, about equality above property, what all communist (and only communists) are required to believe in.

FrankRep, are you starting to see how you have to jump between to hoops to pick and choose what's right and wrong about each person, whether associations with communists or racists are acceptable, just to prove your point, when you can honestly admit simply, you believe what you believe, regardless of who shares your views?
 
Back
Top