January 18, 2016

"I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits."

"I believe that what self-centered men have torn down men other-centered can build up. I still believe that one day mankind will bow before the altars of God and be crowned triumphant over war and bloodshed, and nonviolent redemptive good will proclaim the rule of the land."

55 comments:

J2 said...

"Other-centered" sounds so contemporary.

Big Mike said...

If Martin Luther King was alive today, would he be the great racial healer that Obama was supposed to be? Or would he have devolved into just another race hustler like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton? I want to believe the former, but I wonder.

rhhardin said...

Blacks didn't pick up on that part of the message. They picked up on whites owe blacks free stuff.

It's all in the service of MSM-appointed black leaders.

Caroline Walker said...

"Civilization and violence are anti-thetical."
True, that.

traditionalguy said...

The Judeo-Christian ideal took deep root in post war Atlanta Black Baptist churches. It was a simple message of hope and equality of all men under God written in scripture.

It is the same message that Islam seeks everywhere to kill off for fear it can eliminate Islam's grip on the minds of men like it did to segregation's grip on southern white American minds in the 1960s, and it still does.

Humperdink said...

"I believe that what self-centered men have torn down men other-centered can build up. I still believe that one day mankind will bow before the altars of God and be crowned triumphant over war and bloodshed, and nonviolent redemptive good will proclaim the rule of the land. "And the lion and the lamb shall lie down together and every man shall sit under his own vine and fig tree and none shall be afraid."

Great message. It's a shame MLK left out Jesus.

Michael K said...

He would not recognize what Black Lives Matter has become. It's the new religion. Hate, hate, hate,

Sort of like Obama's favorite rap album with a dead white judge on the cover.

Curious George said...

Dude's dreamin'.

coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bob Ellison said...

We were so lucky to have him for the short time that we did.

PB said...

Two perspectives on that:

1. That a society allows the freedom and opportunity for people to achieve that and be rewarded.

2. Government must deliver it.

David said...

Jeers to Google, which has a representation of Dr. King on its home page that looks like Jerome Bettis.

For kicks I read KIng's Nobel Prize speech and then Obama's. The main difference is that Obama's was about three times as long. O's speech started very well but then it started to wallow and sank itself. He had no idea when to stop talking. King did.

jacksonjay said...

It is indeed time to drop that "...content of their character" bullshit. So very 20th Century. Only Black Live Matter!

Laslo Spatula said...

On the day of that MLK Nobel speech, in the Twin Cities at 1:15 AM, Channel 11 showed a rerun of "Amos 'n' Andy."

Six years later in the Twin Cities Mary Tyler Moore would throw her hat in the air. At her fictional TV station there was a black weatherman, Gordy, played by John Amos (not of 'Amos and Andy', but it is thematic).

In 1974 Amos starred in the show "Good Times", where his character lived with his family in the Projects of Chicago.

That show featured Jimmie 'J.J'. Walker. John Amos stated:

"The writers would prefer to put a chicken hat on J.J. and have him prance around saying "DY-NO-MITE", and that way they could waste a few minutes and not have to write meaningful dialogue."

From Wiki:

Walker appeared on The O'Reilly Factor on July 11, 2012. He stated that he did not vote for Barack Obama and that he would not vote for him in the 2012 election either.

I think you see my point.

I am Laslo.

M Jordan said...

Other-centered people? Some people are able to empathize and sympathize but actually move their center to others? Color me skeptical. The closest thing I can think of is the biblical statement that the two shall be one flesh. That's talking about sex. And the other-centeredness of sex is 1) short-lived and 2) not really a centering in another but a joint centering outside of oneself.

Char Char Binks said...

BLM thugs decided they were getting a raw deal being judged by the content of their character.

Fernandinande said...

People believe a lot of stuff.

Original Mike said...

If I had three meals a day I would be fat, fat, fat.

cubanbob said...

Three meals a day, education and culture are a lovely thought but the cynic in me wonders who will be tasked to provide them for others.

Gahrie said...

He was an idealist, and a preacher.........

n.n said...

A reconciliation of dignity, value, and natural imperatives that was sabotaged by the establishment of a pro-choice doctrine giving rise to a social justice sect, female chauvinists, green industry lobbyists, congruence movement, and clinical cannibals under a Planning regime.

Real American said...

life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are the guarantees. Free shit isn't, mostly because nothing is free.

Jupiter said...

Where do you suppose he plagiarized that from?

Livermoron said...

Martin Luther King, Jr.: A great American and a great Republican.

Robert Cook said...

"Martin Luther King, Jr.: A great American and a great Republican."

Revisionist, much...or are you just being sarcastic?

MLK was not a Republican, and not a Democrat either. He was believed by Hoover and the FBI to be a communist.

He was a great man.

Livermoron said...

Cookie: MLK was a registered Republican. What JEH believed is irrelevant.

You always find ways to rationalize your Stalinist beliefs and ahistoric 'knowledge'.

You know, like when we point out that the Nazis are socialists and you maintain that that can't be true because they outlawed trade unions. When that 'fact' is destroyed you counter with 'well, they still aren't socialists'. When provided with the evidence of their political platform with all of its classic socialist demands' as well as direct quotations from Hitler and Goebbels describing their socialist world view, and historical examples of them instituting socialist policies, you counter with...well Hitler hated the communists so he can't be a socialist. When it is pointed out that the commies killed plenty of other commies, you counter with....well, you actually usually disappear once you get put in a corner. You sometimes use other tactics such as denial of your earlier statements. Or you just continue on with your statement that the Nazis weren't socialists without providing any basis for that.
What bullshit!
We define Nazis as socialists based on what they said and did. You define it by who Hitler disliked.
You are really quite foolish. And I am being kind with that assessment.

Robert Cook said...

Livermoron:

You have been misinformed. MLK was not known to have belonged to either party. (The point is moot, anyway, as neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party of that time are similar to the same-named parties we know today.) Whichever party today might try to claim King as their own, they're being purely self-serving. They are both farther to the right than they were at that time, and the Republican Party, which had a liberal wing then, is today purely a far-right cult, the John Birch Society in all but name.

I mention what JEH believed not to certify MLK's bona fides as a communist, but to point out that, in his time, MLK was hardly seen as the avuncular, all-virtuous secular saint we cozily celebrate today. He was a divisive figure--obvious, given that he was arrested, beaten, spied on by the FBI, and ultimately assassinated--and, in his time, many dismissed him as a socialist, a communist, a dupe of the reds, a traitor, etc.

But, you can continue, if you like, to believe MLK was a Republican, to believe the Nazis were socialists, to believe you are periodically taken from your bed by aliens, who perform weirdly sexual experiments on you in the night...who am I try to dispel your fantasies?

Michael K said...

"MLK was not a Republican, and not a Democrat either. He was believed by Hoover and the FBI to be a communist. "

No, he and his father were registered Republicans. By the way, quick, without checking Google, who was president when Hoover was bugging his hotel room and recording his dalliances ?

Michael K said...

"He was a divisive figure--obvious, given that he was arrested, beaten,"

What party did the people who were arresting him and beating him belong to ?

Livermoron said...

Ah yes, the non-rational, straw man-laden response. I've provided proof...you provide assertions. In your world that constitutes a rebuttal?

'Foolish' was indeed kind.

Rusty said...


But, you can continue, if you like, to believe MLK was a Republican, to believe the Nazis were socialists,

Not beliefs, bob. facts. Proven, historical facts. Pointed out to you many times with refrences.
Indeed. "foolish" is being kind.
have you met garage?

n.n said...

It could happen, but we would first need to end abortion rites, and recognize the intrinsic value of human life from conception to a natural, accidental, or premeditated (e.g. elective abortion) death. The inability to reconcile motives with principles, science, human dignity, human rights, etc. under the quasi-religious pro-choice doctrine only guarantees progressive corruption, and assures minority control of capital (e.g. redistribution) and labor (e.g. "free" medical care, housing, etc.).

cubanbob said...

Rusty said...

But, you can continue, if you like, to believe MLK was a Republican, to believe the Nazis were socialists,

Not beliefs, bob. facts. Proven, historical facts. Pointed out to you many times with refrences.
Indeed. "foolish" is being kind.
have you met garage?

1/18/16, 2:18 PM"

Cook is actually sincere in his comments, foolish to be sure but sincere. He just isn't able to believe his lying eyes. Garage just enjoys throwing stinkers in for fun. I don't know if you check out other blogs but trust me the toxic idiocy in most other blog commentaries is stupefying and that's on both sides. Let's be grateful our hostess has drawn a much higher caliber of commenter and that also includes the "trolls". Go and search other blogs and believe you will then appreciate Cook, Garage, R & B and the others (although I have my doubts about Amanda) as when they want to can be lucid and insightful.

Robert Cook said...

"I've provided proof...."

None that I've seen, bub. Assertions are not proof.

caplight45 said...

10 Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, 11 who did all those signs and wonders the Lord sent him to do in Egypt—to Pharaoh and to all his officials and to his whole land. 12 For no one has ever shown the mighty power or performed the awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of all Israel. Deuteronomy 34:10-12 NIV

I Have Seen the Mountain Top

Mark said...

It's a shame MLK left out Jesus

This has got to rank near the top of ignorant statements ever made here. From the very beginning, when he first came to national prominence at start of the Birmingham bus boycott 60 years ago, in the talk he gave December 5, 1955, MLK insisted that the movement be Christian. MLK did not leave out Jesus, Jesus was at the center of everything he did.

Robert Cook said...

Michael K. said,

...(MLK) and his father were registered Republicans."


That doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Rather, it is the claim of those who wish to use a dead man who cannot speak for himself for their own purposes.


And Wikipedia has this:

"As the leader of the SCLC, King maintained a policy of not publicly endorsing a U.S. political party or candidate: 'I feel someone must remain in the position of non-alignment, so that he can look objectively at both parties and be the conscience of both—not the servant or master of either.'[59] In a 1958 interview, he expressed his view that neither party was perfect, saying, 'I don't think the Republican party is a party full of the almighty God nor is the Democratic party. They both have weaknesses ... And I'm not inextricably bound to either party.'[60] King did praise Democratic Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois as being the 'greatest of all senator' because of his fierce advocacy for civil rights causes over the years.[61]
King critiqued both parties' performance on promoting racial equality:

"'Actually, the Negro has been betrayed by both the Republican and the Democratic party. The Democrats have betrayed him by capitulating to the whims and caprices of the Southern Dixiecrats. The Republicans have betrayed him by capitulating to the blatant hypocrisy of reactionary right wing northern Republicans. And this coalition of southern Dixiecrats and right wing reactionary northern Republicans defeats every bill and every move towards liberal legislation in the area of civil rights.'[62]

"Although King never publicly supported a political party or candidate for president, in a letter to a civil rights supporter in October 1956 he said that he was undecided as to whether he would vote for Adlai Stevenson or Dwight Eisenhower, but that 'In the past I always voted the Democratic ticket.'[63] In his autobiography, King says that in 1960 he privately voted for Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy: 'I felt that Kennedy would make the best president. I never came out with an endorsement. My father did, but I never made one.' King adds that he likely would have made an exception to his non-endorsement policy for a second Kennedy term, saying 'Had President Kennedy lived, I would probably have endorsed him in 1964.'[64] In 1964, King urged his supporters 'and all people of goodwill' to vote against Republican Senator Barry Goldwater for president, saying that his election 'would be a tragedy, and certainly suicidal almost, for the nation and the world.'[65] King supported the ideals of democratic socialism, although he was reluctant to speak directly of this support due to the anti-communist sentiment being projected throughout America at the time, and the association of socialism with communism. King believed that capitalism could not adequately provide the basic necessities of many American people, particularly the African American community.[66]"

Mark said...

January 30, 1956, a bomb exploded on the porch of the King family home.

As a large crowd formed, ready to retaliate, it was Dr. King’s faith in Jesus that led him to ask the people to put away their weapons and speak of responding instead with love. “We are not advocating violence,” he said. “We want to love our enemies. I want you to love our enemies. Be good to them.”

Gahrie said...

MLK Sr was a Republican. Most Blacks from his generation and earlier were. MLK Jr was of the generation who moved to the Democratic Party, although he never endorsed or publicly admitted to voting for the Democrats. Given his beliefs on economics, Planned Parenthood and the war while he was alive, he would probably be squarely in the Obama/Reid/Pelosi camp were he alive today.

cubanbob said...

Cook just as an FYI look up the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960. Now as you were saying about Republicans.... by the way, those two Acts set up the predicate for the passage of the 1964 Act which required the near unanimous vote by the Republicans in Congress to overcome Democrats against it.

Livermoron said...

"I've provided proof...."

None that I've seen, bub. Assertions are not proof.

------------------------------------
Cookie ignores the many posts on the subject matter where I've included links. He just pulls the same old shit...lie, straw man, hide.
I am tired of feeding him the facts.
Links in the past that I've provided him include the 25-Point Nazi Party Platform, Goebbels' speech "Warum wir Sozialisten Sind" (Why We Are Socialists). Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf" and others. He just ignores them and pretends they don't exist.
Right now he is just sticking his fingers in his ears.
I guess he expects others to provide him with an education.

"Assertions are not proof."
That's right, Cookie. That's right.

Livermoron said...

Gahrie:
Your statements are correct. I only stated MLK,Jr. as being a registered Republican, which is true. I was interested in seeing who and how some commenters would react.
Comrade Cookie accommodated me nicely.
I just love exposing his ahistorical, Stalinistic assholism.
Dupes are fun to play with.
For awhile. Then you kinda feel guilty. Like teasing a Down's Syndrome victim, I imagine. I haven't reached that point yet.

Robert Cook said...

"Given (MLK's) beliefs on economics, Planned Parenthood and the war while he was alive, he would probably be squarely in the Obama/Reid/Pelosi camp were he alive today."


Oh, I think he would rightly scorn Obama, Pelosi, and Reid for being betrayers of the social justice movement he (MLK) had worked to build, as being servants to the forces he fought until his death.


If he were alive today, doing and saying all that he did and said then, all you here pretending to be admirers of the great "Republican" (sic) Martin Luther King would be as contemptuous of him as you are of any persons or movements today who seek to alleviate the social blight of racism and poverty and war.

Robert Cook said...

"Cook just as an FYI look up the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960. Now as you were saying about Republicans...."

What, exactly, was I saying about Republicans? And...I'm not holding up the Democrats for veneration here, and I don't assert MLK was a Democrat. But neither was he a Republican.

Gahrie said...

would be as contemptuous of him as you are of any persons or movements today who seek to alleviate the social blight of racism and poverty and war.

I know of nobody who is "...contemptuous ... of any persons or movements today who seek to alleviate the social blight of racism and poverty and war."

Some of us are just contemptuous of those who keep insisting that bigger and bigger (and more powerful) government is the answer to racism or poverty, or that war can be avoided by wishful thinking.

Fabi said...

...a far right cult, the John Birch Society in all but name.

You're on a roll today, Cook! Keep those hits coming!

Livermoron said...

Cookie said:
Martin Luther King would be as contemptuous of him as you are of any persons or movements today who seek to alleviate the social blight of racism and poverty and war.

----------------------------------------
And there you have it; Cook's worldview in a nutshell. He takes all the things he hates and calls them Republicans.

What a weak-minded, self-centered, bigoted individual Kookie has revealed himself to be. A fine fellow-traveler for his communist buddies, however.

I wonder why conservatives give significantly more of their time and their money to charities than liberals do? must be because of all the hate they have for the people they are helping.
Kookie has a cartoonish Weltanschauung. No wonder he is such a willfully gullible 'useful idiot'.

wildswan said...

I was there in Martin Luther King's day and what I remember him saying is that he dreamed of a day when Americans would live out the true meaning of their Constitution. A real thinking point - what is the "true meaning" how do you live it out? He was a great guide; he wouldn't be saying the same things today as he said back then; he certainly would not try white shaming or black lives matter or pour corrosives on racial divides and then pretend he hadn't done it as Obama does. But he'd get to the root of the matter - why are these weird phenomena happening? He would know and figure out how to say it in a way that brought us together. But he's gone.

In my opinion there is a group of Americans, I call them the American-ethnics, who come from all the different backgrounds but who are all committed to the American universal ideal - still. They are hiding in deep water, run silent, run deep, because they know how bitter some are, how poor some are, some are their own relatives. They don't want to shame them or attack them but they don't agree with them.

In my opinion the American-ethnics and all whites see that the politicians of all parties have kicked the poor blacks into gutter, especially since 2008 when the crash happened. The blacks are poorer, unemployment has soared, Hispanics are replacing them, the schools are worse, the cities are more dangerous, Planned Parenthood is wiping them out. There is complete silence about this from the political class and this makes everyone uneasy about the political class. Them, today, yes but me tomorrow. Moreover, I don't think kicking the any group of poor into the gutter is really OK with any large group of Americans and when they see it happen it creates a huge undefined mistrust. And when petty issues actually defined as "micro" are at the forefront of reforms acceptable to the political class that further develops and reinforces the vast floating mistrust. Speak up for the blacks, someone with a voice, someone they trust. It isn't a microagression to wipe them out with abortion and give their place to the Hispanics.

Michael K said...

"King believed that capitalism could not adequately provide the basic necessities of many American people, particularly the African American community."

Cookie, all this stuff is after King was surrounded by anti-war communists and that is why Hoover got so interested in him.

Cookie does not remember all the anti-lynching bills introduced by Republicans in the 20s and 30s which never got out of the Democrat controlled Congress. He also does not know about the reason the 1964 Civil Rights bill passed.

Wikipedia is not exactly reliable on political questions.

Just as reliable a source.

Cookie probably doesn't even know how the Selma movie edited out Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel marching with King.

Livermoron said...

Michael K:
There aren't enough bits, bytes, and pixels in the world to point out how much Robert Kook doesn't know.

Paul said...

M.L. King was a womanizer that rivaled the two Bills, Clinton and Cosby.

And no doubt, like the Bills, over time he would have turned out the same way cause all power corrupts but those predisposed to corruption go full retard (and you never go full retard.)

Livermoron said...

Kookie:
MLK, Jr. on Marxism/communism courtesy HNN:
During the Christmas holidays of 1949 I decided to spend my spare time reading Karl Marx to try to understand the appeal of communism for many people. For the first time I carefully scrutinized Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto. I also read some interpretative works on the thinking of Marx and Lenin. In reading such Communist writings I drew certain conclusions that have remained with me as convictions to this day. First, I rejected their materialistic interpretation of history. Communism, avowedly secularistic and materialistic, has no place for God. This I could never accept, for as a Christian, I believe that there is a creative personal power in the universe who is the ground and essence of all reality-a power that cannot be explained in materialistic terms. History is ultimately guided by spirit, not matter. Second, I strongly disagreed with communism's ethical relativism. Since for the Communist there is no divine government, no absolute moral order, there are no fixed, immutable principles; consequently almost anything-force, violence murder, lying-is a justifiable means to the 'millennial' end. This type of relativism was abhorrent to me. Constructive ends can never give absolute moral justification to destructive means, because in the final analysis the end is preexistent in the means.Third, I opposed communism's political totalitarianism. In communism, the individual ends up in subjection to the state. True, the Marxists would argue that the state is an 'interim' reality which is to be eliminated when the classless society emerges; but the state is the end while it lasts, and man is only a means to that end. And if man's so-called rights and liberties stand in the way of that end, they are simply swept aside. His liberties of expression, his freedom to vote, his freedom to listen to what news he likes or to choose his books are all restricted. Man becomes hardly more, in communism, than a depersonalized cog in the turning wheel of the state. This deprecation of individual freedom was objectionable to me. I am convinced now, as I was then, that man is an end because he is a child of God. Man is not made for the state; the state is made for man. To deprive man of freedom is to relegate him to the status of a thing, rather than elevate him to the status of a person. Man must never be treated as means to the end of the state; but always as an end within himself." - See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/blog/135514#sthash.1bt26X8x.dpuf

Kook's ignorance knows no limits. Just add that to all the stuff he doesn't know.

Robert Cook said...

Livermoron:

What is the point of your posting this long quote from King about Marxism as some imagined rebuttal to me? I didn't assert he was a Marxist. No wonder you know so much stuff that isn't true...you miss the point of or misunderstand the world of information around you.

traditionalguy said...

Point of order: In Georgia of 1950-60 "being a Republican" was an act of protest akin to being a Communist. There really was no such Party except as a small gathering of Yankees Emigres living in Buckhead (A northern Atlanta suburb) that met together to name a candidate for Governor or Senator as publicity move only without hope of getting 1% of the vote. The idea that one registered as a Republican then makes little sense.

Robert Cook said...

MLK was a Republican.