');
The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Boyd D. Cathey Archive
Martin Luther King, the Sex Tapes, and the New American Dogmatism
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
    List of Bookmarks
      ORDER IT NOW

      The news broke (in England) back on May 26 that David Garrow, the Pulitzer Prize winning biographer of the late Martin Luther King Jr., had unearthed a cache of new documents, many supposedly under strict lock-and-key at least until 2027, detailing some horrific cases of sexual activity by King, as many as forty such incidents, and one in which King stood by, watched and egged on a fellow black Baptist minister in rape.

      Here is the background: On January 31, 1977, Federal District Judge John Lewis Smith signed a court order that instructed the FBI to deposit all of its extensive electronic surveillance material—audio tapes, notes accompanying, etc.—with the National Archives, sealing them for fifty years. However, as Garrow relates in a blockbuster article (nearly 8,000 words, with documentation) in the English journal, Standpoint:

      …in recent months, hundreds of never-before-seen FBI reports and surveillance summaries concerning King have silently slipped into public view on the Archives’ lightly-annotated and difficult-to-explore web site. This has occurred thanks to the provisions of The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act, which mandated the public release of tens of thousands of government documents, many of which got swept up into congressional investigations of US intelligence agencies predating Judge Smith’s order. Winnowing the new King items from amidst the Archive’s 54,602 web-links, many of which lead to multi-document PDFs that are hundreds of pages long, entailed weeks of painstaking work.

      In his long essay Garrow continues his explanation of how supposed-to-be secret documents and tapes became available to him:

      Wiretap summaries…were supposed to be sealed pursuant to Judge Smith’s 1977 order, but by then the Department of Justice had forced the FBI to share many of its King records with the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Activities, often called the Church Committee after the name of its chairman, Idaho Democrat Frank Church. In turn, all of the FBI’s documents relating to the Church Committee and the subsequent House Select Committee on Assassinations came to be covered by the 1992 Kennedy assassination records act.

      Now, Garrow is not a conservative, no right wing fanatic out to besmirch the reputation of the late civil rights icon. Not at all.

      He was—at least until this article and its implications—a respected liberal author and academic, whose biography of King, Bearing the Cross (1986), won him praise from the Left and a Pulitzer, and which has been used as the basis of film and screen adaptations.

      ORDER IT NOW

      But after his Standpoint essay, The Washington Post dropped the guillotine’s blade on him: he had said and written too much, he was no longer a “respectable” (that is, establishment liberal) historian, his findings were pronounced to be “dubious” and “of little value.” Indeed, the Post found a whole slew of its favored leftwing “historians” to literally denounce Garrow for his transgressions, even though he had written that he believed these new revelations would not damage King’s reputations [“No. Not at all. I don’t think that’s possible,” Garrow was quoted.] Indeed, if the revelations earlier about King’s plagiarism of his doctoral dissertation and his documented relations with American Communists had not damaged him [see my investigation published by The Unz Review in 2018], how could this? But, then, this is the age of #MeToo feminism….

      The FBI recordings and notes document as many as forty “sexual episodes” involving King, a married man, with women, many of them “rough” and “unnatural” sex. But perhaps the most revolting occurred when King and a fellow black pastor, Logan Kearse, were staying at the Willard Hotel in Washington D.C., in early January 1964.

      Garrow continues:

      Kearse ‘had brought to Washington several women ‘parishioners’ of his church”, a newly-released summary document from [FBI Assistant Director William C.] Sullivan’s personal file on King relates, and Kearse invited King and his friends to come and meet the women. “The group met in his room and discussed which women among the parishioners would be suitable for natural or unnatural sex acts. When one of the women protested that she did not approve of this, the Baptist minister immediately and forcibly raped her,” the typed summary states, parenthetically citing a specific FBI document (100-3-116-762) as its source. “King looked on, laughed and offered advice,” Sullivan or one of his deputies then added in handwriting.

      Professor David Greenberg of Rutgers University, writing in the respected Politico, June 4, raises a number of serious questions about these new revelations and what they may portend not just for the “King legacy” and its meaning, but also for how Americans view their history. Unlike The Washington Post and other zealously leftist media outlets who either ignored the story, or else downplayed it as “speculation,” not based of substantiated or confirmed fact, Greenberg—no conservative himself—understands that this new documentation and its significance should be confronted. It could not simply be explained away or swept under the carpet and ignored.

      Certainly, as Greenberg admits, many of our American heroes, despite their many virtues, have had “feet of clay,” have had their faults. Nevertheless, we have continued to admire them…at least, that has been the case until fairly recently, when, it seems the fanatical Neo-Marxist social justice warriors have sought to totally cleanse our culture and our country of practically all figures of historical significance, specifically if they were white and male. Now no one is safe from the howling and frenzied mob of brainwashed students and professional race-and-sex warriors.

      And it is not just the statues to Confederate volunteers who went off to war and died for their states, such as the “Silent Sam” monument that was violently toppled by a crazed mob on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill on August 20, 2018, or the equestrian monument to Robert E. Lee at Charlottesville, Virginia. Now literally the existence or names of hundreds of statues, plaques, schools, highways, and other symbols of historic figures, including of Founders such as Washington, Jefferson and James Madison, are severely threatened with disposal in the waste bin of history…and memory.

      Will these new revelations affect King’s contemporary position in America, a position and symbolism revered not only by the political and cultural Left, but also by the pseudo-conservative establishment, who also claim his legacy?

      Not likely. The King case is unique. As demonstrated by The Washington Post’s strenuous attempt to discredit Garrow and defend King as a kind of plaster saint, largely untouchable, but also illustrated by the reaction of the dominant Neoconservatives (on Fox News), King’s status will remain sacrosanct in the increasingly authoritarian culture and society where the new dogmas of race and sex reign supreme, and woe be to anyone who dares transgress or come close to denying them.

      Witness an episode on the Laura Ingraham Show (May 29, 2019), after both the [London] Sunday Times and Daily Mail had first reported the revelations, Dinesh D’Souza, who fancies himself an historian of merit, but whose level of historical knowledge and comprehension is far less than that of my intelligent cocker spaniel Jasper, attempted to explain that all America’s black leaders historically were conservatives and Republicans: “[When I think of] the great black Americans of our history I think of Frederick Douglass, Ida B. Wells, Harriet Tubman and Booker T. Washington,” he said during an interview with Laura Ingraham on Fox News. “All of these were Republicans, they were conservatives….” And Martin Luther King was just the latest in that line: he had his faults, true, but his “message of equality” was far greater and simply must be celebrated by all, including conservatives. He was, in short, an epochal giant who ushered in the final stage of completing that revolutionary message.

      And in this sense, D’Souza like the dominant Neoconservative narrative, echoed another vaunted exponent of the King mythology, Jonah Goldberg (August 28, 2013):

      “…the genius of King’s appeal to an ideal of colorblindness was deeply patriotic, rooted in the foundational principles of the republic….When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In the American context, these are universal appeals. King pleaded for the fulfillment of America’s classically liberal revolution.” [Italics mine]

      Which is a complete inversion of the American Founding and a misreading, purposeful or not, of American history.

      The symbolic canonization of Martin Luther King and the obligatory imposition of his cult on the nation was and is an action, collaborated in by both the zealous progressivist Left and the slightly less-Leftist Establishment conservative movement, with more dogmatic power and enforcement than any hierarch in Rome or any despot in Soviet Russia ever dreamed of, because it is more pervasive, far more than skin deep or simply a prophylactic, as the old Soviet power over Eastern Europe was for forty-five years. It is emblematic of not only the insistence on external assent in actions and words, but of a steady internalization which is equally monitored, the slightest variance from which brings denunciation, shunning, shaming, excommunication, loss of reputation and position, and even imprisonment.

      This, then, is the legacy of King and those like him, those who protected him and glorified him, and the so-called civil rights transformation which opened the door wide for the aberrations and hideous results in racial and sexual questions we see and experience around us today.

      No. Would that the Garrow revelations meant a serious re-examination of King, but they probably won’t. For there is literally no one of stature willing, no one fearless enough, to risk the obloquy and defamation that would follow. We must, hopefully, wait for some future generation to do that.

      A slightly different version of this essay appeared at Dr. Cathey’s Web site, MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey.

       
      Hide 201 CommentsLeave a Comment
      Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
      Trim Comments?
        []
      1. Walt says:

        And we are being told to honor MLK. We should stop bowing down to his types.

      2. “And it is not just the statues to Confederate volunteers who went off to war and died for their states, such as the “Silent Sam” monument that was violently toppled by a crazed mob on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill on August 20, 2018, or the equestrian monument to Robert E. Lee at Charlottesville, Virginia.”

        This undermines your entire premise. You want to have less admiration for Dr. King based on ancient known history and yet you want to hold up in honor men who were responsible for a needless war that killed more than 800,000 thousand US citizens.

        Now I am moderate fan of Dr. King, but

        Laugh . . . good grief.

        Utter nonsense. I have my issues with Dr. King but if the best you and the FBI can do is muck rake relational out of wedlock chilly winks, there simply is no case for a loss of admiration if the test is against mass murder, war mongering and slave holding. The impact of Dr. King outshines every single traitor of the US during the civil war. But I get it. The same people slushing around the salaciousness of human frailty which in this was not criminal or at least not treated as criminal. But these same people are the ones who lambasted those of us who called them out own their warmongering in advancing a case of invasion against Iraq despite the obvious fool’s errand that it was.

        I am not going to defend relations out of wedlock — that anyone would defend an attack against the US and calls themselves a loyal citizen is bizarre. But duplicitous thinking ranks among the our finest in this country. Odd Nat Turner went to battle for the same causes noted in the Declaration of Independence, but not a single defender of southern betrayal including the treason by Gen. Lee — has held his name in honor. But the best most of you are able to attend is another persons relational conduct. All fine Generals are fine until they betray the country they swore to serve.

        Whatever his faults, Dr. King did not invite mass slaughter of his fellows. The men you seek to praise did.

        Get a grip and some perspective.

      3. King was a fraud. He had one shining moment…..the blacks and Marxists Democrats and even some dimwitted Republicans only want the world to remember that. It’s like making a shot to win the game whatever else you do in life doesn’t matter. Another fraud was the terrorist Mandela. His ANC was run by Jewish Ashkenazis Communists just like the NAACP.

        King was a plagiarist. More than 40 pages of his thesis were stolen and the university did nothing about it. Ralph Abernathy in his obituary from LA Times:

        During his long, close relationship with King, Abernathy became known as his alter ego. The two were called “the Movement’s Twins.” Through the tumultuous civil rights era, during which Abernathy’s home and church were both bombed, the two marched together, ate together, organized together, went to jail together.

        He and King, who was murdered in Memphis, Tenn., in 1968, together founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Before that, Abernathy helped organize the Montgomery bus boycott, which catalyzed the nonviolent civil rights movement.

        “I’ve always felt that he was the unsung hero of the modern civil rights movement,” said Georgia state Rep. Tyrone Brooks, a friend and political ally. “He never received the credit, the appreciation that he deserved.”

        Abernathy himself expressed similar feelings during an interview last October. “I have been left out for a long time,” he said in his deep, slow drawl. “In so many instances there has been an attempt to rewrite history. And many times on photographs, Martin and I were marching together, hand in hand, they cropped the photographs and left me out.”

        By 1980, when he declared his support of Ronald Reagan for President, he was firmly out of the civil rights mainstream. Abernathy supported Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988, but the publication last year of his autobiography, “And the Walls Came Tumbling Down,” triggered a deafening outcry from black activists nationwide.

        In the book, Abernathy devoted a few pages to accounts of King’s extramarital affairs, including details of King’s sexual exploits on the night of April 3, 1968, the night before he was murdered. Abernathy wrote that King spent part of the night with two women and that, during an argument with a third woman who was jealous, “knocked her across the bed.”

        In the interview, Abernathy said he wrote the details to “set the record straight” and to show that heroes are mortals and that mortals from any station in life can become heroes.

        All of these black leaders are financed and controlled by Jews. Obama was groomed and advised by David Axlerod. The Jews control all media for the most part not only in the USA but the world. They destroy everyone they hate or crosses them, and they make icons out people like King, Mandela and Obama no matter what they do.

        The Jews control the history of the world whether it’s the Holocaust or their magic black icons. It’s time to tear down the statues of King and everything named after him. From Smollet to King there is a double standard and the longer we allow it the worse it will get.

        • Replies: @padre
      4. I used to wonder how Romans of ancient days could take seriously the making of their emperors into gods. The deification of racial demagogue MLK shows how it’s done.

        • LOL: Cowboy
      5. Cowboy [AKA "Hoot"] says:

        Jews use Blacks as bullets against Whites. “Martin Luther” King was no Christian and he was no Pastor, he was a violently weaponized rapist fired at Christian whites by his jewish owners. Like all the other Negroes on the Democrat plantation, he was just another “free” jewish slave.

        The US Negro troops sent into France in 1944 were used as bullets against French women. Of the over 100 US troops executed for rape during the US invasion of Western Europe, the vast majority were Negro. When the French “army” entered Italy in 1943, they sent a black army of Senegalese and other rapists to rape Italian women. When the US “army” entered Berlin in 1945, Eisenhower sent in the Negroes to rape German women. It is important to note that these Black rapists also spread STD’s among their victims, likely deliberately.

        It must be recognized that these Negroes were not sent to rape French, Italian and German women so that they could enjoy interracial coitus. They were sent to miscegenate and create mulatoo children that jews knew would act as further ammunition to destroy white Christian culture.

        With this historic frame of reference, we should look at what happened to the US with desegregation. The Black families were not destroyed by jews merely because jews hate blacks even more than they hate whites, these families were destroyed so that the feral black gangs that resulted from the destruction of their families could be sent into white neighborhoods to accomplish the exact same purpose that negro troops were used for in France, Italy and Germany.

      6. Icy Blast says:

        I never knew MLK was blue. I’m always learning something on this site.

        • Replies: @Digital Samizdat
      7. All said and done, Martin Luther was a crypto-Teutonist, and on some level, the Protestant Reformation was repressed Germanic rebellion against the Latins.

        Likewise, Martin Luther King was a crypto-Africanist, and his movement was really a black savage revolt against white norms. His real dream was to spear the white man and cream white women.

        • Replies: @Jake
      8. @Walt

        Let’s honor Arafat for resisting Zionist Apartheid and let’s have Nakba Remembrance every year.

        • Replies: @Moi
      9. Pandour says: • Website

        Naturally,the mainstream media mentions none of this stuff-this goes way beyond a media blockade.

      10. “Dinesh D’Souza, who fancies himself an historian of merit, but whose level of historical knowledge and comprehension is far less than that of my intelligent cocker spaniel Jasper ….”

        You sully the honour and accomplishments of Jasper, sir! Dinesh is far dumber than that.

        ” … attempted to explain that all America’s black leaders historically were conservatives and Republicans: “[When I think of] the great black Americans of our history I think of Frederick Douglass, Ida B. Wells, Harriet Tubman and Booker T. Washington,” he said during an interview with Laura Ingraham on Fox News.”

        So, is Dinesh White-Washing MLK, or is he Black-Washing America?

        • Agree: Agent76
        • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
      11. You know that angry teen caught in the middle of their parents’ divorce who hates everything about the father and refuses to consider any criticism about the mother?

        Eventually they should grow up and be able to realize that both parents are flawed human beings capable of both admirable and objectionable qualities.

        America right now is all about keeping everybody in the most foolish and troubled part of their adolescence forever. And calling it ‘enlightenment.’

      12. anonymous[256] • Disclaimer says:

        He is an artificially managed black leader whom the government holds out to the black population and others to follow the tidied-up messages of integration, non-violence, work within the system, etc. Things that might undercut this have been censored out of public consciousness. This is how the government undertakes to manage its population, by creating leaders and giving them endless publicity so as to convince the average person to follow the message. It’s part of how the government controls the supposed opposition so as to control the public. MLK was killed by government action just in the nick of time to mold him into what it wanted him to be and before he could start doing any more damage in other areas in which he seemed to be branching out. When someone is removed who is next in line has to be taken into account. People like J Jackson were suitable, radical sounding but corrupt, looking for the payoff, a manageable leader.

        • Replies: @Justvisiting
      13. 95Theses says:

        Release the tapes! Release the tapes!

        Wait … what? Crickets? Hello? Hello?

        • Replies: @David In TN
      14. When one of the women protested that she did not approve of this, the Baptist minister immediately and forcibly raped her,”

        Unfortunately for us all, the Manosphere has been telling us for years that this is exactly the sort of alpha male behavior women crave, and therefore Kearse did nothing wrong. It’s going to be kind of hard for the Alt-Right to change horses in midstream now and mount an attack upon King on these grounds. Such an attack may succeed from the left, however. The #MeToo movement has no qualms about tearing down former icons; in fact, that’s almost its essence. Wouldn’t it be ironic if the man who took down MLK was not some based “White Nationalist” but a pasty Jewish staff writer with Buddy Holly glasses working at the Daily Beast?

        This is why the Manosphere needs to be tossed out of the Dissident Right, along with the HBDers. They are too fraught with absurdity and self-contradiction to ever be anything more than incoherent expressions of outrage. As such, they may be the first step towards personal healing, but a political platform they are not.

        For my part, I would rather see King fall not because he was a communist sexual degeneate, but because the world finally grows up enough to see through his self-serving shtick and the virtue-signalling of the sentimentally overcharged puss-buckets who have supported him all these years.

      15. Annnonn23 says:

        I think a much-needed re-evaluation of King and his legacy might come about only if some of the people involved in his sex adventures stepped forward and told their stories. That’s what it took to sink another living monument, Bill Cosby.

      16. MLK was just another dumb black guy who was pushed way up over his pay grade by the jews.

        • Replies: @Truth
      17. utu says:

        The only important question is why now? And will these revelations will have any impact on MLK’s accomplishments and legacy. The idols and icons are always brought down a notch by future generations but this ha has no effect on their impact. Issac Newton was a kook and not a very nice person, Einstein very likely was an unscrupulous plagiarist. But their legacy will live on.

        • Replies: @alexander
      18. I’m not going to entertain any debate about the veracity of the information. Garrow has nothing to gain and everything to lose in just a few short years if he is making this up.

        I’m a conservative though oddly enough I’ve not changed since my youth in the seventies when I was definitely a left wing hippy albeit a little late to the party as I’m the last year of the baby boomers. I’m also a Muslim convert now and generally sympathetic towards black people both African and our Australian native people always. I’m also accepting of homosexuals though the LGBTQ agenda ongoing has left me appalled. It seems to me as if the Left is the one which moved somewhere whilst I stayed put. I’m conservative these days only because they moved so far I’m closer to the Right now than the modern day Left.

        Still given such a background I was obviously a great admirer of MLK. Until this revelation. This has done my head in. Some stuff you can overlook. As far as being POTUS having his dick sucked by a young chick (or a whole bunch of them) did not in my eyes have any bearing on his ability to deliver as a President though already I have low expectation of that office in the first place. On the other hand King’s specific legacy, his one and only role was as a voice for morality and fairness.

        He was speaking on behalf of oppressed and misused people and as a spokesman for the oppressed and downtrodden his own actions when it comes to the sexual exploitation of women, from within a Christian church establishment what’s worse, makes adultery just the opening act of his smorgasborg of sins. To aid and abet in rape and no doubt he perpetrated rapes of his own given what we can see has turned my opinion of him to contempt and I’m suspicious now of anything he had to say so he’s also on the revision list.

        Of course this will almost certainly not have any affect on his legacy as this article correctly suggests. Right now whilst the #metoo show is a high flying act there’s a hierarchy among causes and certain rules. Sort of like the rules of right of way on the road or at sea there are such rules in identity politics. For example. Pharisaic Jews (Zionists) trump all. Their main puppet is even called Trump to remind you. After this we have race and sexual perverts trumping women. Women seem highly privileged but it is only after the first four groups have been catered to. The very bottom of the pile is white men.

        So here we have a Black man an icon of race no less and he has not put shade on the Jews so he automatically out ranks women. If he’d been a white man he had no chance. If he’d have been a white poof also would have seen him busted down as fast as any Catholic priest.

        By the laws of the social road King is safe from being publicly excoriated for rape, sodomy and adultery.

        • Replies: @Half-Jap
      19. Mulegino1 says:

        How bad can it get when the only individual in American history to have his own special day is a black rapist and plagiarist?

        Pretty soon, Andrew Jackson- “Old Hickory”- will be replaced by Harriet Tubman on the 20 dollar bill. Statues of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson are being torn down. Charles Lindbergh’s name was removed from the San Diego airport to placate the usual litigious whiners.

        The only difference between the French Revolution and what is currently happening in American society is that the former was precipitous and sudden while the latter is slow and methodical. The synergistic mills of Talmudism and cultural Marxism grind slowly but thoroughly. We hapless Americans are lost in a Hymiewood nightmare scenario, and there is no great leader emerging to lead us out of it. Golem Trump, whose subservience to the Jews outweighs his “America First” policies, is a huge disappointment. One wonders what kosher monster slouches forth to take his place.

      20. alexander says:
        @utu

        “Why now? ” is an important question.

        Perhaps another question of equal importance is are they even authentic ?

        With all the bells and whistles we have today, in constructing phony stuff that seems “all too real”….how do any of us know these aren’t “synthetic” tapes , designed, right down to the celluloid, to seem real?…

        Perhaps it is just one more bogus “pee tape” operation in the works….Who knows ?

        • Replies: @Enuf al Reddy
      21. This looks like hearsay evidence, third or fourth hand at best. And it was provided by the American version of the Stasi, who were trying to destroy MLK.

        We don’t know the context in which the alleged incident took place or even the provenance or legality of the evidence. Also, the culture has changed since then. Sexual mores change according to the times, place and culture.

        For example, it used to be assumed that a husband could not “rape” his wife. That if you found your wife in bed with another man you might reasonably kill him– and get off through jury nullification.

        Another thing is that if you are waiting for perfect people to arrive in order set things strait, you could be waiting a while. MLK came from a different time and culture. That he did some questionable things seem like a given.

        But he also did some extraordinary things.

      22. @anonymous

        MLK’s famous quote

        I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

        is ironic on so many levels.

        First, of course, is that MLK would himself flunk the character test.

        Second is that the modern social justice warriors hate whites, all whites, regardless of the content of their character, while claiming to honor MLK’s legacy.

        Third is that the modern school teacher compromises their integrity (and shows they have no character) by repeating the lies about Saint Martin Luther King.

        Feel free to add to the list.

      23. According to a number of authorities MLK was a member of the Boule , a black Masonic fraternity , see for example the secret societies blogpsot ” The Boule -Skull and Bones .” Was he protected until his anti-war activities could no longer be tolerated by the MIC?

      24. Moi says:
        @Priss Factor

        Nah, let’s honor Bibi, Yisrael’s savior and longest serving PM–and for his serial mowing of the grass in Gaza to keep the unter volk in line. All have been created to serve the Chosen.

      25. Biff says:

        Sullivan or one of his deputies then added in handwriting.

        Because you can write anything down on paper. I’m calling bullshit on everything until it can be verified with hard evidence. Considering the racial, and political animosities of the day in the mid 1960’s there was every reason to slander ideological rivals – especially if they are politically weak as was MLK against the establishment and it’s alphabet agencies.

        If someone gave you a character assessment of someone they considered an enemy, and hated, and most likely had killed, do you think it’s going to come up roses?

        The group met in his room and discussed which women among the parishioners would be suitable for natural or unnatural sex acts.

        What the hell is an unnatural sex act? Doggy style with a hat on?

        This is two in a row for the tabloids.

        • Replies: @Jake
        , @Rabbitnexus
        , @anon
      26. this new documentation and its significance should be confronted. It could not simply be explained away or swept under the carpet and ignored.

        Sure it can. The evidence of the Holocaust fraud is overwhelming and mounting, even as recently as a couple days ago by our illustrious host. But Holocaust museums are still being constructed on a daily basis all over the globe, with their concomitant demands for infinite funding.

        In our 21st century Narrative supplants Reality, kicked off by the propaganda coup of 9/11/2001. We’ll never hear about this King story in another week, and by the time these tapes are finally released in ten years our Orwellian spin doctors will have massaged the furor down to invisibility.

      27. Truth3 says:

        How sad that the US citizenry is too stupid to understand that over 90% of what they “know” as facts about the world is really plain and simple propaganda cooked up by the shapers… and if you don’t know who they are, well… ((( ))).

        • Agree: anarchyst
      28. While there can be no doubt about his personal courage – continuing to appear in public despite legitimate death threats- the man was a moral monster but because the black man in our culture is Holy, his reputation is unassaiable.

        O, and because it was Jews who started the NCAA and handled MLK and now control discourse, there is potentially too much information that would be harmful to the Jews in the MLK history and so they work feverishly to cap this pressurized content that men have been drilling into

      29. @Si1ver1ock

        For example, it used to be assumed that a husband could not “rape” his wife.

        It wasn’t merely assumed, it was settled under English common law, dating well before the American Revolution, that the marriage contract created the conjugal right to relations with one’s spouse. This was only changed in recent history.

        That if you found your wife in bed with another man you might reasonably kill him– and get off through jury nullification.

        This is entirely another matter: If the offender “got off,” it was more often than not by reason of diminished capacity.

      30. Right, here is the background, and here is the background you forgot: CIA released the MLK funkybone transcripts instead of legally required ARCA records. It’s one of their patented Fuck You disclosures. Instead of legally mandated documentation of Ed Lansdale whacking JFK for Allen Dulles, they released frozen Hitler embryos in Brazil, flying saucers, and MLK’s big black pokey dick. Because CIA likes to make fools of the subject population by making them forget all about their blindingly obvious coup. And look who they got to pick it up and yell, “Well Ahhl be, Looky hee-yur!” Professional sucker David Garrow, who got his Pulitzer bribe for failing to notice that US government officials blew King’s face off, smothered him with a pillow and horked on him, having convened an inter-agency war council called CINCSTRIKE that coordinated CIA, FBI, NSA, ODNI, and The Army Security Agency (the only ones with negroes) to infiltrate King’s NGO and tape him while the 20th Special Forces Group trained civic-minded Klan wizards and stole guns for mob hit men. Or General William Yarborough dispatching death squads from the 902nd Military Intelligence Group, or even NSA SR-71 blackbirds zooming overhead as Frank Strausser of the Memphis PD whacks him and hops in a getaway cop car. Or even Dem party hero Jesse Jackson, who got his senator job by fucking up the only real job he ever had, starting the CIA gunfight to get King killed in the 902nd’s bazooka crossfire.

        Instead of ruminating on Garrow’s dupe scoops, you should chew over Pepper’s The Plot to Kill King. What is more interesting, King bonking picaninnies, or CIA killing whoever the fuck they want? The question is a universal litmus test for your intellect in terms of the big five personality traits.

      31. Jake says:
        @Walt

        That necessarily means to stop bowing to the cultural and political tastes and mandates of the WASP Elite. The WASP Elites made the Negro Numinous – specifically, the Numinous Negro is a weapon wielded by the WASP Elites against whites they hate and/or fear. Jews joined in the fun as soon as they could, just like Jews in England took up Brit WASP hatreds of all culturally non-WASP natives of the British Isles.

      32. anarchyst says:

        It’s the JEWS…it’s always the JEWS…

        Our present situation and the devolving into the morass of “multiculturalism” and “diversity” is no accident. The jewish talmud and that jewish invention-communism has “rules” for the debasement of (white) civil society.

        The following statements are a result of personal experiences–your mileage may vary…

        I came of age during the first so-called “civil-rights” movement and saw for myself the underhanded dealings, the demonization of decent, law-abiding whites, and in general, the deterioration of civil society.

        Almost all of the “civil-rights” workers and demonstration “handlers” were of one persuasion–New York based leftist communist jews. They cared not one wit about true “civil rights”, but were there to create hate and discontent among their black charges (who were too stupid or naive to see that they were being used to suborn and destroy legitimate government and society–a favorite communist tactic).

        These New York-based “carpetbaggers” fomented their hate and discontent, only to become future “civil-rights” attorneys, race-hustlers, and America-hating leftist communists…and the ADL and $PLC being invented.

        Those of us whites who were in the middle of this “civil-rights” revolution had a saying: “Behind every negro, there is a jew”. No truer words were spoken.

        Let’s not forget their infestation of the nation’s education and entertainment systems, (which continues to the present day), in which they can spread their jewish supremacist poison.

        The so-called “non-violent civil-rights demonstrations” were anything but “non-violent”. Robberies, rapes, and other criminal acts were common, but never reported, as even the “mainstream media” was “in on the game” and conveniently turned off their cameras during the acts of violence. You see, even then,”creating crises” was a part of the agenda.

        The “beginning of the end” of America was the use of federal troops against white Americans, which, in itself was a violation of “posse comitatus”–the prohibition on the use of federal troops for domestic “law enforcement” purposes. As most whites were (and still are) law-abiding, they (we) were “steamrollered” by the use of federal troops to crush honest dissent. We never recovered from those unconstitutional actions. It was all downhill from there…

        The next step may be “civil-war” in which us whites will have to take back our birthright by force.

      33. anon[404] • Disclaimer says:

        You should be hesitant to believe anything the FBI says about anyone, including MLK jr. Don’t be naive and don’t be mislead due to racial resentments. The FBI is a vile criminal organization that serves as the deepstate’s secret police. They work with third party proxies to doxx and ruin their opponents’ finances, they prosecute people for minor offenses, they make public examples of dissidents, they’ve refused to prosecute third party proxies like antifa, they infiltrate dissident movements, and they flip people like MI5 flipped Lauren Southern. For all we know, these tapes are taken out of context. Example: someone brings up rape and MLK makes an edgy rape joke and the secrete police record this as an endorsement of rape or admission of guilt on his part. Tapes or it didn’t happen, no matter who it is.

        • Replies: @ThreeCranes
      34. Polemeros says:

        King was America’s Trojan Horse.

        • Replies: @Jake
      35. @alexander

        Re authenticity

        My thoughts exactly. Why should I trust what the FBI says about anything, whether 50 years ago or today? Especially When it pertains to MLK who was considered an enemy of the state and was killed by those same forces. Seems like a psyop to me.

        • Replies: @alexander
      36. @EliteCommInc.

        You’re the one who needs to get a grip. Lincoln was the great mass murderer and everywhere King spoke before a large urban audience people died and millions of dollars of property was destroyed/looted within a week of his departure. Robert E. Lee (contrary to William Tecumseh Sherman) would have summarily court martialed and put before a firing squad any man under his command, up to and including his highest ranking flag officer, for behavior of the type King is credibly alleged to have engaged in– regardless of the race of the female victims.

        Ask yourself the following: If you had to place the womenfolk of your family into the temporary emergency custody (due to large scale social upheaval) of some strange men and your choice was between Michael King and his entourage and Robert E. Lee and his men, who would you choose?

        • Replies: @Truth
      37. This, then, is the legacy of King and those like him, those who protected him and glorified him, and the so-called civil rights transformation which opened the door wide for the aberrations and hideous results in racial and sexual questions we see and experience around us today.

        Identity politics is the complete opposite to the collective movement supported by King. To equate the two indicates a serious misunderstanding of both, which does not surprise me in the least because this article’s potential merit is tainted by the authors obvious bias in wanting King to be erased from his place in history, essentially hoping he gets “metoo”d. Say he was a sexual deviant, what bearing does that have on any of his social causes? That is a logical fallacy. Further, there is no need to resign egalitarian movements to “communism”. Was moving to end forced segregation communist? If you want to make the case that this was all “communist propaganda”, great. I am all ears but you need to actually support that statement with factual evidence.

        Further, why should we accept these FBI documents as fact. It has been well established the FBI was specifically targeting King do to his ability to generate social action/cohesion. He was dangerous to vested interests. Unless you can demonstrate why this outlook is false, all FBI sourced material should be treated with high skepticism.

        • Replies: @Rich
      38. Saggy says: • Website

        Attacking someone for their sexual proclivities is really a low and despicable act. To do it 30 years after the fact is contemptible. Let the blacks have their hero, for Christ’s sake.

        The over the top ‘hatred’ of blacks is a defining characteristic of much of the ‘right’, and it guarantees the movement will always be on the fringe.

        • Replies: @Jake
      39. Jake says:
        @Biff

        The ‘Ivy League’ establishment adored MLK. That establishment was tied directly to those who ran ‘mainstream’ journalism and who ran the ‘genteel’ parts of both the Democrat and Republican parties.

        Rich WASPs, like Jews, either loved MLK or knew they could use him to batter flyover country whites. The odds are at least 10-1 that such people would choose to hide MLK’s perversions – as they did of MLK’s very close inner circle advisors James Baldwin and Bayard Rustin, both of whom were very open queers, both of whom almost certainly had several sexual liaisons with underage males. The WASP Elite and its Jewish allies hid all that from the American people. MLK’s WASP and Jewish allies also would have hidden him cheering on rape and diddling teenage girls.

      40. Jake says:
        @Si1ver1ock

        MLK was a lifelong plagiarist and serial adulterer. His entire life was a series of lies and con games.

      41. Republic says:

        Regarding the unsealing of records

        Sure would like to see all the unsealed records of Obama, the big mystery man.

        Obama and his operatives use to unseal the records of his political opponents when he was running for earlier political office. One time he got a political opponent to drop out of a race after having his divorce records unsealed.

      42. @EliteCommInc.

        The needless war was started by the tyrant Lincoln. (Cursed be his name) The men of the Southern nation wanted to leave in peace.

      43. Jake says:
        @Priss Factor

        You are very much correct with that analogy. Luther indeed, rather quickly, made his revolt about the pure Germans freeing themselves from the evil, tyrannical Latins, who were robbing them blind.

        For example, Luther’s main opposition initially to indulgence sales was not primarily theological; it was because he assumed that money raised in the Germanies was sent to Rome and wasted there. But nearly the opposite was the truth. Construction across the Germanies of colleges, orphanages, hospitals, parish churches, etc. with money from indulgence sales had been common from the time before Luther was a boy. The brand new college at Wittenberg, where Luther taught, had been built with indulgence sales. Students at Wittenberg paid no tuition because of endowments from indulgence sales. Luther was freed from all traditional monk duties to be a full time college professor because of endowments from indulgence sales.

      44. Jake says:
        @Saggy

        The blacks can have their hero and worship him as god all they wish. And they can train their boys to be like MLK in making at least a third of his closest advisors queer and in watching rape as a sport. But they and their financial backers are forcing us all to bow to that moral freak.

      45. Jake says:
        @Polemeros

        That is another great analogy because the Trojan Horse did not act of its own volition: the Trojan Horse was the great tool in a ruse.

      46. @Si1ver1ock

        Hearsay? Looks like? In denial?

      47. turtle says:
        @Mulegino1

        Pretty soon, Andrew Jackson- “Old Hickory”- will be replaced by Harriet Tubman on the 20 dollar bill.

        If a woman is to be honored by putting her portrait on U.S. currency, this is, without doubt, the woman who should be chosen:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_McCormick

        Katharine Dexter McCormick did more for the liberation of women than any woman in history.

      48. @Biff

        Unnatural sex act given the time and place would have referred to sodomy. Not only is this forbidden in the Abrahamic religious trio you still cannot poke your wife in the bum hole in many states and other places in the world legally. Doesn’t even register as a concern for me since the act seems like major confusion to me not to mention the religious aspect. I have to accept blow jobs with a condom for religious reasons but hey who is going to argue with Allah/nature?

      49. Rich says:
        @Roger Smith

        King was a supporter of “affirmative action ” a policy used to discriminate against poor and middle class Whites. How was he not a believer in “identity politics”? He made speeches, made a few bucks and got to mess around with a bunch of women, and men. How is he a hero? His “vision” if you take off the hero-worshipping glasses was of a communist state where people are denied their rights of free association.

      50. @Intelligent Dasein

        ‘When one of the women protested that she did not approve of this, the Baptist minister immediately and forcibly raped her,”

        Unfortunately for us all, the Manosphere has been telling us for years that this is exactly the sort of alpha male behavior women crave, and therefore Kearse did nothing wrong…’

        You know, I’ve been around for sixty years, and I never got anything remotely like that message.

        Where did you spend your time?

        • Replies: @Justvisiting
      51. lysias says:
        @EliteCommInc.

        I would not call aiding and abetting a rape “relational conduct.”

        • Replies: @95Theses
      52. Wally says:
        @EliteCommInc.

        Imagine if a high profile Euro-white man watched a rape, laughed at the woman being raped, did not report it to police, and befriended the rapist.

        “Dr.” King is an intellectual fraud, he plagierized his PhD thesis.

        But hey, all that is no problem for neo-Marxists.

        And who were the hugely disproportionate numbers of slave dealers & owners? Of course you ignore that.

        You also ignore the fact that the Civil War was not fought over slavery as even Lincoln stated.

      53. Agent76 says:

        May 28, 2019 Stony the Road: Reconstruction, White Supremacy, and the Rise of Jim Crow

        In Stony the Road, Henry Louis Gates, Jr., offers a new rendering of the struggle by African Americans for equality after the Civil War and the violent counter-revolution that subjugated them. Journalist A’Lelia Bundles will moderate the discussion.

        January 19, 2019 Martin Luther King was Killed 50 Years Ago, April 4, 1968, Memphis, Tenn. Court Decision, U.S. “Government Agencies” Found Guilty in Martin Luther King’s Assassination

        Very few Americans are aware of this historical 1999 civil law suit of the King Family against the US Government. (Shelby County Court), Tennessee

        https://madhousenews.com/2019/01/martin-luther-king-was-killed-50-years-ago-april-4-1968-memphis-tenn-court-decision-u-s-government-agencies-found-guilty-in-martin-luther-kings-assassination/

        APRIL 04, 2012 J. Edgar Hoover vs. Martin Luther King, Jr.

        Book Exposes FBI’s Targeting of the Civil Rights Leader

        http://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/4/j_edgar_hoover_vs_martin_luther

      54. @Colin Wright

        Agreed–the Manosphere is about understanding when women are giving positive vs negative signals–and looking and acting in a way that motivates the women to take their own clothes off because they choose to do so–not because some pervert grabs them or holds them at knife-point or gun-point.

        MLK and his fellow preachers did not have to rape women to get them in bed–these “religious leaders” probably did it because they were sociopaths/power freaks who did not want consent.

      55. Wally: “You also ignore the fact that the Civil War was not fought over slavery as even Lincoln stated.”

        Wrong. He not only said that slavery was the cause of the war, but that this fact was known by everyone.

        “One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. ”
        – Abraham Lincoln, in his Second Inaugural address

      56. FredAG says:

        If you think that these documents are ever, ever going to see the cold light of day…

        …then I have multiple bridges, and possibly even a space station to sell you.

      57. FredAG says:
        @EliteCommInc.

        Lee was a Virginian first.

        Heck the country was referred to as “THESE” United States until 1887.

        My family, which hails from the Tenn/N Carolina border were suspicious of the people in the NEXT VALLEY over, LET ALONE the people in Washington DC.

        (…and they were never ever rich enough to own slaves.)

        Take your 21st Century revisionist glasses off for just 5 minutes.

      58. “Lincoln was the great mass murderer and everywhere King spoke before a large urban audience people died and millions of dollars of property was destroyed/looted within a week of his departure.”

        I have made no mention of Pres. Lincoln, on the question of treason, he simply has no link to the question.

        The southern states fired on a federal facility launching a war against the US of which they were a part and not legally separated.

        That act is treason. Those who followed suit in league with Carolina’s act of war are also treasonous. It’s that simple.

        Who

        What’s its . . .

        what if’s . . .

        All irrelevant. Gen Lee abandoned his post and joined league with the country’s enemies.

        Your dance to drag me into a nonsensical discussion about Pres. Lincoln, who had no intention of freeing slaves is simply of no consequence. Now if you want to bemoan how whites

        women, same sex practitioners, advocates of murdering children in the womb, anti-family, anti-men and others have managed to mangle the Constitition is supporting some of the most damaging ethos in the country —

        Have at it. You will find that nearly all to one a were whites.

        end prayer in school — whites

        free love — whites

        murdering children in the womb — whites

        same marriage — whites

        And none of that had anything to do with Dr. King.

        • Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter
      59. @Mulegino1

        The synergistic mills of Talmudism and cultural Marxism grind slowly but thoroughly.

        To paraphrase MLK: The arc of history is long, but it bends toward Jewery!

      60. “The men of the Southern nation wanted to leave in peace.”

        Then they should not have fired on Fort Sumter. Pretty simple. Sought separation via peaceful means.

        They chose violence and they intitiated the violence.

      61. “I would not call aiding and abetting a rape “relational conduct.”

        I don’t think there is any evidence of rape. And none is even suggested in the FBI’s letters advising that Dr. King kill himself. I think it is now confirmed that the FBI can, has and will violate the law and ethics to accomplish some goal, whether it is an attempt to remove the president of the US or engage in counter intelligence operations in violation of the law and ethics against US citizens.

        Consider your rationale. The FBI (certain quarters) who wanted to destroy Dr, King had evidence of a rape — but let it slide — not even to use it in their suicide institigations. Let’s just admit it, the FBI at times has operated without any integrity —

        It is so sad how easy people get drawn into filth for their personal and political agendas.

      62. You people believe the mass media. Therefore, you are stupid.

        • Replies: @Truth
      63. “You also ignore the fact that the Civil War was not fought over slavery as even Lincoln . . .”

        I never said a word about why the civil war was fought. The reality is that a southern state fired on a federal facility, that constitutes an act of war, that state, it’s citizens and all those who followed suit were traitors — period.

        No. Pres. Lincoln did respond to “free slaves” he responded as any president would to an act of war — and did so to preserve the union.

        You only imagine that I made reference to slavery — I did not. Your distraction is dismissed for what it is — imagined.

        • Replies: @Sol
      64. “Heck the country was referred to as “THESE” United States until 1887.”

        Go read the oaths of military servicemen, including those at West Point. The matter is pretty clear even with the revisions. And regardless, Gen Lee joined forces with and was in league those who fired on the US and as such engaged in treason — he was a traitor as all southerners were.

        There is no need to revise anything.

        And the attempt drag slaves into the clear factual record is typical — and irrelevant. Next you’ll be dragging the daughters of the american revolution into the discussion and why they denied the black daughters of the same recognition.

        Your comments are utterly bankrupt of relevance.

        Score: Dr. King — (20:1) the rape reference is colloquial
        and has nothing to do with actual rape.
        death of US citizens — 0

        Gen Lee — upwards of 1,000,000

      65. Any visitor, to any major city in this country with a sizeable Negro population, who dares to walk the length of whatever Boulevard, Avenue, Street, or other thoroughfare has been renamed to honor Martin Luther King, will gain an immediate appreciation for that man’s legacy. /sarc/

      66. Ron Unz says:
        @Mulegino1

        How bad can it get when the only individual in American history to have his own special day is a black rapist and plagiarist?

        Ha, ha, ha. It almost sounds like something out of the Protocols

        • Agree: Mulegino1
      67. Next you’ll be defending sanctuary cities.

        And the US has no right defending its borders because it is an oppressive violation of the a state’s right.

      68. @EliteCommInc.

        “Gen Lee abandoned his post and joined league with the country’s enemies.” — You are a fool if you think you can sway many people with your defective legalistic arguments.

        Military flag officers all have the option to give proper (and short) notice and resign their commissions, which is exactly what Lee did before returning to Virginia. Enlisted men, on the other hand, have never been free to abandon their assigned guard duties on a whim and severe punishments up to and including firing squad can result from such behavior. It has been that way in most all Western nations for centuries.

      69. padre says:
        @niteranger

        Well, if anyone knows the truth it is you!

        • Replies: @niteranger
      70. bluedog says:
        @Walt

        Either that or simply forget the garbage that comes out of England (Steele report) and its minions and look for the truth instead,I would’nt believe a thing that comes from the F.B.I or any other federal agency as they all push their own agenda….!!

        • Replies: @Half-Jap
      71. You should be hesitant to believe anything the FBI says about anyone, including MLK jr. Don’t be naive and don’t be mislead due to racial resentments.

        The stories about King have been floating around Atlanta for at least 50 years, and some were verified by his inner circle. I have a relative who likes to tell a story about a black minister in Atlanta warning him about King, and that took place in late 60s. The story is something about King being a communist sympathizer and not a man of God. King’s character has been questioned by more than the FBI, and judging by his associstion with the Highlander Folk School and the words of men like Ralph David Abernathy, and others, the rumors have merit.

        FWIW, just about every town in the South had its own civil rights groups and King wasn’t accepted as the leader by all blacks.

      72. The lie of human equality is the foundational lie of this nation of liars called the USA, so it’s perfectly fitting that the only man it commemorates with his own holiday, other than the probably fictional character called Jesus, is also a liar, and a consummate one at that. All Americans secretly admire an adept liar, but of course, being who they are, will lie and tell you they don’t. I conclude that scandal won’t diminish his fame; it can’t, because just the fact that this rape ape is honored as a “great man” is a scandal, a particularly outrageous lie in which a people addicted to lying can revel and participate. If anything, it will help his cult grow.

      73. @padre

        You could try looking up things if your mind so desired. Yes, everything in the post can be documented so which points would you like to make that are not factual?

      74. To be fair, weren’t a lot of Presidents and other “higher ups” involved in reckless (and at times ruthless) sexual escapades?
        I don’t care for MLK, but it seems he is not the only one that has delved into the animal side of humanity.

        • Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter
      75. @anarchyst

        Why I ♥ the Jews:

        1. Male genital mutilation and sucking bloody baby dicks
        2. Savage kosher meat slaughter
        3. “God’s Chosen People” hubris
        4. A sanctimonious need to remain outside our culture and customs
        5. Israel Apartheid and Palestinian murders
        6. America’s endless Mideast proxy wars
        7. Global conflict – 9/11, the Holohoax, WWI & WWII
        8. Media control & censorship – Hollywood, all media, Big Tech
        9. Financial corruption – Usury, the Fed, the IRS, Wall Street
        10. Cultural Marxism:
        a) Women’s lib
        b) LGBT+
        c) Gun control
        d) Impeach the Prez
        e) Communist professors
        f) Black power and racism
        g) Immigration
        h) Pornography & child sex trafficking

        Jews are my friends. Go Jews.

        • Replies: @NelsonVan43
      76. anon[233] • Disclaimer says:
        @Biff

        Sullivan was a Catholic who found King’s activities disgusting.
        According to Curt Gentry in Hoover: The man and The Secrets, Sullivan wrote an anonymous letter to King letting him know his sexual activities were known, and urging him to commit suicide.
        Sullivan was shot dead while walking in the woods near his home in 1977.
        Apparently a 17 year old hunter ”mistook Sullivan’;s hat for a deer’s tail” and let him have it, resulting in a $250 fine.

      77. Mulegino1 says:

        It’s hardly ironic that every street or freeway segment named after Marxist Looter King is almost always in the most dilapidated and crime ridden part of town.

        From all appearances, the black American community in the 1950’s was flourishing and doing very well. The black family unit had not as yet been destroyed by the War on Poverty. The Civil Rights movement’s chief mission appears to have been halting an upwardly mobile and hard working community’s progress and turning it into a cesspool of crime, grievance politics, dependence and chronic resentment. Who better to accomplish this than a sanctimonious and hypocritical sexual predator man of the cloth? He was a precursor to our own self-aggrandizing, narcissistic phony Barry O., who accomplished little other than widening the racial divide into a non-passable chasm.

      78. alexander says:
        @Enuf al Reddy

        Yup.

        May well be.

        MLK never struck me as an individual who would be keen on “gang rape”….I could imagine him perhaps having an affair at some point…but “gang rape” ……not so much.

        For the past several years, Americans have been bombarded with a deluge of sorted tales of our “establishment elites” and their licentious behavior….Most of which has been true.

        Like so many wounded pigeons, …..they seem to be falling out of the sky almost every other day.

        Maybe they feel so rotten and so exposed..they cooked up the MLK rapist story to make them feel better about themselves…

        “See”, they say ,”Martin Luther King was a scumbag pedophile rapist…just like me….Now I don’t feel so bad.”

        But hey, who really knows?

      79. nsa says:

        MLK Day was signed into law in 1983 by……….fanfare………cuckservative icon, Ronnie Reagan. Yes, the very same godlike Reagan who amnestied multiple millions of illegals in 1986. So why would a little rape and perversion be a bar to heroic status for Saint Martin in this sad year of 2019?

      80. @freedom-cat

        Yes, but they didn’t operate under color of the mainstream clergy.

        • Replies: @freedom-cat
      81. @Intelligent Dasein

        I noticed that, too. Glorifying male promiscuity and complaining about how few single women remain chaste while offering tips on how to seduce these few remaining chaste single women. Oh, and denigrating women who have an abortion. Gimme a break, does anyone think that one of these whoremongers wouldn’t urge one of his conquests to have an abortion if he impregnated her and she wanted the baby? He certainly doesn’t want to pay 18 years of child support for a kid that he doesn’t care a damn about and he’s even less likely to marry her. Virtue signaling at its finest. I can’t stand virtue signaling.

        The undeniable misogyny of some members of the dissident right scares women off the movement. It’s one thing to bash feminists, but to advocate stripping women of the right to vote and even reduce women to the level of property? Blaming women for everyone wrong in society? Nothing new – the stories of Adam and Eve and Pandora and her box are thousands of years old.

        • Replies: @Justvisiting
      82. George says:

        1) King basically chose a line of work that would very likely result in his murder. What sort of person agrees to that?

        2) In popular culture King is assasinated due to his civil rights work but in reality King becomes a martyr after his Beyond Vietnam speech and he starts serious anti war activities. That’s when he loses state protection. Where do you suppose Johnny Reb stood on the Yankee imperialist war in Vietnam? Answer from Johnny Reb, I told you so.

      83. @The Alarmist

        The people D’Souza referenced may have been Republicans, but certainly were not conservatives.

        At one time, the Republicans tended to be more socially liberal than the Democrats. Democrats tended to be more socially conservative, due to Southern Whites and Roman Catholics.

      84. Logan says:
        @EliteCommInc.

        Odd Nat Turner went to battle for the same causes noted in the Declaration of Independence, but not a single defender of southern betrayal including the treason by Gen. Lee — has held his name in honor.

        Possibly because he intentionally cut the throats of babies. After finding out they missed one, they went back to kill him too.

        I don’t care what your cause is, there is simply no cause that can possibly justify such behavior.

      85. @95Theses

        Why aren’t the people who whine about Garrow’s article demanding the release of the tapes?

        It reminds me of Ted Kennedy making sure Mary Jo Kopechne’s body was off the island without an autopsy. If he was telling anything close to the truth, you would think Ted would have wanted an autopsy.

        • Replies: @Truth
      86. “Possibly because he intentionally cut the throats of babies. After finding out they missed one, they went back to kill him too.”

        He severed the root that anyone could lay claim to ownership of his person.

      87. RJJCDA says:

        Some years ago, I heard on the night-time radio show Coast to Coast an interview with King’s assistant and subsequently successor at his organization (SCLC?). This male individual said that King once propositioned HIM!

      88. “Military flag officers all have the option to give proper (and short) notice and resign their commissions, which is exactly what Lee did before returning to Virginia.”

        i would certainly be more generous about the technical accuracy of the response, save he did so to make against the US, and what makes it worse – he that the president had no plan to “free slaves”.

        And that deliberate choice is why I use the term abandoned. If not for that, there is little indication that Gen/. lee would have left the services.

      89. gutta percha [AKA "gp"] says:

        Why is this suddenly a big story? We’ve known about the MLK sex wiretaps for at least, what, 35 years? Besides, the people that worship MLK will continue to worship him no matter what is revealed.

      90. Mario964 says:

        When you encounter a man who speaks of universal love and solidarity, consider how he treats those closest to him, for if he can’t be considerate to those who love and trust him the most, then his profession of love for an abstract humanity is but a sham.

        Plastic Recycling and Jousting Jews. Linh Dinh • The Unz Review – June 4, 2019

        • Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter
      91. Sol says:
        @EliteCommInc.

        Maintaining an armed garrison on the territory of another sovereign nation without its permission is an act of war.

        • Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter
      92. @anon

        That MLK was a rapist and a womanizer who engaged in kinky sex has been known since the 1970’s. There is nothing new here but the actual tapes themselves. The Daily Mail et al. has covered this stuff for years.

        • Replies: @Truth
      93. @Nancy Pelosi's Latina Maid

        The torture, rape and murder of 66 million Russian Christians 1917-89.

        The Holodomor, forced death by starvation, of 7-16.5 million Ukrainians.

      94. @Mario964

        Yeah, sort of like John Lennon beating the shit out of Yoko. But to tell you the truth I don’t know what I’d do if I had to wake up every morning next to her and then take her to the recording studio on top of that.

      95. @Sol

        I think we’ve had enough of EliteCommInc. He probably drives a Chrysler 300 with 23s and an EliteCommInc. graphics decal wrap–all financed by some kind of SBA minority set aside “loan”.

        • Replies: @Truth
      96. Dammit how’d I end up on the National Enquirer?

        The FBI recordings and notes document as many as forty “sexual episodes” involving King, a married man, with women, many of them “rough” and “unnatural” sex.

        Oh, I guess its OK that the CIA assassinated him then. Thats terrible. They should murder everyone that has sex. Perfectly civilized behavior, killing people that have sex, I’m sure Jesus would approve.

        Gotta go, Hannity’s on! Something BIGS coming for sure, they would never lie! Trust the plan! Watch out Deep State, Q said so!

      97. @NelsonVan43

        The torture, rape and murder of 66 million Russian Christians 1917-89.

        The Holodomor, forced death by starvation, of 7-16.5 million Ukrainians.

        Fake News, from capitalist Jews.

      98. @Mulegino1

        The synergistic mills of Talmudism and cultural Marxism grind slowly but thoroughly. We hapless Americans are lost in a Hymiewood nightmare scenario, and there is no great leader emerging to lead us out of it. Golem Trump, whose subservience to the Jews outweighs his “America First” policies, is a huge disappointment. One wonders what kosher monster slouches forth to take his place.

        Be sure to blame everything on Jews, niggers, spics, muzzies, and imaginary shit, just don’t blame capitalists or capitalism!

        Thanks,
        -CIA

        • Disagree: Mulegino1
      99. “He probably drives a Chrysler 300 with 23s . . .”

        I don’t even know what a Chrysler is.

      100. Truth says:
        @Walt

        I think you should get out of your habit of bowing down, anyway. But i tealize you guys are just wired like that.

        • Replies: @Talha
      101. it might be a good idea to read a little history of Fort Sumter welcomed by Carolinians. I am a tad surprised here — the record of events is quite clear.

        I don’t have issues with disunion advocates, but if you choose to make your first choice war, the US had every right and responsibility to respond in kind.

        This matter is not about me. It’s the record and conditions.

        • Replies: @Crawfurdmuir
      102. Truth says:
        @joeshittheragman

        Agreed. And your’e a dumb white guy who wasn’t. Jealousy?

      103. Correction:

        I would certainly be more generous about the technical accuracy of the response, save he did so to make war against the US, and what makes it worse – he did so knowing that the president had no plan to “free slaves”.

      104. Half-Jap says:
        @bluedog

        Yeah, I went to the referenced FBI record and immediately thought of how similar in the try-hard style they write these alleged depraved acts by Trump (Steele “dossier”) and King. Sure, unsurprising for charismatic leaders to have women throwing selves at them, and them grabbing multiple pussies, but the record’s just hilarious reading. Best lies told are best mixed with truth, and this record seems exactly it.

      105. Truth says:
        @obwandiyag

        Pretty succinct summary there. Although i would add; “extra stupid, because you spend half of your life asserting that the mass media is always lying to you.”

      106. Truth says:
        @Jim Bob Lassiter

        …well anyone who would leave his kids with a man he’s never met is a bit of an imbecile to begin with…

        • Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter
      107. Half-Jap says:
        @Rabbitnexus

        Please consider my comment above.
        Additionally, consider that any party with any interest in an outcome of something are not neutral actors. It is why, for example, we have double-blind placebo-controlled studies. There was a powerful interest in destroying King in every possible way, and creating blackmail material to stop him is just one of many means. Didn’t work as well as a few bullets, though.
        The record’s plausibility would be improved if there are corroborating evidence from disinterested parties for each claim of villainy and sin.

        • Replies: @Biff
      108. Truth says:
        @David In TN

        How do you know the Nat Turner thing actually happened? Or that there was a Nat Turner?

        Oh that’s right your Khazar media buddies told you…

      109. Truth says:
        @ThreeCranes

        Well now, you did cast a ballot for Camacho 2 years ago, and you’ve known, about his behavior for 35 years also..

      110. Truth says:
        @Jim Bob Lassiter

        Hey, if that’s the case, at least givecthe guy credit for his inpeccable grammar

      111. MBlanc46 says:
        @Intelligent Dasein

        I generally find your comments to be of value, but this characterization of “the Manosphere” is simply ridiculous.

        • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
      112. Agent76 says:

        “History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King, Jr.

      113. Biff says:
        @Half-Jap

        There was a powerful interest in destroying King in every possible way, and creating blackmail material to stop him is just one of many means. Didn’t work as well as a few bullets, though.

        Nicely put, and is why my bullshit meter is running on high.

        • Replies: @Colin Wright
      114. @EliteCommInc.

        I don’t have issues with disunion advocates, but if you choose to make your first choice war, the US had every right and responsibility to respond in kind.

        South Carolina seceded from the Union on December 20, 1860. It became one if the founding states of the Confederacy in February of 1861. Fort Sumter was not fired upon until April 12, 1861. The Confederacy’s first choice was not war. It sought nothing more than separation from the Union, much as Britain now seeks separation from the European Union.

        Nor was secession a new idea. The prevailing ante-bellum view was that the states preceded the Union, had created the Union, and could therefore dissolve it. Secession had been proposed on several occasions before 1860. The first of these was at the Hartford Convention of 1814-1815, a meeting of New England Federalists aggrieved by effects of the War of 1812 on trade.

        Several states (including – interestingly – New York) had attached provisions to their instruments ratifying the Constitution which reserved their right to withdraw from the Union. The legal status of secession has never been adjudicated, either before the War Between the States or since. All that can be said is that secession was undone by force majeure in 1865.

        A study of the events leading up to the war shows that Southerners were not everywhere and always eager to secede, and the secession of their states was not simultaneous. Tennessee, for example, defeated the first secession resolution proposed to it. It passed a second secession resolution only after Lincoln called for troops to put down the “rebellion.” Tennesseans seceded because they had no desire to fight for the Union against neighboring states which had already seceded.

        War was the Union’s choice. Had it recognized South Carolina’s independence and subsequently evacuated Fort Sumter, there would have been no war. Instead it maintained the garrison there for more than four months, constituting a deliberate provocation.

        • Agree: renfro
      115. renfro says:
        @EliteCommInc.

        It is always the most petty, twisted and hypocritical who try to smear men so far above them by every measure.

        During the Republican National Convention of 1960. Eisenhower mentioned that he kept a picture of Robert E. Lee in his office. That prompted a dentist from New York to write Eisenhower asking why he had such regard for Gen Lee.

        Despite undoubtedly having more important things to do as president, Eisenhower must have felt his answer was of such importance that he took the time to send Dr. Scott the following reply from the White House:

        August9 1960

        Dear Dr. Scott:

        Respecting your August 1 inquiry calling attention to my often expressed admiration for General Robert E. Lee, I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War between the States the issue of secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.

        General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was a poised and inspiring leader, true to the high trust reposed in him by millions of his fellow citizens; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his faith in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history.

        From deep conviction, I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee’s calibre would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the Nation’s wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained.

        Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall.

        Sincerely,

        Dwight D. Eisenhower

        • Agree: Colin Wright
      116. Starchild says:
        @EliteCommInc.

        Why is it in these discussion over these topic, folks like you ignore the rape allegations, and focus only on the adultery? Your attempt to obfuscate are obvious.

      117. @Biff

        ‘Nicely put, and is why my bullshit meter is running on high.’

        You’re sure that’s not a heresy detector you’re reading?

        There’s always an orthodoxy, it always has saints, and it always has priests.

      118. It’s interesting how many people feel compelled to defend King’s sainthood.

        His cult really does have some religious qualities to it. People have a need to believe. We have to have a blessed negro, apparently.

      119. @Jim Bob Lassiter

        Hmmmm. That’s probably debatable. But interesting comment!

        • Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter
      120. @EliteCommInc.

        Not my fight but I can’t help noticing the big distinguishing factor. New facts have been unearthed. If someone found a diary kept by Lee in which he recorded orgies and crimes he had participated in that woyld be comparable. But, as I understand it, there is nothing new on the Civil War greats: only changes in interpretation.

      121. @NelsonVan43

        Oh I don’t know…maybe I’m being petty but can you change that 66 million to 65 or 67? The 66 sounds too similar to other crazy 6 numbers.

      122. “South Carolina seceded from the Union on December 20, 1860. It became one if the founding states of the Confederacy in February of 1861. Fort Sumter was not fired upon until April 12, 1861.”

        They experienced no military response. Their first act was violence. Second, as I note, their declaration was not recognized Constitutional amendment or act of Congress , executive authority or the Supreme court — they engaged in o due process. They chose violence as their choice, their first choice. They could have inspect the supply ship to ensure there were no arms on board — but southern pride, “impetuous”. There simply is no threading of the needle here. I once thought maybe. But looking at the record, they chose violence. And it was needless.

        • Replies: @Crawfurdmuir
      123. “Respecting your August 1 inquiry calling attention to my often expressed admiration for General Robert E. Lee, I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War between the States the issue of secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years.”

        I consider myself pretty much below everyone. However this is not a matter of stature or status. I have never openly advocated war against the US, so I would call myself a traitor. However, Gen. Lee despite his status, and stature chose to engage in violence against his fellow citizens and did so without cause. He could have gone home and restated that the president’s position was clear -“slavery was legal” and he would take no steps to end it — even if he opposed it.

        As for General Eisenhower, he and I may agree on some particulars, but the political correctness of embracing men who made war on the US is not one of them. He is entitled to his opinion.

        If you can locate some hypocrisy in my position you are welcome to note it. And i will address it.

        ——————-

        The issue here is the comparison as to impact to the good and there simply is no contest.

      124. @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

        The undeniable misogyny of some members of the dissident right scares women off the movement. It’s one thing to bash feminists, but to advocate stripping women of the right to vote and even reduce women to the level of property?

        Allowing women to vote is a poison pill for any polity. The substantial majority of women will vote for “compassion” which will eventually bankrupt the state–and this will eventually lead to dictatorship. Then nobody will have any “rights”.

        The next generation of western societies will get to learn this lesson the hard way.

      125. @EliteCommInc.

        It takes two to have a bloody war. As you know, the south had the better legal standing and Lincoln should have honored their wish to separate. You probably realize that the war wasn’t fought over slavery as much as over econonomics and political power. Historically, the left has tended to see it as a power-struggle between two elites, that of New England and that of the planters. If California or Quebec were to secede and the response were a violent invasion, would you put all the blame on the secessionists?
        Now as to your comment that King merely had ‘relations out of wedlock’ isn’t that a rather precious phrase and comically inadequate description of his orgies involving rape? Liberals tend to think that sexual conduct is outside the sphere of moral appraisal (unless it’s Trump’s) but there are limits. Apart from that, King plagiarized his dissertation, was an atheist who used religion cynically, and worked closely with a bunch of northern Communists. Liberal historians have failed to tell the story of communist manipulation of the civil rights movement, with Rosa Parks’ celebrated refusal to sit in the back of the bus having been plotted, rehearsed, and carefully coordinated with camera crews and journalists at the ready. It really is a joke.
        I am willing to protect the reputation of Dr. King now that he is an icon and hero to black people, and I suspect Garrow may have some unbecoming motives for blowing the whistle on King, but if we are speaking frankly, the guy was not all that admirable, any more than numerous other heroes such as Winston Churchill or Abraham Lincoln. Our most admirable president was probably Hoover, who saved Europe from starvation.

        • Replies: @Truth
      126. @NelsonVan43

        I’ve often heard it said that the Soviet communists engaged in mass-murder but I have never heard any specifics other than the Ukrainian famine or ‘Holodomor.’ What other episodes were there? What is your source for this claim that tens of millions of Christians were murdered? I’m not denying it, I just want to know what you are thinking of.

      127. @Truth

        The hypothetical choice was to let the women die in the streets, entrust them to Michael King et al. or entrust them to Robert E. Lee and his men. (having read some plausible accounts of both groups) Be careful taking pot shots with the word “imbecile” as ricocheted self hits are possible.

      128. @freedom-cat

        What US president do you know of who claimed to be an ordained minister of a mainstream (or really any) religion?

      129. @Crawfurdmuir

        This nigga is just plain un teachable.

      130. @Justvisiting

        Excellent observation. Please keep visiting.

      131. “We must, hopefully, wait for some future generation to do that” (i.e. denounce King).

        It’s coming faster than you think. Twenty-five years ago, people dared not publicly express what we can on the internet today. And the left can do nothing about it. MLK was a damned thug. There…I wrote it down.

        I

      132. Talha says:
        @Truth

        Not sure I believe anything the FBI simply says about some guy they believed was a political dissident; don’t know why anyone would. I’m not saying the guy didn’t do it (I mean, Malcolm [ra] split with the NOI partially because he found out the leadership was porking young secretaries) I’m just saying I’d like corroborating evidence outside just the FBI.

        Anyway, you’ll like this homie:
        https://www.the-american-interest.com/2019/06/07/the-rise-of-progressive-occultism/

        Peace.

        • Replies: @jeff stryker
      133. Truth says:
        @jack daniels

        And Thomas Jefferson knocked up his wife’s 13 year old, sister…whom incidentally, he happened to “own”. So what?

      134. @Talha

        TALHA

        One thing that always annoys me about white Nationalists is how they blame the choices of white women on men.

        Sahara Knite is a Pakistani woman. She chose to do porn. Muslims are not blaming white men for making the porn she chooses to be in.

        MLK did not RAPE white women. He hired white prostitutes, who knew what they would be paid to do and consented to it. There is no indication they were under 18.

        It is not like King broke the law. Okay, maybe it is immoral to hire prostitutes. Maybe King was a hypocrite.

        There is never going to be a shortage of female women who will be willing to do almost anything. Some of these women will be Pakistani (Sahara Knite) or white (Daniels) or black…so what?

        • Replies: @Talha
        , @Jim Bob Lassiter
      135. Talha says:
        @jeff stryker

        I think the allegations cited in the article are regarding rape charges and non-voluntary acts against female parishioners (who I assume would be Black). Again, if we are going simply off of some note that FBI agent X wrote a memo that MLK raped some lady or laughed while it happened and that is the only piece of evidence without any external supporting evidence (say, from fellow parishioners, the victims, their families, etc.) then anyone who trusts whatever the government has to say on anything can feel free to believe the narrative as gospel truth, not my business. After watching a documentary of the Waco siege on the Branch Davidians and reading up on things like the Cointelpro program and other such things*, I simply fail to see any reason to simply take government files at face value when it comes to these things.

        Peace.

        *Right now the US government says that Iran is responsible for bombing two oil tankers in the Persian Gulf and Iran is denying…who do you believe?

        • Agree: Biff
        • Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter
      136. “It takes two to have a bloody war. As you know, the south had the better legal standing and Lincoln should have honored their wish to separate. You probably realize that the war wasn’t fought over slavery as much as over . . .”

        The Southern states availed themselves of every mechanism if national sovereignty including resolving between the states. They recognized and the authority of the federal system. They gave up being republics when they terminated the articles pf confederation. And state seeking separation would have to employ some legal process to terminate the contract. Hence the ever so painful — supremacy clause.

        This is not a new issue it has been rankled since the end of the civil war. Whether the states had legal standing is moot by their choice to engage in warfare. From that moment on — an entity made war on the US. There was no violent invasion of Carolina. This is not China or the former Soviet Union, making up history for convenience to justify some position does not work. Forth Sumter was a welcome post stationed as protection along the coast. The supply ship did engage in violence. There was no invasion.

        —————————

        My position on Dr./Rev King is no secret. As with all allegations regarding public officials regarding their relational behavior — in general my position is that it is none of my business. I must reject that it is acceptable. And that is how I view such behavior, unless he is a pastor or a pastor over me — that’s it.

        1. These allegations are not new. They are old hat.

        2. Since the actual records remain sealed all is speculation.

        3. The only new twist is the suggestion about nonconsensual relations but i suspect since the matter is talk between men — it’s a reference to colloquial — if that, if it occurred.

        4. Unless, you comprehend what was happening during that period its easy to take the matter in shock, but once its known what the FBI was doing to thousands of US citizens — counterintel that in which the FBI. not only gathered information in violation of the law, they manufactured evidence, mixed lies and facts as the same —

        I was deeply deeply disappointed to discover that our premier law enforcement agency had with malice and forethought so engaged. They literally destroyed hundred of lives by their tactics. As for audio tapes, well, laugh — Once you get what the FBI was engaged in — and for what purpose, their credibility is sadly sullied. And it was that credibility that was on display regarding the current president. The behavior, the tactics — As a citizen, that is far more egregious to the national conscience than anyone’s personal private waywardness. It has no impact on whether one has access to their rights as a citizen. Dr./Rev. King was not not advocating same sex marriage or relational conduct, he was not advocating a campaign for Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler . . .

        My issue here is not to his personal conduct. It’s a simple matter of comparison —

        Gen. Lee sided with Carolina to make war against the US. They were not legally separated from the country. They are traitors. Whatever honorable service up to that point is weighed not against Dr, King but how they conducted themselves to the US and in that they engaged in treason. It’s not made up. It requires no bend in the rules. It’s very straight forward.

        Dr. King’s service to country is just not in question and the attempts to make it so by the FBI and the CIA (a Pres. Kennedy gambit) all found no evidence of collusion against the US. That should sound familiar. As should tales of relational exploits by the current president in Russia —

        What I find funny is that for all of the liberal advance about the openess of the personal — that they would engage in such ploys to distract from issues. And it is always sad to see that supposed conservatives are given to such low brow fair for political agendas.

        The comparison was a bad choice and that anyone attempts to defend the attack against the US needless as it was to wallow in the relational rumor swamp that cost no lives against up to a million unnecessary deaths is a very bad sign for the country.

        Now certainly southerners want to honor those who fought on their behalf, traitorous though it was. And I certainly get that. I while we don’t honor those who betray their country regardless of how noble their intentions, I am not so inhumane as to ignore the affinity and its historical consequence for the loved ones lost.

        • Replies: @RWS
      137. @Justvisiting

        Much has been made over the years about the “gender gap,” but at least among whites, the difference is between the single and unmarried. Married white women vote pretty closely to what their husbands vote.

        If I had my way, welfare and disability recipients would lose the right to vote because it’s a conflict of interest. Do you have a problem with some male self-indulgent slob on disability voting versus someone like me, who pulls her weight and pays taxes?

        • Replies: @RWS
      138. RWS says:
        @EliteCommInc.

        “honor men who were responsible for a needless war . . . . every single traitor of the US during the civil war. . . . . [A]n attack against the US . . . . southern betrayal including the treason by Gen. Lee . . . . mass slaughter of his fellows.”

        This comment evinced some thought yet was astoundingly ignorant of American history.

        As should be obvious from even a quick perusal of the Constitution as it stood until 1865, the United States created the federal government (no, it did not create them) to regulate relations between the individual States, to conduct relations on behalf of those States with foreign powers, and to mount a common defense against foreign threats. John Randolph of Roanoke’s famous declaration on the floor of the federal senate (“when I say, ‘my country’, I mean Virginia”) was a common sentiment before the War of Secession (no, not a true civil war: that was the War of Independence, three generations earlier).

        Consideration of secession, comparable to Brexit from the European Union today, was by no means limited to the South (you may study the Hartford Convention of 1814, amongst other events). And, indeed, more than one State in ratifying the Constitution of 1787 explicitly reserved its otherwise implicit right to secede from the Union. When in 1860 the State of South Carolina did secede, there was no serious talk by authority of compelling that State to remain; the chief perplexity was disposition of South Carolinian land under federal administration at Forts Moultrie and Sumter.

        No one wanted the death of any man, woman, or child in connection with secession (and I type this comment not simply as a Constitutional lawyer and historian, but as the heir of a Pennsylvanian infantry captain torn apart by grapeshot in the Wilderness in 1864, a Yankee artilleryman impaired for life, a Virginian mother left bereft of sons). We Americans bumbled into armed conflict much as we’ve bumbled into many a struggle before and since.

        There was no treason. Only dishonest or ignorant rabble-rousers made such an accusation at the start of the conflict, just as, at the start, few fought to liberate enslaved blacks.

        The reality of the War of 1861-1865 is far more complex than the at-best specious words quoted above acknowledge. Would that the country today had the courage to examine clearly what really was at issue then: it might help us to understand ourselves, to heal, and perhaps to avoid some of the vitriol spewed forth today.

        • Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter
      139. RWS says:
        @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

        “If I had my way, welfare and disability recipients would lose the right to vote because it’s a conflict of interest.”

        A good point. Perhaps best would be an electorate comprised only of older people (a minimum age of 25? twenty-one, the traditional age of maturity, sufficed in eras when men and women had much more experience of life much earlier) who show a real stake in the country (a minimum of taxable wealth, or median earned income?) or at least a nominal educational attainment (a university degree?).

        All of us can agree that democracy as it is supposed in the West today has failed to assure a vigorous and well-considered protection of society, let alone foster its beneficial development.

        • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
      140. “Dinesh D’Souza, who fancies himself an historian of merit, but whose level of historical knowledge and comprehension is far less than that of my intelligent cocker spaniel Jasper”

        It’s good to see that someone besides me recognizes what a mongoloid that dot-head pretend American is. D’Souza insists that republicans have always been “conservatives” when the republican party was the first socialist party to gain power in the US.

        I despise that asshole, as well as his little playmate, Jonah Goldberg..

        • Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter
      141. @Talha

        Some good points Talha. I will note regarding Michael King, however, that people in his own circle (e.g. Ralph Abernathy) made public statements to the effect that King was just plain over the top with his violent and kinky sexcapades. There are also other independent accounts of all kinds of debauchery going on during the early to mid-sixties in the “civil rights” community organizing days in the South.

        We can’t compare the case of King to that of the Branch Davidians as Janet Reno didn’t order Fed tanks to go in and kill a colony of “civil rights” activists and their chillren.

        • Replies: @Talha
      142. RWS says:
        @EliteCommInc.

        “Gen. Lee sided with Carolina to make war against the US. They were not legally separated from the country. They are traitors. Whatever honorable service up to that point is weighed . . . against . . . how they conducted themselves to the US and in that they engaged in treason. It’s not made up.”

        Indeed, this is “made-up”. Neither Lee nor most if not all other Southern officers did not commit treason, but resigned whatever commission they held under the federal government before accepting commissions from their own State governments. South Carolina and a dozen other States withdrew legally (at the time; the only Constitutional amendment written not in ink but in blood came into effect only in 1865, making not the individual States but the federal government the sovereign power).

        Truly, to read into the vibrant past the ephemeral circumstances of the present day is to negate any reality beyond that which you have directly experienced yourself. And that impoverishes our entire society.

      143. @RWS

        Pearls before swine. Mr. RWS, you might as well try to expound on the nuances of a Wagner leitmotif to Elite. FWIW I appreciate your contribution.

        • Replies: @RWS
      144. @jeff stryker

        “It is not like King broke the law. “– I won’t go down the rabbit hole with you on the pros and cons of legalized prostitution, but outside a few counties in Nevada, prostitution is currently illegal in the US and was while King ran rampant.

        King also was a habitual deliberate lawbreaker in areas not related to sexual activity.

      145. Talha says:
        @Jim Bob Lassiter

        Ralph Abernathy…There are also other independent accounts of all kinds of debauchery going on during the early to mid-sixties in the “civil rights” community organizing days in the South.

        And that would be what would convince me; verified, independent testimony. I haven’t done a whole lot of research on this to be honest, but this particular article didn’t seem to mention much in the way of non-governmental sources.

        I, like most others of my generation, had a big place for MLK in our hearts. At least the vision they sold us on was a very nice one; judge a man by the content of his character, not by his skin – treat citizens equally irrespective of skin color, etc. Good ideals if everyone commits to them in principle across the board without making exceptions for, say, White males.

        As I mentioned, Malcolm X (ra) publicly broke with the NOI leadership on these same grounds; they were hooking up with a bunch of the young attractive secretaries in secret while promoting stable families and no shenanigans in public. So there is evidence right there that this kind of stuff was indeed occurring.

        We can’t compare the case of King to that of the Branch Davidians

        Not the same in results of death and carnage of innocent women and children – but I was talking about in the case of framing someone, covering up evidence, etc.

        Peace.

      146. RWS says:
        @Jim Bob Lassiter

        Thank you. I’ve calmed down.

        Ignorance is cause for compassionate enlightenment; but when that ignorance is forced upon others directly or indirectly, it tends to irritate me greatly. Interestingly, much ignorance of history today is the foolish reading of a supposedly immutable set of present beliefs into the reality of the past.

        • Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter
      147. “Indeed, this is “made-up”. Neither Lee nor most if not all other Southern officers did not commit treason, but resigned whatever commission they held under the federal government before accepting commissions from their own State governments”

        If you are a US citizen, and Gen. Lee was, and commence to engage in a war against the US you are engaged in an act of treason, whether one is in the military or not. All of the heart stringing and pulling and pain personal loss, humiliation . . . etc. does not change that singular fact.

        The country attempted a confederation of independent states. it did not work.

        Hence the phrase, ” . . . in order to form a more perfect union . . .”

        Ending with Article VI, Section 2, Section 3

        • Troll: Twodees Partain
        • Replies: @RWS
      148. I see your Gen. Lee and Gen. Eisenhower in response I submit Pres/Gen Grant who stated immediately that Gen. Lee’s action was traitorous – treason. I acknowledged he reconciled the matter at the end of the conflict, but he knew immediately that the choice of war was treason and openly stated as much — no modern day lenses required. And Alongside that submission, Gen./Pres Andrew Jackson, who made the matter quite clear. Any southerner touting succession should be hung and he made that point repeatedly. Even going so fa as to ride to one location for that end. Breaking from the union was treason – traitorus behavior.

        “Truly, to read into the vibrant past the ephemeral circumstances of the present day is to negate any reality beyond that which you have directly experienced yourself. And that impoverishes our entire society.”

        Now unless these two men have been transported to the 21st century, and I am unaware of any such occurrence, you modern looking glass suggestion is dismissed as the record of the time and before makes plain — contemporaries recognized one nation comprised of states belonging to the same not as republics — but joined in legal social common cause as one nation.

        I think the real past is quite sufficient for the day. It is not as if the issue is new.

      149. “Only dishonest or ignorant rabble-rousers made such an accusation at the start of the conflict, just as, at the start, few fought to liberate enslaved blacks.”

        The history of General Grant demolishes the above complaint and not only would Gen Jackson be appalled he would challenge your comment with action gun on hand to test your slanderous accusation.

        Now I have heard it all Gen Jackson union for the sake freeing blacks —

        Ok that deserves a good grief, especially in light of the commentary concerning ignorance. Laughing.

        President Andrew Jackson abolitionist.

        Laughing.

        • Replies: @RWS
      150. Carolina had no legal standing to separate. So this,

        “War was the Union’s choice. Had it recognized South Carolina’s independence and subsequently evacuated Fort Sumter, there would have been no war. Instead it maintained the garrison there for more than four months, constituting a deliberate provocation.”

        as previously noted and supported has no standing.

        • Replies: @Crawfurdmuir
      151. The error in referencing the EU is that the EU contained a mechanism for departure. It was not intended to be a single national entity –

        Complete opposite of the US.

        —————————————————

        At the end of the day these complaints are all about pride, face saving and towing the politically correct narrative.

        • Replies: @Twodees Partain
      152. @RWS

        Read by immutably low IQ individuals I might add.

      153. RWS says:
        @EliteCommInc.

        “If you are a US citizen, and Gen. Lee was, and commence to engage in a war against the US you are engaged in an act of treason . . . .”

        Today, not then. Indeed, we Americans still are citizens of a particular State, if no longer of the State before of the United States. (‘Ever wondered why direct federal taxation required amendment of the Constitution, or why some States continued to have established churches for generations after the ratification of the First Amendment?) Again, reading the present into the past will illuminate neither.

        “‘. . . in order to form a more perfect union . . .’”

        But not an indissoluble one. Doubt regarding right of secession arose only after initial ratification, and was not settled until in 1865 — the amendment written in blood.

      154. RWS says:

        “The error in referencing the EU is that the EU contained a mechanism for departure. It was not intended to be a single national entity –
        Complete opposite of the US.”

        Really? You seriously believe this? Do try to read the Federalist Papers and, better, the journals of the States’ ratifying conventions. There was no explicit “mechanism for departure” because the right of secession was obvious at the time. The EU has incorporated explicit “mechanism” in part because of the American experience three generations later.

        “At the end of the day these complaints are all about pride, face saving and towing the politically correct narrative.”

        Hardly. I honor my abolitionist ancestors. I simply recognize the past as it was. I urge you to do the same.

      155. RWS says:
        @EliteCommInc.

        This comment is too confused to sort out. I erred in believing that the author originally wrote in ignorance of facts instead of refusal to understand them. Remembering the verse before Proverbs 26:5, I have done with this.

        • Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter
      156. @RWS

        Elite is operating on some level between that of Hank Johnson and Elijah Cummings.

      157. “Today, not then. Indeed, we Americans still are citizens of a particular State, if no longer of the State before of the United States. (‘Ever wondered why direct federal taxation required amendment of the Constitution, or why some States continued to have established churches for generations after the ratification of the First Amendment?) Again, reading the present into the past will illuminate neither.”

        I have to reject you complaint as it ignores the point. And it does so completely. You claim its treason. Ow in the light of current understanding. I provide two very specific exmples com before and during the period that roundly contradict your posit. And I am being generous. The historical record of the time indicates that the issue of treason and how to adjudicate it at the time was a major issue. And the matter wasn’t whether they committed treason but how and it could be addressed.

        I am ever not stunned any longer by the lack of knowledge of those who make claims about this issue. It was an then.

        http://www.weeklystandard.com/allen-c-guelzo/the-trial-that-didnt-happen

        http://www.law.virginia.edu/news/201710/was-secession-legal

        https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-pardon-of-jefferson-davis-and-the-14th-amendment
        One of the trial justices in the Davis case in 1868 was Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon Chase, who was at the district court in his role as a circuit judge. Chase wanted the treason charges dismissed, but a second judge, John C. Underwood, disagreed with him.”

        Not even an open question.

        No. It is not contemporary lens. It was an issue at the time. Out of let bygones be most us just nod pay homage polical correct ethos. But you make claim such as these comparisons then the matter is fair game.

      158. none harm says:

        MLK Jr. was foolish enough to believe his blackmailers (FBI) would honor their word to not release the dirt they had on him if he would just do one little thing: (Despite all the death threats he had previously received) all he had to do to live on as a hero (for a time) was to step out onto the rear balcony of his hotel room that fateful day. He did so no doubt hoping Hoover would keep his word.

        With his entourage keeping a safe distance, he foolishly exposed himself by stepping out onto the balcony ostensibly to view little more than a dozen open windows which he was told held a sniper who would release him from the horrible threat of public exposure and shame and hopefully grant him the reverential immortality he so desperately sought. Instead, he will most likely be remembered eternally for his licentious behavior. Too bad he didn’t follow the advice of Sophocles: “Do nothing secretly; for Time sees and hears all things, and discloses all”.

      159. @MBlanc46

        but this characterization of “the Manosphere” is simply ridiculous.

        How so? It’s exactly what they’ve been saying for as long as they’ve been around. There is no way anybody can suggest otherwise, and if somebody tried to we would have no trouble going to the PUA sites and pulling up about 500 posts and videos saying exactly that.

        Honestly, how can this even be debated? Please tell me.

      160. correction: No. It is not contemporary lens. It was an issue at the time. Out of let bygones be, (seeking to heal) the north just nodded and paid homage to political correct ethos.

        But if you make claim such as these comparisons then the matter is fair game.

        ———————

        My upper back popped last night and today it exploded. Any lack of response is the result of tending to recovery – it’s an ouch, I have never experienced before.

        There is no intended rudeness on my part.

      161. Uhhh no. just to be clear — it popped as I prepared to do my recovery exercise routine or sometime during the workout

      162. @EliteCommInc.

        They experienced no military response. Their first act was violence. Second, as I note, their declaration was not recognized Constitutional amendment or act of Congress , executive authority or the Supreme court — they engaged in o due process.

        The continued presence of Union troops at Fort Sumter for more than 4 months after South Carolina’s secession was a “military response” in itself.

        Did the patriots of 1776 seek “due process” from the British crown, such as an act of the Westminster parliament, recognition by George III, or a ruling by the Law Lords? No, they did not. They declared their independence, and when the redcoats did not leave, the American revolutionaries engaged in violence. You can’t admit the legitimacy of the Declaration of Independence if you don’t also admit that of South Carolina’s secession in 1860.

      163. @EliteCommInc.

        Carolina had no legal standing to separate.

        I have not examined South Carolina’s instrument ratifying the Constitution of 1789 to see whether it contained a provision allowing its unilateral withdrawal from the Union. As I have noted, several of the original 13 states did have such provisions. Virginia was one that did.

        Were those provisions somehow rendered inoperative without the awareness of the states that had them? Did Virginia, by some mysterious action unknown to it, have “no legal standing to separate” despite its provision allowing it?

        • Replies: @Twodees Partain
      164. Which is a complete inversion of the American Founding and a misreading, purposeful or not, of American history.

        You got some ‘splain’ to do, Lucy.

        What the devil are you talking about? It is an inversion for all men to have life liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Huh?

        That sounds like the exact meaning of the Founders.

        P.S., no one cares what MLK did in private. What lives is his quality of character vs. color of skin quote. Something now being completely violated daily by the Left. MLK’s legacy (that quote) is being toppled or has been. No need to add illegal wiretapping violations of the crazed Hoover’s FBI.

        And people (in the National Review) wonder if there is a legacy problem in the FBI, with career G-men constantly violating the law and the Constitution in the name of their own personal sense of “justice.”

        Well that’s exactly what J. Edgar did throughout the first 50 years of the FBI’s history. Comey and Wray are but extensions of that “legacy.” Wiretapping King was illegal then and all that should have been burned so as to erase the stain of the FBI from the history of the US.

      165. @RWS

        While I have coined “No taxation without *proportionate* representation” as an old saying modified to my taste I note that almost all voters have a conflict of interest in the sense that they have personal interests which are not the same as other people’s in the outcome of many political decisions. Should those whose tax rate is likely to be halved if X wins be entitled to vote?

        • Replies: @RWS
      166. “But not an indissoluble one. Doubt regarding right of secession arose only after initial ratification, and was not settled until in 1865 — the amendment written in blood.”

        Laughing.

        As noted, the US was intended as a permanent state. You can ignore the contemporary references of the time as would- your choice does not change the record.

        There were two means to dissolve the union due process or war. The South chose war- there choice. They lost. Matter resolved. Know state’s that seek separation today can certainly choose war. That is always a choice. Or they may choose some manner of due process complaint. Such cases have this far not prevailed in courts.

      167. RWS says:
        @Wizard of Oz

        What I object to is not so much a voter’s philosophy or electoral preference as his too-low stake in the future of the country. I’m uncertain how best to reduce the vulturine infection now raging in the States, but evidence of civic participation that benefits others (earned income? military service after becoming a citizen?), personal economic investment in the country (real estate?), or at the very least some ostensible proof of enough wit to analyse an electoral competition (university diploma? higher age of enfranchisement?) might help to reverse the pillager’s mentality.

        I really don’t know what can be done.

        • Replies: @Justvisiting
      168. One may complain as they would about the leaders of state’s adopting the constitution and its ramifications. The fact remains the intent of the states’ was to create a national entity. And the history surrounding this issue is clear – one nation. This was never a collective of independent collectives or nations as with the EU. Even under thevartcles of confederation the goal was nationhood. It was unworkable. They understood what it meant – more perfect.

        One can further complain about the obvious nature of dissolution, but had it been obvious they would ensures an out clause . I am unaware of any Such reference that the EU ever looked at the US experience – and irrelevant. The point is making the EU reference is in an inaccurate comparison – the US had no out clause.
        ———-
        There’s an old hat trick. – the war was over taxes. Another irrelevant distraction. Members of the “Whiskey Rebellion” were tried for treason.
        ———–

        Whatever state provisions existed become null and void upon ratification, Article 6.

        ———————–

        Any attempt link the causes of Nat Turner’s. Rebellion to my personal belief is a tawdry ploy and wholly inaccurate as well as beside the point.

      169. @RWS

        Agreed that this would be difficult if not impossible to fix. It won’t be fixed, so this is an academic discussion.

        The Founding Fathers gave it their best shot (property owning white males, republic instead of democracy) and it has lasted a while–we should be thankful for their efforts.

        But, at the end of the day, we self-righteous apes are just not capable of long-term self-government.

        • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
      170. Anon[371] • Disclaimer says:

        There are several excellent, in depth scholarly studies that undercut hyper-Unionist arguments about Secession: the most recent, by Prof. Barry Alan Shain (Cornell Univ), The Declaration of Independence in Historical Context: American State Papers, Petitions, Proclamations, and Letters of the Delegates to the First National Congresses (2013), dispels the myth that the Declaration somehow created a nation based on equality. Shain extensive research is totally convincing. And per the US Constitution, the late Prof. M. E. Bradford’s ORIGINAL INTENTIONS: On the Making and Ratification of the United States Constitution (1993), demonstrates conclusively, through a thorough investigation of the discussions and debates, and the voluminous correspondence that survives, surrounding the adoption of the Constitution, that secession for reason was never forbidden. If so, the document would never have been ratified.

        One of the better, shorter summaries of the prevalent Constitutional theory at that time has been made by black scholar, professor, and prolific author Dr. Walter Williams. Here is what he writes in one of his columns:

        [MORE]

        “During the 1787 Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made that would allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison rejected it, saying, ‘A union of the states containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force
        against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.’
        “In fact, the ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said they held the right to resume powers delegated should the federal government become abusive of those powers. The Constitution never would have been ratified if states thought they could not
        regain their sovereignty — in a word, secede.
        “On March 2, 1861, after seven states seceded and two days before Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration, Sen. James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment that read, “No state or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States.”
        “Several months earlier, Reps. Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania and Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit secession. Here’s a question for the reader: Would there have been any point to offering these amendments if secession were already unconstitutional?”

        Anti-slavery zealot and staunch unionist President John Quincy Adams advocated secession over the annexation of Texas, and in his April 30, 1839, speech “The Jubilee of the Constitution,” commemorating the 50th anniversary of George Washington’s inauguration as the first American
        president, he affirmed:

        “… if the day should ever come, (may Heaven avert it) when the affections of the people of these states shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give away to cold indifference, or collisions of interest shall fester into hatred, the bands of political association will not long hold together the parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states, to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint.”

        More, during the antebellum period William Rawle’s pro-secession text on Constitutional law, A View of the Constitution of the United States (1825,) was used at West Point as the standard text on the US Constitution. And on several occasions the Supreme Court, itself, affirmed this view. In The Bank of Augusta v. Earl (1839), the Court wrote in an 8-1 decision:

        “The States are distinct separate sovereignties, except so far as they have parted with some of the attributes of sovereignty by the Constitution. They continue to be nations, with all their rights, and under all their national obligations, and with all the rights of nations in every particular; except in the surrender by each to the common purposes and object of the Union, under the Constitution. The rights of each State, when not so yielded up, remain absolute.”

        A review of the Northern press at the time of the Secession conventions finds, perhaps surprisingly to those who wish to read back into the past their own statist ideas, a similar view. As historian William Marvel explains in his volume, Mr. Lincoln Goes to War (Houghton
        Mifflin Harcourt Publishers, 2006, pp. 19-20), very few Northern newspapers took the position that the Federal government had the constitutional right to invade and suppress states who had decided to secede. Indeed, this non-interventionist view was the view of Presidents Buchanan, Pierce, and according to their previous opinions, a majority of those on the Supreme Court in 1861.

        Congressionally a majority of members of Congress expressed a view which favored peaceful separation and that such separation, although regrettable, was constitutional. Indeed, were it not the New England states in 1814-1815 who made the first serious effort at secession during the War of 1812, to the point that they gathered in Hartford to discuss actively pursuing it? To read transcripts of their discussions is to see that not just Southerners but most Americans understood during the pre-war period that states had the right to abrogate their original adhesion to the American union for just cause.

        One last comment regarding the accusation of “treason.” After the conclusion of the War, the Southern states were put under military authority, their civil governments dissolved, and each state had to be re-admitted to the Union. But, logically, a state could not be “re-admitted”
        to the Union unless it had been out of it. And if it were out of it, legally and constitutionally, as the Southern states maintained (and some Northern writers acknowledged), then it could not be in any way guilty of “treason.” Robert E. Lee formally resigned his commission from the US Army, and then reverted to civilian status. When Virginia seceded, which its Constitution gave it every legal right to do (and according to a majority Constitutional view of the time), he was called back into service by his state (which was then out of the union). There is no way that ex post facto argumentation can construe this as treason.

        • Replies: @RWS
        , @RWS
      171. I love scripture. I love scripture in context and your attempt to single a verse out of context misses the value of the verse you used.

        ” As snow in summer a and rain in harvest,
        So honor is not fitting for a fool. 2 Like a flitting sparrow, like a flying swallow, So b a curse without cause shall not alight. 3 c A whip for the horse,
        A bridle for the donkey,
        And a rod for the fool’s back. 4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
        Lest you also be like him. 5 d Answer a fool according to his folly,
        Lest he be wise in his own eyes. 6 He who sends a message by the hand of a fool
        Cuts off his own feet and drinks violence.”

        And the attack on Fort Sumter is the perfect example. There was no cause. And Hence folly followed ever afterwards. Throwing scripture around as a form of insult minus the actual meaning won’t change history either.

        ————————————————

        What i find interesting is that after all the haranguing about using contemporary lenses you chose the EU — as your escape clause. There’s no support that they looked to the civil war, but if they did it would reinforce the matter that no escape mechanism was in play and the southern states should have pursued such a process — due process.

      172. @Justvisiting

        I’m afraid you are right but would it not be possible Ron’s at that, with a few distinctions, no one becomes a (voting) citizen of the country without 15 years as a net taxpayer….

        • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
      173. @EliteCommInc.

        How does anyone go about “towing” a narrative?

      174. RWS says:
        @Anon

        Many thanks, Mr. Anon, for a fine precis of the Constitutional situation as it stood at the time. I might add a recent work, Cynthia Nicoletti’s Secession on Trial: The Treason Prosecution of Jefferson Davis: it’s not the highest scholarship nor focussed so much on Constitutionality as upon pre-trial procedure, but it is one of the few recent studies I’ve encountered that isn’t completely distorted by the post-nineteen-sixties’ tendency to apply present-day attitudes and aspirations to the past.

      175. RWS says:
        @Anon

        I must add, too, my heartfelt thanks for engaging in conversation as a calm, honest, and informed observer. I should visit this website more often, were I to encounter more commentary like yours.

      176. @Crawfurdmuir

        The plain text of the 10th Amendment settles it:

        Amendment X

        The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

        No power was granted to the federal government to prevent the secession of any state in the articles of the Constitution. No prohibition on secession was stated anywhere in the articles, so secession was a legitimate state power.

        Those like elitecommunistinc who have never read the founding document love to just make up whatever fits their benighted frame of reference.

      177. @Wizard of Oz

        Something went wrong. Trying again

        I’m afraid you are right but would it not be possible to provide that, with a few exceptions, no one becomes a (voting) citizen of the country without 15 years as a net taxpayer….

      178. @Crawfurdmuir

        Well said. It should also be remembered that Lincoln specifically stated that he would be willing to countenance the continuation of slavery if doing so “would preserve the union”. Lincoln was committed to maintaining Federal domination over the states. That was his utmost priority.

        As for the abolition of slavery, Lincoln’s politically-driven ‘Emancipation Declaration’ didn’t even come until 1863, two years after he launched his murderous ‘War of Northern Aggression’ on states that wanted only to peacefully leave the union.

        Indeed, abolishing slavery was never Lincoln’s top priority. He also never stated or expressed the belief that whites and negroes could live together as equals. Never. He was an unapologetic ‘white supremacist’ to his dying day.

        Like virtually all other white men of the 19th century, Lincoln never subscribed to the modern, counterfactual myth of ‘racial equality’.

      179. “No power was granted to the federal government to prevent the secession of any state in the articles of the Constitution. No prohibition on secession was stated anywhere in the articles, so secession was a legitimate state power.”

        States may do as they wish within the frame of the Constitution. However as indicated the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land and it such over the every state. And no state can operate outside of that frame or violation of the same. And that is why even southern states looked to settle disputes between themselves in district and the supreme court. They recognized the national authority over them would be facilitator and as such settle cases by between states via due process.

        You have a case if the southern states never availed themselves of national services and processes. However, it is quite clear that the states including the southern states appealed to and abided by national rulings. They did not operate as independent republics.

        The sense of independent countries — was a sentiment not a condition. Recognizes those “strong feelings” did not make them law and they were often accommodated such as the Federal arrest of John Brown and the subsequent debate over who adjudicated the legal process. The Federal government opted to allow a state trial. But anyone paying attention to that debate recognizes immediately that the state observed federal authority.

        The southern states were all too happy to rely on national, until the national did not favor a particular and then of course they complained about state’s rights. However as their own behavior indicates there were one nation. When Texas’s border was breached it was the federal authority in defense of the US not Texas as an independent Republic. Texas did not tell the US authorities to stand down. The businesses in the south sought relief by federal rulings repeatedly.

        As I have indicated previously, one could effectuate a due process claim or one could risk a fight. The south risked a fight. It was a fight that was not necessary, not legal and one they lost. The Constitution, government and state jurisdictional decisions, southern state use of national agencies and process and the national process makes that case.

      180. “Those like elitecommunistinc who have never read the founding document love to just make up whatever fits their benighted frame of reference.”

        I think I can rest my case as anyone who seeks refuge in the Federalist Papers is grasping not only at straws, but the wrongs bails of hay.

      181. Sbaker says:

        I was a senior in HS when Martin was whacked. The riots started in KC close to where I was existing. My good bud Jim got caught away from home by a pack of groids that beat him unconscious. Several months later I was driving around town with Jim when we passed a groid hitchhiking. Jim yelled pick him up. I said, you kiddin? He said no, I owe him. We stopped and the groid jumped in the back seat. Jim said lets go this way out of town as he turned around to face the young groid and said, remember me? I drove into the country a few miles while Jim discussed how he recognized the groid as one of the gang that beat him unconscious. At this point, things were getting real uncomfortable for the negro. He denied all of Jim’s accusations as he grew more nervous with every tick of time. We were off on a distant country road when Jim said stop the car now. I pulled over, stopped, we both got out and ordered the groid to get out. I thought the skirmish was on. Jim made several threats and told him never to be caught out alone again. At this point, the groid was moving to make a break for it and Jim said let him go. I’m sure he enjoyed the nice walk of several miles back to town.

      182. Okechukwu says:

        It doesn’t surprise me that the dumb white racists on Unz believe this laughably amateurish attempt at character assassination.

        Yeah, sure, MLK cheered on a rape. LMAO.

        Y’all some dumb motherfuckers.

        • Replies: @OilcanFloyd
      183. buckwheat says:

        The only thing ole Martin got right was to judge them by the content of their character. You’ll never go wrong if you do that……

      184. @Okechukwu

        It doesn’t surprise me that the dumb white racists on Unz believe this laughably amateurish attempt at character assassination.

        At the very least, King was a serial adulterer and plagiarist. Adultery and dishonesty are covered by two of the Commandments.

        • Replies: @Truth
      185. Truth says:
        @OilcanFloyd

        So you feel comfortable casting the first stone?

        • Replies: @OilcanFloyd
      186. @Truth

        I didn’t cast any stones. The plagiarism is well known, as is the womanizing.

        • Replies: @Truth
      187. Truth says:
        @OilcanFloyd

        You do realize that Thomas Jefferson knocked up his dead wife’s 13-year old sister, whom, he happened to “own”, right?

        • Replies: @OilcanFloyd
      188. Okechukwu says:

        We know MLK was a brilliant writer, as even his letters from jail are classic works of literature. But what strikes me is his brilliance in extemporaneous interviews:

        I have never, ever, witnessed anyone command the English language like this in unprepared remarks. He doesn’t pause. He doesn’t go “uh” or “you know” as a means by which to gather his thoughts. His brain works at too high a level for that. The words just flow in very advanced yet approachable English.

        More importantly, the content of his remarks evidences a very deep immersion in and total mastery of the issues that we don’t find in today’s statesmen. He is actually extremely competent.

        Martin Luther King is the greatest American that ever lived.

      189. @Truth

        Thomas Jefferson isn’t the subject, but MLK was nowhere near as important as Jefferson to the nation’s history. It’s also never been proven that Thomas Jefferson fathered a child with Hemmings since it could have also been Jefferson’s brother who fathered the children, which would have been a reason for Jefferson to have Hemmings travel with him.

        Whatever the case was, there is no proof that Jefferson ever abused Hemmings, and there is no suggestion that Jefferson committed adultery with Hemmings who was much younger than Jefferson’s wife. Any relationship took place after the death of his wife, so even there Jefferson is not on the same level as King. For all you know the two loved each other in a time when doing so openly was illegal or discouraged.

        As far as accomplishment and intellect, King doesn’t hold a candle. Just about everything he ever wrote of any importance was plagiarized. Mostly, he was a second-rate preacher and an orator whose personal failings made him useful and easy to control by the subversive who pushed him.

        • Replies: @Truth
        , @Okechukwu
      190. Truth says:

        Yes, that is the typical WN logic, or should I say, lack thereof. Thomas Jefferson takes his wife’s 13- year old sister around the world with him, sleeps in the same same quarters with her and her kids are his brother’s

        There is no evidence that MLK ever beat a prostitute. This is hearsay, and nothing more. Not saying it didn’t happen, just saying there is no evidence. There is, however, evidence that TJ was a child, and human trafficker. And that he was (allegedly) involved with a woman who may or may not have had her first period yet, and officially was his children’s Aunt.

        For all you know the two loved each other in a time when doing so openly was illegal or discouraged.

        Oh, so he broke the law, a law that many people took quite seriously, as did MLK when he committed adultery? Great.

        You can read the January 2000 official report by the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation’s Research Committee, which concluded, based on DNA studies, primary and secondary documents, oral histories of Jefferson and Hemings descendants, and nationally renowned scholars, that there is a “high probability that Thomas Jefferson fathered Eston Hemings and that he most likely was the father of all six of Sally Hemings’ children appearing in Jefferson’s records.”

        TJ was also a liar, and a man who’s word was useless:

        His friend from the American Revolution, Polish nobleman Tadeusz Kosciuszko, came to America in 1798 to receive back pay for his military service. He then wrote a will directing Jefferson to use all of Kosciuszko’s money and land in the U.S. to “free and educate slaves.” Jefferson agreed to do so. After Kosciuszko died in 1817, Jefferson refused to free or educate any of them.

        https://www.phillytrib.com/commentary/coard-president-thomas-jefferson-a-pedophile-rapist/article_f841b673-50ac-5510-8330-20d3bac6f974.html

        And as far as TJ’s love for the little girl, well, that’s debatable:

        Yet to quote Jefferson himself on the subject of “slave breeding”: “I consider a slave woman who breeds once every two years as profitable as the best worker on the farm.”

        Icons huh?

        The more one looks, the less he wants to see, if he hates the icon, and the more he wants to see if he does not. I guess if one is shit, they all are, wouldn’t you agree?

      191. Truth says:
        @OilcanFloyd

        As far as accomplishment and intellect, King doesn’t hold a candle.

        Even this is somewhat debatable, Old Sport.

        Even born with generational, inherited wealth, from his father, TJ was a miserable businessman who, even with 267 employees he did not have to pay, died millions (in today’s currency) in debt.

        Basically, he was a fairly intelligent guy who used daddy’s money to set up a nice university, and wrote a bunch of BS in which he did not believe.

        • Agree: Okechukwu
        • Replies: @OilcanFloyd
      192. Okechukwu says:
        @OilcanFloyd

        Jefferson was a racist and (since slaves cannot consent to sex) a rapist. He was a complete and utter hypocrite. Imagine writing “all men are created equal” while owning slaves. It’s a hypocrisy that stains him permanently in the annals of history. And as time passes, his status will continue to diminish because of it. Few people will be honoring Thomas Jefferson a hundred years from now.

        Jefferson should not be excused as a product of his time given that there were many enlightened abolitionists in his time.

      193. @Truth

        Nobody recognizes King as a great mind, a scholar, or even particularly creative. Even his supporters have to make excuses for his plagiarism.

        Jefferson was far more accomplished than King. He was an archirect, mathematician, lawyer, horticulturalist, statesman, prolific writer of his own works, major founder of a nation, engineer……. King was a plagiarist, womanizer, and second-rate orator.

        • Replies: @Okechukwu
      194. Okechukwu says:
        @OilcanFloyd

        Nobody recognizes King as a great mind, a scholar, or even particularly creative.

        LOL. Only to a white nationalist. MLK was a genius.

        Consider that Jefferson lived more than twice as long as MLK. So in order to compare and contrast, we have to ask the question: What did Jefferson accomplish in his 20’s and 30’s? Okay, he wrote the Declaration of Independence at age 33. It’s an unoriginal and unimaginative hodgepodge of Enlightenment ideas that were in the ether at the time, along with directly plagiarized passages, according to his contemporaries.

        MLK wrote Letters From Birmingham Jail also at age 33. It is far and away better than anything Jefferson ever wrote. It’s an absolutely stunning piece of original literature that is widely regarded as a seminal and epochal treatise. And he wrote it while in prison, which was yet another injustice heaped upon the injustice of having to endure third class citizen status. Picture Thomas Jefferson in similar circumstances. He probably wouldn’t even be able to write his own name.

        Moreover, only the Gettysburg Address comes close to reaching the lofty legendary heights of the I Have a Dream speech.

        • Replies: @anarchyst
      195. Okechukwu says:

        Can any of us imagine enslaving our own kids? Well, that’s precisely what Thomas Jefferson did. He fathered his own slaves, often by raping underage girls. That’s just one aspect, of many, of his sociopathy.

        • Replies: @jeff stryker
      196. @Okechukwu

        …At a time when Nigerians were eating their enemies, right?

        • Troll: Okechukwu
      197. anarchyst says:
        @Okechukwu

        Michael King’s “I Have a Dream” speech was plagiarized from a 1920s white preacher…

      Current Commenter
      says:

      Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


       Remember My InformationWhy?
       Email Replies to my Comment
      Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
      Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Boyd D. Cathey Comments via RSS