A huge archive of documents recently released from Federal Bureau of Investigation files exposes in detail King’s sexual activities with dozens of women as he travelled the country campaigning against racial inequality.
Yeah, it’s Martin Luther King. And it gets really bad:
King was accompanied by a friend, Logan Kearse, the pastor of Baltimore’s Cornerstone Baptist church, who had arrived in Washington with what an FBI summary describes as “several women ‘parishioners’ of his church”. Kearse invited King to meet the women in his room, where they “discussed which women among the parishioners would be suitable for natural and unnatural sex acts”.
When one of the women shied away from engaging in an unnatural act, King and several of the men discussed how she was to be taught and initiated in this respect. King told her that to perform such an act would ‘help your soul’.”
The evidence was discovered by an extremely progressive historian. It’s been published in the UK and Australia but US periodicals are for now refusing to publish the story.
We are now denouncing people who lived centuries ago for not living up to our moral codes. What about a much more recent political figure? Could MLK have been expected to know that rape is not OK? I mean, if we are cancelling Columbus Day, what about the MLK day? We are all still deeply grateful to MLK for his unparalleled work in civil rights. But we are also grateful to Columbus for being here.
Here is more on the subject.
I cannot comprehend how one can be on the Left and be against declassifying FBI files. Aren’t we supposed to hate the Deep State? Aren’t we supposed to have erotic dreams about declassification?
It’s the weirdest left in the world that worships big business and the Deep State while despising blue-collar workers.
What throws me off about today’s leftism is the obstinate refusal to accept any aspect of reality that contradicts the dogma.
I very honestly didn’t except that the pretty inane point that children suffer if they can’t communicate would have to be debated. Human beings are social creatures. We communicate using language. Children find it especially hard to be excluded from peer groups because they can’t communicate. Children find any social exclusion and academic ineptitude a lot more wounding than adults. I’m sure there are people on the blog who suffered as lonely kids during recess and are quite happy as solitary, grumpy adults.
I cringe to write all these things because I hate to state the painfully obvious. Snow is white, water is wet, children suffer if they can’t communicate. Toddlers fly into a rage if adults don’t understand what they are saying. Six-year-olds become incredible pests if you don’t hear them. Friendless teenagers become suicidal. Grass is green. Trump is dumb and annoying. Obvious, obvious, obvious.
It’s my blog, so I’ll do whatever I want, you long-quote haters. Here is another one:
“When was the last time you heard a politician decry Apple’s treatment of workers, let alone introduce legislation intended to address it? When was the last time a group of socially conscious hipsters from Brooklyn protested outside the home of Apple CEO Tim Cook? Never, of course. That’s because Apple, like virtually every other big employer in American life, has purchased indulgences from the church of cultural liberalism. Apple has a gay CEO with fashionable social views. The company issues statements about green energy and has generous domestic partner benefits. Apple publicly protested the Trump administration’s immigration policies. The company is progressive in ways that matter in Brooklyn. That’s enough to stop any conversation about working conditions in Foxconn factories. Indeed, the whole point is not to talk about Foxconn factories.”
Sorry for a long quote but I really want to share it:
“When the last liberal stopped sobbing about unfairness, American society became less fair. It’s hard to know exactly when this happened, though it became obvious during the tech boom of the 1990s. That’s the first time I remember wondering why liberals weren’t complaining about big business. Until then, whining about corporate power had been the soundtrack of the left. Businessmen were bad; the more successful, the more sinister. For one hundred years, from the Progressive era to the second Clinton administration, liberals never ceased making that point.
And then one day they stopped. I remember picking up Newsweek and seeing America’s new corporate chieftains described as heroes. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, the Google guys—nobody was accusing them of exploiting workers or getting too rich. Just the opposite. Liberals were celebrating their wealth and assuring us their products would liberate the world. Conservatives didn’t complain. They’d always celebrated business. Suddenly both sides were aligned on the virtues of unrestrained market capitalism.
Before long, left and right were taking virtually indistinguishable positions on many economic issues, especially on wages. Mass immigration? The Chamber of Commerce had long supported more of it. Liberals were now on board, too. Self-driving cars? Drone delivery of packages? Trucking companies love the idea. It means they won’t have to pay drivers. Lawmakers in both parties love the idea, too. It’s such impressive technology. If America doesn’t lead the way, someone else will. Neither side mentions the potential effect on employment.”
It’s from Tucker, of course.
The European Parliament elections have demonstrated very clearly that many people are very unhappy with globalization. This could be the perfect opportunity for the Left to come up with a response to globalization that takes into account this discontent. For now, all that the Left has been able to offer is “shut up, you racist.” Isn’t it finally time to ditch that clearly unproductive approach and come up with something different?
Of course, that would mean giving up on mindless cheering of global capital, so I don’t really believe it will happen. It’s the weirdest contemporary development that conservatives are now learning the terminology of labor vs capital, looking very stunned by this development.
It was really funny when Tucker interviewed that old-school Marxist and tried to find something to object to, finally conceding that he agrees with everything the Marxist had to say.
In the late 1970s, French sociologists Pierre Bourdieu and Jean-Claude Passeron coined the term ‘cultural capital’. It identified the resources that elites use to preserve their power, position and privileges. Cultural capital is everything that educated parents give to their children. It is the accumulation of years of reading, music lessons, private tuition, days out to museums, theatres and the countryside, guided TV viewing, exotic foreign holidays and shared meals around the dinner table, at which discussions might be held about current affairs... Why should universities be held responsible for the academic ability of those who apply to them? Can social inequalities like a lack of cultural capital be simply engineered away with access schemes and quotas?
No, of course they can’t. It’s like placing people who were born without legs in ballet companies and expecting the choreographers to somehow to supply the handicap people were born with.
Yes, it stinks that some people have shitty parents. Which is something that has zero connection with wealth, as evidenced by, among many other things, the recent college admissions scandal in the US. It also stinks that some people are born without legs. But those differences can’t be engineered away.