PayPal

Monday, June 03, 2019

"MSM, Complicit in Disgruntled Minority Massacres, Desperately Suppressing VA Shooter’s Race"

By An Old Friend
Mon, Jun 3, 2019 3:15 p.m.


The Fulford File: "You Swine Happy Now?" MSM, Complicit In Disgruntled Minority Massacres, Desperately Suppressing VA Shooter's Race

On Friday a black man named DeWayne Craddock, an engineer employed by the city of Virginia Beach, shot 16 people in the local government building, killing 12, 9 of whom were white. He had reportedly earlier submitted his resignation. This is yet another example of the phenomenon that VDARE.com calls "Disgruntled Minority Massacre." It's not caused by racism, but by anti-racism—with more than a little help from the complicit Main Stream Media, which probably explains its increasingly frenzied drive to suppress facts like Craddock's race.


City officials are claiming they didn't fire Craddock and have no idea why he did this. A New York Times report says different, that he'd started acting violent, and was on the verge of losing his job:

It remains to be seen what the suspect was after. City officials declined to discuss a possible motive for the attack, but they did say there was no immediate indication that the gunman had targeted anyone. The police chief, James A. Cervera, quelled rumors on Saturday that the suspect had recently been fired, and declined to say whether there had been friction between him and other employees.

But a person close to Virginia Beach's city government, who was not authorized to speak publicly, said that the suspect had no history of behavioral problems until recently, when he had begun acting strangely and getting into physical "scuffles" with other city workers.
The person said that tensions had escalated in the past week, adding that the man had gotten into a violent altercation on city grounds and was told that disciplinary action would be taken.

This story, like all other New York Times stories, does not mention Craddock's race.

A second story, describes Craddock as "an engineer" and "a 40-year-old former soldier," goes on to say "Much about Mr. Craddock, an engineer who had worked on projects like sewer pipelines and pump station replacements, remained unclear." [Virginia Beach Gunman Said He Was Quitting, Then Went on a Shooting Rampage, By Glenn Thrush and Alan Blinder, June 2, 2019 html]

You're telling me! The Paper Of Record doesn't even know what color he was, and apparently can't find a photograph.

The NYT's motto: "All The News That's Fit To Print."

This news blackout on Craddock's race is unusually severe even by recent standards. Maybe there's been some Journolist-style secret decree. A similarly photographless story in the Washington Post describes him this way:

He was a seasoned engineer, a military veteran with a shaved head and body builder's physique. He had an all-business — but not off-putting — demeanor, one co-worker recounted. And a reserved but not peculiar presence, several neighbors said.

Again, no word of Craddock's race, although WaPo went to a black church and interviewed friends of his parents. They weren't described as black either.

The Washington Post's new post-Trump motto: "Democracy Dies In Darkness".

But the U.K. Daily Mail, which specializes in crime news the American papers won't print, managed to find no less than three photographs of him.

3pics


Still, if you get your information from the U.S. Main Stream Media, you're out of luck.

A VDARE.com reader watched ABC News with David Muir and reports that it showed no photo of Craddock at all, just a silhouette. A white silhouette.
ABC News motto: America's #1 News Source.

And ABC may be right about that—many Americans still get all their news from legacy MSM sources.

Which means that many, many, people who've heard about this case almost certainly believe that a white man did it.

Like this lady--she probably hated white males already, but here she's the victim of MSM suppression. She assumes that if the longtime city employee wasn't white, they would have said so:

likethislady

This policy of "not reporting race" leads to a false consciousness on the subject of crime, as I've written repeatedly before. The DeWayne Craddock case is a confluence of the "not reporting race"  custom and the phenomenon of "Disgruntled Minority Massacres."
raceisnotrelevantmyass
"Not reporting race" of a criminal unless it's "relevant" is embodied in the AP Stylebookused by most MSM sources. It goes back to the New York Times's reporting on the "Blood Brothers" gang in Harlem in 1964. As I wrote in 2007, this led to five days of rioting in Harlem, because the black community felt they'd been maligned by being called violent.

The plain fact is that, since the Civil Rights movement started, blacks in America have been encouraged to believe that racism is responsible for any bad thing that happens to them, or any disciplinary or law enforcement action taken against them. They are taught to hate whites—not just by their parents and clergymen, but by American schools. (Here's a recent example from Powerline's eminently respectable John Hinderaker). They feel, and express, hatred of white society without fear of criticism.

White men who lose jobs frequently kill themselves. Black men who lose jobs frequently kill their co-workers or employers.  When black gunman Omar Thornton was fired from a Connecticut brewer for stealing beer, he killed eight of his white coworkers. Before he killed himself, he phoned his mother to say that his victims were racist: "I killed the five racists that was there bothering me", he said [Omar Thornton: "I Killed the Five Racists", by Kevin Hayes, August 4, 2010].

Subsequent investigation "exonerated" his victims, but the point is that MSM continued to treat this irrelevant accusation very seriously [Is racism at heart of Connecticut shooting? Answer still unclear, by Patrik Jonsson, Christian Science Monitor, August 4, 2010].

To repeat: what the Christian Science Monitor's Patrik Jonsson and several other MSM outlets were asking was if the dead white people had been guilty of racism—not the man who murdered them.

To look at it another way: recently, the House Democrats held rigged hearings into "White Nationalism" clearly designed to build the case for repression. Did it occur to anyone in the MSM to ask whether its reports of this irresponsible demagoguery subsequently provoked a clearly disturbed black man to throw a white child off a balcony in a Minnesota mall?
Answer: guess.

In this kind of atmosphere, black killers are being "radicalized" not by obscure webpages, or overseas Muslim radicals—but by the MSM and the Democratic Party.

And when a Disgruntled Minority Massacre happens, there's an outpouring of rage—not at the killers, but at anyone who mentions it. See Jonathan Chait's tweet when a black man shot three white people (two fatally) on camera for reasons the gunman said himself were based on racial hate.
Chait wrote

"I'm too angry to be tweeting about these racist demagogues at Breitbart but I can't contain myself right now…These are sick, hateful, twisted people who exploit our worst impulses, and they have real influence."

I'm too angry to be tweeting about these racist demagogues at Breitbart but I can't contain myself right now.

"Real influence"? If you want to see someone who exploited people's worse impulses, and had "real influence," I give you the former President of the United States.

https://vdare.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/IMG_0850.jpg

Remember that Barack Obama, of all privileged people, paranoically said that when he had a regular job as a research assistant in an office in New York he felt "like a spy behind enemy lines."

Speaking of the 2014 Ferguson riots, Obama said they were provoked by "real issues." It turned out they were provoked by irresponsible reporting. But Obama has never apologized.

And this "real influence" is dangerous to whites everywhere—see Jared Taylor's You Swine Happy Now? Black Kills White to Right Historical Wrongs for the story of Nkosi Thandiwe's murder of Brittney Watts.

Nevertheless, among Americans who do know that DeWayne Craddock is black, I'm now seeing unprecedented levels of anger—not at Craddock, or at blacks, but at the MSM.

It may lead to Brett Kavanaugh levels of awakening—unless it can be stuffed down the Memory Hole.
Try and get the word out yourself, on social media. (VDARE.com can't rely on Google anymore). Here are half a dozen items for you to promote:

Remember, this News Is Fit To Print!

And Democracy Dies In Darkness!

James Fulford [Email him]is a writer and editor for VDARE.com


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Immigration Sanity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to immigration-sanity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to immigration-sanity@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/immigration-sanity.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/immigration-sanity/401078995.992881.1559589311961%40mail.yahoo.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Read between the Lines: Guatemalan Illegal Alien's Sentence for Benefit Fraud is More a Gift than a Punishment!

By "W"
Mon, Jun 3, 2019 3:44 p.m.

Guatemalan illegal alien residing in Iowa sentenced for benefit fraud | ICE

Read this carefully. She only got a 2 month sentence + 3 yrs of "supervised release." That suggests she and her illegal hubby are not going to be deported. What a bad joke of an "enforcement" system.

Man Who Admitted to Scores of Serial Killings Charged in 2 More Deaths

By David in TN
Mon, Jun 3, 2019 3:42 p.m.

Man who admitted to serial killings charged in 2 more deaths

https://www.wkrn.com/news/man-who-admitted-to-serial-killings-charged-in-2-more-deaths/2048679139

The Daily Mail had photos of the two victims, both white, probably prostitutes. 

Racist Hate Crime Attempted Murder in Utah: Drunk Driver, 19, Said He Hit Girl, 11, "because she was white," Told Her "we all die sometime"

 


Racist, aspiring murderer Steven Ray Becky
 

By "W"
Mon, Jun 3, 2019 12:44 p.m.
Corrected at 7:07 p.m., on Monday, June 3, 2019

Utah drunk driver, 19, said he hit girl, 11, "because she was white," Told Her "we all die sometime" | Daily Mail Online




"It makes me feel sick to my stomach": Victim's Mother on Kim Kardashian's Campaign to Get Her Son's Murderer Sprung from Prison

By R.C.
Sun, Jun 2, 2019 4:02 p.m.

"It makes me feel sick to my stomach": Victim's mother voices anger at Kim Kardashian for trying to get her son's murderer set free from a California prison




R.C.: All of the Kardashian Klan have Negro fetishes.

Why is that?




Very Large Group of African Migrants Wade Across the Rio Grande Into US (VIDEO)

Sunday, June 02, 2019

Racist Singer Orders White Audience Members to Go to the Back of the Bus, but Things Didn't Go as Planned

By "W"
Sun, Jun 2, 2019 8:36 p.m.

Singer Asks White Audience Members to Go to the Back of the Audience. Then This Happens. | Daily Wire

Pasadena Family Celebrating Graduation Cuts into Walmart Cake... and Gets a Shock!

By A Texas Reader
Sun, Jun 2, 2019 9:15 p.m.

Pasadena family celebrating graduate cuts into Walmart cake made out of styrofoam





"Racists." Confederate Soldiers Monument Vandalized at Texas Capitol

By A Texas Reader
Sun, Jun 2, 2019 9:23 p.m.





"Aid Worker" is Facing 20 Years in Prison for Aiding and Abetting Invaders Crossing U.S. Southern Border in Arizona

By R.C.
Sun, Jun 2, 2019 9:52 p.m.

Aid worker is facing 20 years in prison for giving food, water and clothing to undocumented migrants crossing the U.S. southern border in Arizona


what's it called?

Oh yeah, aiding and abetting.

Others call it virtue signaling.

Apparently, parasites like this guy think the whole of the planet as some universal right to move to this country.

Jussie Smollett Bought Drugs from the Brothers Who Staged Alleged Attack

By R.C.
Sun, Jun 2, 2019 10:09 p.m.

Jussie Smollett bought drugs from the brothers who staged alleged attack, documents show

Are Black People Dangerous for Japan?

By "W"
Sun, Jun 2, 2019 10:24 p.m.

Are black people dangerous for Japan? | The Japan Times

"Assault": The Mass Murder That wasn't, Because Blacks Can't Shoot Straight

By R.C.
Sun, Jun 2, 2019 10:39 p.m.



R.C.: Go to 1:30

Damn, they are stupid.

Any good old boy from west Texas would have had bodies stacked up like cordwood within the first two minutes.



Racist, Black Mass Murderer DeWayne Craddock was Violent with Co-Workers before Virginia Beach Shooting

By "W"
Sun, Jun 2, 2019 8:46 p.m.

DeWayne Craddock was violent with co-workers before Virginia Beach shooting: report

But since he was an Affirmative Action Black, they kept him on until he blew up (as could be expected).

"Absolute no go": German Cops Wounded in Clashes with Bicycle-Throwing Rapefugees

By R.C.
Sat, Jun 1, 2019 6:40 p.m.

N.S.: Remember several years ago, when Western European leaders lied with straight faces, in denying that there were any no-go zones"?



R.C.: Where are the [bleeping] Panzer tanks?




Saturday, June 01, 2019

Rats at the police station, filth on L.A. streets — scenes from the collapse of a city that’s lost control

Sat, Jun 1, 2019 6:39 pm
Subject: Rats at the police station, filth on L.A. streets — scenes from the collapse of a city that's lost control

Why are all the dystopian cities on the West Coast?

Los Angeles.

San Francisco.

Portland.

Seattle.


Texas struggles to keep pace as thirst for water intensifies


Sat, Jun 1, 2019 4:08 pm

Texas struggles to keep pace as thirst for water intensifies


ATR: Gee, why is this?

But is It True? Teacher under Fire for Labeling Her Students as "Illegal" in Tweets to Trump

By A Texas Reader
Sat, Jun 1, 2019 8:02 p.m.

Teacher under fire for labeling her students as 'illegal' in tweets to Trump



ATR: But is it true?



Driver Careened to His Death off Overpass, Killing His Passenger with Him

By A Texas Reader
Sat, Jun 1, 2019 8:44 p.m.

A vehicle was traveling on Northwest Highway and left the road, dropping onto the Dallas North Tollway below. The only occupant and driver was pronounced deceased at the scene.



ATR: How does a car punch through a guardrail unless it's moving at an extremely high rate of speed?


Explosive Foreplay: Man Accidentally Shoots, Kills Woman

By A Texas Reader
Sat, Jun 1, 2019 10:40 p.m.

Deputies: Man accidentally shoots, kills woman during foreplay



Sam Francis: Martin Luther King Jr. Day and Its Meaning

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

Sam Francis (1947-2005) was the most brilliant American political thinker since James Burnham (1905-1987).


Posted on January 16, 2012

The King Holiday

and Its Meaning

Sam T. Francis, American Renaissance, February 1998

On August 2, 1983, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill creating a legal public holiday in honor of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Although there had been little discussion of the bill in the House itself and little awareness among the American public that Congress was even considering such a bill, it was immediately clear that the U.S. Senate would take up the legislation soon after the Labor Day recess. The House had passed the King Holiday Bill by an overwhelming vote of 338-90, with significant bipartisan support (both Reps. Jack Kemp and Newt Gingrich voted for it), and the Reagan administration was indicating that the President would not veto it if it came before him. In these circumstances, most political observers seemed to think that Senate enactment and presidential signature of the bill would take place virtually unopposed; few anticipated that the battle over the King holiday in the next few weeks would be one of the most bitter congressional and public controversies of the decade.

From 1981 to 1986 I worked on the staff of North Carolina Republican Sen. John P. East, a close associate and political ally of the senior senator from North Carolina, Jesse Helms.

While the legislation was being considered I wrote a paper entitled “Martin Luther King, Jr.: Political Activities and Associations.” It was simply documentation of the affiliations with various individuals and organizations of communist background that King had maintained since the days when he first became a nationally prominent figure. In September, the paper was distributed to several Senate offices for the purpose of informing them of these facts about King, facts in which the national news media showed no interest. It was not originally my intention that the paper be read on the floor of the Senate, but the Helms office itself expressed an interest in using it as a speech, and it was read into the Congressional Record on October 3, 1983. During the ensuing debate over the King holiday, I acted as a consultant to Sen. Helms and his regular staff.

Sen. Helms, like Sen. East and many other conservatives in the Senate and the country, was strongly opposed to establishing a national holiday for King. The country already observed no fewer than nine legal public holidays — New Years Day, “President’s Day” as it is officially known or “Washington’s Birthday” as an unreconstructed American public continues to insist on calling it, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veterans Day, Columbus Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas. With the exceptions of Washington’s Birthday and Christmas, not a one of these holidays celebrates a single individual. As Sen. East argued, to establish a special holiday just for King was to “elevate him to the same level as the father of our country and above the many other Americans whose achievements approach Washington’s.” Whatever King’s own accomplishments, few would go so far as to claim that they equaled or exceeded those of many other major statesmen, soldiers, and creative minds of American history.

That argument alone should have provided a compelling reason to reject the King holiday, but for some years a well-organized and powerful lobby had pressured Congress for its enactment, and anyone who questioned the need for the holiday was likely to be accused of “racism” or “insensitivity.” Congressional Democrats, always eager to court the black voting bloc that has become their party’s principal mainstay, were solidly in favor of it (the major exception being Georgia Democrat Larry McDonald, who led the opposition to the measure in the House and who died before the month was over when a Soviet warplane shot down the civilian airliner on which he and nearly three hundred other civilians were traveling). Republicans, always timid about accusations of racial insensitivity and eager to court the black vote themselves, were almost as supportive of the proposal as the Democrats. Few lawmakers stopped to consider the deeper cultural and political impact a King holiday would have, and few journalists and opinion-makers encouraged them to consider it. Instead, almost all of them — lawmakers and opinion-makers — devoted their energies to vilifying the only public leader who displayed the courage to question the very premise of the proposal — whether Martin Luther King was himself worthy of the immense and unprecedented honor being placed upon him.

It soon became clear that whatever objections might be raised against the holiday, no one in politics or the media wanted to hear about them and that even the Republican leadership of the Senate was sympathetic to passage of the legislation. When the Senate Majority Leader, Howard Baker, scheduled action to consider the bill soon after Congress returned from the Labor Day recess, King’s widow, Coretta Scott King, called Sen. Baker and urged him to postpone action in order to gain time to gather more support for the bill. The senator readily agreed, telling the press, “She felt chances for passage would be enhanced and improved if it were postponed. The postponement of this is not for the purpose of delay.” Nevertheless, despite the support for the bill from the Republican leadership itself, the vote was delayed again, mainly because of the efforts of Sen. Helms.

Sen. Helms delivered his speech on King on October 3 and later supplemented it with a document of some 300 pages consisting mainly of declassified FBI and other government reports about King’s connections with communists and communist-influenced groups that the speech recounted. That document, distributed on the desks of all senators, was promptly characterized as “a packet of filth” by New York’s Democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who threw it to the floor of the Senate and stomped on it (he later repeated his stomping off the Senate floor for the benefit of the evening news), while Sen. Edward Kennedy denounced the Helms speech as “Red smear tactics” that should be “shunned by the American people.” A few days later, columnist Edwin M. Yoder, Jr. in the Washington Post sneered that Jesse Helms “is a stopped clock if ever American politics had one” who could be depended on to “contaminate a serious argument with debating points from the gutter,” while he described King as “a prophet, a man of good works, a thoroughly wholesome influence in American life.” Writing in the Washington Times, conservative Aram Bakshian held that Sen. Helms was simply politically motivated: “He has nothing to lose and everything to gain by heaping scorn on the memory of Martin Luther King and thereby titillating the great white trash.” Leftist Richard Cohen wrote of Helms in the Post, “His sincerity is not in question. Only his decency.”

Meanwhile, Sen. Helms, with legal assistance from the Conservative Caucus, filed suit in federal court to obtain the release of FBI surveillance tapes on King that had been sealed by court order until the year 2027. Their argument was that senators could not fairly evaluate King’s character and beliefs and cast an informed vote on the holiday measure until they had gained access to this sealed material and had an opportunity to examine it. The Reagan Justice Department opposed this action, and on October 18, U.S. District Judge John Lewis Smith, Jr. refused to release the King files, which remain sealed to this day.

Efforts to send the bill to committee also failed. Although it is a routine practice for the Senate to refer all legislation to committee, where hearings can consider the merits of the proposed law, this was not done in the case of the King holiday bill. Sen. Kennedy, a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, argued that hearings on a similar proposal had been held in a previous Congress and there was no need to hold new hearings. He was correct that hearings had been held, but there had been considerable turnover in the Senate since then and copies of those hearings were not generally available. Nevertheless, it soon became clear that Republicans and Democrats, liberals and many conservatives, the White House, the courts, and the media all wanted the King holiday bill passed as soon as possible, with as little serious discussion of King’s character, beliefs, and associations as possible.

Why this was so was becoming increasingly clear to me as an observer of the process. Our office soon began to receive phone calls and letters from all over the country expressing strong popular opposition to the bill. Aides from other Senate offices — I specifically remember one from Washington state and one from Pennsylvania — told me their mail from constituents was running overwhelmingly against the bill, and I recall overhearing Sen. Robert Dole telling a colleague that he had to go back to Kansas and prove he was still a Republican despite his support for the King holiday bill. The political leaders of both parties were beginning to grasp that they were sitting on top of a potential political earthquake, which they wanted to stifle before it swallowed them all.

On October 19, then, the vote was held, 78 in favor of the holiday and 22 against (37 Republicans and 41 Democrats voted for the bill; 18 Republicans and 4 Democrats voted against it); several substitute amendments intended to replace the King holiday measure were defeated without significant debate. President Reagan signed the bill into law on November 2nd. I distinctly remember standing with Sen. Helms in the Republican cloakroom just off the floor of the Senate during the debate, listening to one senator after another approaching him to apologize for the insulting language they had just used about Sen. Helms on the floor. Not a few of the senators assured him they knew he was right about King but what else could they do but denounce Helms and vote for the holiday? Most of them claimed political expediency as their excuse, and I recall one Senate aide chortling that “what old Jesse needs to do is get back to North Carolina and try to save his own neck” from the coming disaster he had prepared for himself in opposing the King holiday.

Indeed, it was conventional wisdom in Washington at that time that Jesse Helms had committed political suicide by his opposition to the King holiday and that he was certain to lose re-election the following year against a challenge by Democratic Governor James B. Hunt. In fact, Sen. Helms was trailing in the polls prior to the controversy over the holiday. The Washington Post carried a story shortly after the vote on the holiday bill with the headline, “Battle to Block King Holiday May Have Hurt Helms at Home,” and a former political reporter from North Carolina confidently gloated in the Post on October 23 that Helms was “Destined to Lose in “84.”

In the event, of course, Sen. Helms was re-elected by a healthy margin, and the Post itself acknowledged the role of his opposition to the King Holiday as a major factor in his political revival. As Post reporter Bill Peterson wrote in news stories after Helms’ re-election on November 6, 1984, his “standing among whites. . . shot up in polls after he led a filibuster [strong opposition] against a bill establishing a national holiday on the birthday of the late Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.,” and on November 18, “A poll before the filibuster showed Helms trailing Hunt by 20 percentage points. By December, Hunt’s lead was sliced in half. White voters who had been feeling doubts about Helms began returning to the fold.” If Sen. Helms’ speech against the King holiday had any enduring effect, then, it was to help re-elect him to the Senate.

So, was Jesse Helms right about Martin Luther King? That King had close connections with individuals and groups that were openly communist is clear today, as it was clear during King’s own lifetime and during the debate on the holiday bill. Indeed, only two weeks after the Senate vote, on November 1, 1983, the New York Times published a letter written by Michael Parenti, an associate fellow of the far-left Institute for Policy Studies in Washington and a frequent contributor to Political Affairs, an official organ of the Communist Party that styles itself the “Theoretical Journal of the Communist Party, U.S.A.” The letter demanded “What if communists had links to Dr. King?” Mr. Parenti pointed out that “The three areas in which King was most active — civil rights, peace and the labor struggle (the latter two toward the end of his life) — are also areas in which U.S. Communists have worked long and devotedly,” and he criticized “liberals” who “once again accept the McCarthyite premise that U.S. Communists are purveyors of evil and that any association with them taints one forever. Dr. King himself would not have accepted such a premise.” Those of Mr. Parenti’s persuasion may see nothing scandalous in associations with known communists, but the “liberals” whom he criticized knew better than to make that argument in public.

Of course, to say that King maintained close affiliations with persons whom he knew to be communists is not to say that King himself was ever a communist or that the movement he led was controlled by communists; but his continuing associations with communists, and his repeated dishonesty about those connections, do raise serious questions about his own character, about the nature of his own political views and goals, and about whether we as a nation should have awarded him (and should continue to award him) the honor the holiday confers. Moreover, the embarrassing political connections that were known at the time seem today to be merely the tip of the ethical and political iceberg with which King’s reputation continues to collide.

While researching King’s background in 1983, I deliberately chose to dwell on his communist affiliations rather than on other issues involving his sexual morality. I did so because at that time the facts about King’s subversive connections were well-documented, while the details of his sex life were not. In the course of writing the paper, however, I spoke to several former agents of the FBI who had been personally engaged in the FBI surveillance of King and who knew from first-hand observation that the rumors about his undisciplined sex life were substantially true. A few years later, with the publication in 1989 of Ralph Abernathy’s autobiography, And the Walls Came Tumbling Down, those rumors were substantiated by one of King’s closest friends and political allies. It is quite true that a person’s sex life is largely his own business, but in the case of an internationally prominent figure such as King, they become publicly relevant, and they are especially relevant given the high moral stature King’s admirers habitually ascribe to him, the issue of his integrity as a Christian clergyman, and the proposal to elevate him to the status of a national moral icon.

In the course of the Senate debate on the King holiday, the East office received a letter from a retired FBI official, Charles D. Brennan. Mr. Brennan, who had served as Assistant Director of the FBI, stated that he had personally been involved in the FBI surveillance of King and knew from first-hand observation the truth about King’s sexual conduct — conduct that Mr. Brennan characterized as “orgiastic and adulterous escapades, some of which indicated that King could be bestial in his sexual abuse of women.” He also stated that “King frequently drank to excess and at times exhibited extreme emotional instability as when he once threatened to jump from his hotel room window.” In a study that he prepared, Mr. Brennan described King’s “sexual activities and his excessive drinking” that FBI surveillance discovered. It was this kind of conduct, he wrote, that led FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to describe King as “a tom cat with obsessive degenerate sexual urges” and President Lyndon Johnson to call King a “hypocrite preacher.” Mr. Brennan also acknowledged:

It was muck the FBI collected. It was not the FBI’s most shining hour. There would be no point in wallowing in it again. The point is that the muck is there. It is there in the form of transcripts, recordings, photos, and logs. It is there in great quantity. There are volumes of material labeled “obscene.’ Future historians just will not be able to avoid it.

It is precisely this material that is sealed under court order until the year 2027 and to which the Senate was denied access prior to the vote on the King holiday.

One instance from King’s life that perhaps illuminates his character was provided by historian David Garrow in his study of the FBI’s surveillance of King. Garrow recounts what the FBI gathered during a 48-hour surveillance of King between February 22 and 24, 1964 in the Hyatt House Motel in Los Angeles.

“In that forty-eight hours the Bureau acquired what in retrospect would be its most prized recordings of Dr. King. The treasured highlight was a long and extremely funny storytelling session during which King (a) bestowed supposedly honorific titles or appointments of an explicitly sexual nature on some of his friends, (b) engaged in an extended dialogue of double-entendre phrases that had sexual as well as religious connotations, and (c) told an explicit joke about the rumored sexual practices of recently assassinated President John F. Kennedy, with reference to both Mrs. Kennedy, and the President’s funeral.”

Garrow’s characterization of the episode as “extremely funny” is one way of describing the incident; another is that during the session in Los Angeles, King, a Christian minister, made obscene jokes with his own followers (several of them also ministers), made sexual and sacrilegious jokes, and made obscene and insulting remarks intended to be funny about the late President Kennedy and his sex life with Mrs. Kennedy. It should be recalled that these jokes were made by King about a man who had supported his controversial cause, had lost political support because of his support for King and the civil rights movement, and had been dead for less than three months at the time King engaged in obscene humor about him and his wife. In February 1964, the nation was still in a state of shock over Kennedy’s death, but King apparently found his death a suitable occasion for dirty jokes.

More recently still, in addition to disclosures about King’s bizarre sex life and his close connections with communists, it has come to light that King’s record of deliberate deception in his own personal interests reaches as far back as his years in college and graduate school, when he plagiarized significant portions of his research papers and even his doctoral dissertation, an act that would cause the immediate professional ruin of any academic figure. Evidence of King’s plagiarism, which was almost certainly known to his academic sponsors at Boston University and was indisputably known to other academics at the King Papers Project at Stanford University, was deliberately suppressed and denied. It finally came to light in reports published by theWall Street Journal in 1990 and was later exhaustively documented in articles and a monograph by Theodore Pappas of the Rockford Institute.

Yet, incredibly — even after thorough documentation of King’s affiliations with communists, after the revelations about his personal moral flaws, and after proof of his brazen dishonesty in plagiarizing his dissertation and several other published writings — incredibly there is no proposal to rescind the holiday that honors him. Indeed, states like Arizona and New Hampshire that did not rush to adopt their own holidays in honor of King have themselves been vilified and threatened with systematic boycotts. The continuing indulgence of King is in part due to simple political cowardice — fear of being denounced as a “racist” — but also to the political utility of the King holiday for those who seek to advance their own political agenda. Almost immediately upon the enactment of the holiday bill, the King holiday came to serve as a kind of charter for the radical regime of “political correctness” and “multiculturalism” that now prevails at many of the nation’s major universities and in many areas of public and private life.

This is so because the argument generally offered for the King holiday by King’s own radical collaborators and disciples is considerably different from the argument for it offered by most Republicans and Democrats. The latter argue that they simply want to celebrate what they take to be King’s personal courage and commitment to racial tolerance; the holiday, in their view, is simply celebratory and commemorative, and they do not intend that the holiday should advance any other agenda. But this is not the argument in favor of the King holiday that we hear from partisans like Mrs. King and those who harbor similar views. A few days after Senate passage of the holiday measure, Mrs. King wrote in the Washington Post (October 23, 1983) about how the holiday should be observed.

“The holiday,” she wrote, “must be substantive as well as symbolic. It must be more than a day of celebration . . . Let this holiday be a day of reflection, a day of teaching nonviolent philosophy and strategy, a day of getting involved in nonviolent action for social and economic progress.” She noted that for years the Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change in Atlanta “has conducted activities around his birthday in many cities. The week-long observance has included a series of educational programs, policy seminars or conferences, action-oriented workshops, strategy sessions and planning meetings dealing with a wide variety of current issues, from voter registration to full employment to citizen action for nuclear disarmament.”

A few months later, Robert Weisbrot, a fellow of the DuBois Institute at Harvard, was writing in The New Republic (January 30, 1984) that “in all, the nation’s first commemoration of King’s life invites not only celebration, but also cerebration over his — and the country’s — unfinished tasks.” Those “unfinished tasks,” according to Mr. Weisbrot, included “curbing disparities of wealth and opportunity in a society still ridden by caste distinctions,” a task toward the accomplishment of which “the reforms of the early “60s” were “only a first step.” Among those contemporary leaders “seeking to extend Martin Luther King’s legacy,” Mr. Weisbrot wrote, “by far the most influential and best known is his former aide, Jesse Jackson.”

The exploitation of the King holiday for radical political purposes was even further enhanced by Vincent Harding, “Professor of Religion and Social Transformation at the Iliff School of Theology in Denver,” writing in the New York Times (January 18, 1988). Professor Harding rejected the notion that the King holiday commemorates merely “a kind, gentle and easily managed religious leader of a friendly crusade for racial integration.” Such an understanding would “demean and trivialize Dr. King’s meaning.” Professor Harding wrote:

The Martin Luther King of 1968 was calling for and leading civil disobedience campaigns against the unjust war in Vietnam. Courageously describing our nation as ‘the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today,’ he was urging us away from a dependence on military solutions. He was encouraging young men to refuse to serve in the military, challenging them not to support America’s anti-Communist crusades, which were really destroying the hopes of poor nonwhite peoples everywhere.

This Martin Luther King was calling for a radical redistribution of wealth and political power in American society as a way to provide food, clothing, shelter, medical care, jobs, education and hope for all of our country’s people.

To those of King’s own political views, then, the true meaning of the holiday is that it serves to legitimize the radical social and political agenda that King himself favored and to delegitimize traditional American social and cultural institutions — not simply those that supported racial segregation but also those that support a free market economy, an anti-communist foreign policy, and a constitutional system that restrains the power of the state rather than one that centralizes and expands power for the reconstruction of society and the redistribution of wealth. In this sense, the campaign to enact the legal public holiday in honor of Martin Luther King was a small first step on the long march to revolution, a charter by which that revolution is justified as the true and ultimate meaning of the American identity. In this sense, and also in King’s own sense, as he defined it in his speech at the Lincoln Memorial in 1963, the Declaration of Independence becomes a “promissory note” by which the state is authorized to pursue social and economic egalitarianism as its mission, and all institutions and values that fail to reflect the dominance of equality — racial, cultural, national, economic, political, and social — must be overcome and discarded.

By placing King — and therefore his own radical ideology of social transformation and reconstruction — into the central pantheon of American history, the King holiday provides a green light by which the revolutionary process of transformation and reconstruction can charge full speed ahead. Moreover, by placing King at the center of the American national pantheon, the holiday also serves to undermine any argument against the revolutionary political agenda that it has come to symbolize. Having promoted or accepted the symbol of the new dogma as a defining — perhaps the defining — icon of the American political order, those who oppose the revolutionary agenda the symbol represents have little ground to resist that agenda.

It is hardly an accident, then, that in the years since the enactment of the holiday and the elevation of King as a national icon, systematic attacks on the Confederacy and its symbolism were initiated, movements to ban the teaching of “Western civilization” came to fruition on major American universities, Thomas Jefferson was denounced as a “racist” and “slaveowner,” and George Washington’s name was removed from a public school in New Orleans on the grounds that he too owned slaves. In the new nation and the new creed of which the King holiday serves as symbol, all institutions, values, heroes, and symbols that violate the dogma of equality are dethroned and must be eradicated. Those associated with the South and the Confederacy are merely the most obvious violations of the egalitarian dogma and therefore must be the first to go, but they will by no means be the last.

The political affiliations of Martin Luther King that Sen. Jesse Helms so courageously exposed are thus only pointers to the real danger that the King holiday represents. The logical meaning of the holiday is the ultimate destruction of the American Republic as it has been conceived and defined throughout our history, and until the charter for revolution that it represents is repealed, we can expect only further installations of the destruction and dispossession it promises.

[Editor’s Note: This article first appeared in the February 1998 issue of American Renaissance.]

Original Article


About Sam T. Francis


View all posts by Sam T. Francis

Dr. Samuel T. Francis (1947-2005) was a nationally-syndicated columnist, author, and scholar. A collection of his finest writing on race can be purchased here.

The Virginia Beach Mass Murderer was Yet Another Black Man; so What Else is New?

 


Virginia Beach mass murderer DeWayne Craddock
 

By A Longtime Reader
Fri, May 31, 2019 9:43 p.m.
Updated at 5:27 a.m., Saturday, June 1, 2019

"DeWayne Craddock: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know" (Heavy)

"NBC 12 described the suspect as a 'disgruntled employee.' The police chief painted a disturbing scene of Craddock entering the municipal center and randomly shooting people."

"The Wall Street Journal and other outlets continued to report that he had been terminated. The newspaper reported that Craddock returned to municipal building 2 to 'exact revenge.'"

Translation: Yet another incompetent, racist black who returned to kill as many whites as possible after finally being terminated.

Virginia Beach seems to have had many instances of racist black violence against whites over the years.

N.S.: I'm already getting notes from readers saying that they'd had this one figured out immediately.



Mass Murder in Virginia Beach, VA: Longtime, Raceless, Faceless Public Works Employee Shoots 17, Slaughtering 11, before Cops Cut Him Down

By Nicholas Stix

At The Los Angeles Times.

Yet Another Asian Attention Whore: "I need my yellow fever cured"

By R.C.
Fri, May 31, 2019 10:37 p.m.

"'I need my yellow fever cured': Asian American woman documents the racist, fetishist, and VERY sexually explicit messages she gets from men on Tinder


R.C.: She's not even cute.