Monday, January 19, 2009

Martin Luther King (1929-1968)

"You can’t talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can’t talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You’re really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry… Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong…with capitalism… There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a Democratic Socialism.

Source: Frogmore, S.C. November, 14, 1966. Speech in front of his staff.

I believe if MLK lived longer, he would have disavowed pacifism. I was involved with organizing his "Poor People's Campaign," before he died. People were talking about he was going to change his stand on violence, I'm sure influenced by Malcolm X.



K. said...

King was definitely becoming radicalized politically, but that doesn't mean he would have given up on nonviolence. To do so would have tarnished his personal legacy and quit on a strategy that had proven success.

Moreover, King had come to see economic injustice and war as the enemy of poor people of any color. He wanted to extend the Civil Rights movement to encompass the poor of all races. A turn to violence would have been counterproductive.

If you haven't read Taylor Branch's trilogy America In The King Years, I highly recommend it. The first and third volumes are stronger than the second, but that's not a call to skip past the second book. Reading all three books was a profound experience.

Frank Partisan said...

K: I can't prove King was changing about nonviolence. I was with the Poor People's Campaign, and that was what I was hearing from various organizers.

That's not saying King, would tell people to arm.

SecondComingOfBast said...

"I believe if MLK lived longer, he would have disavowed pacifism. I was involved with organizing his "Poor People's Campaign," before he died. People were talking about he was going to change his stand on violence, I'm sure influenced by Malcolm X."

Is there anything in his extant writings to suggest this? I tend to doubt it, and think this is someone trying to use him for their own purposes.

Granted, he might well over time have come to adopt a more relaxed posture towards violence in regards to self-defense-as well he should have-but I can't perceive of him ever advocating the initiation of violence for political purposes.

Frank Partisan said...

Pagan: I agree with you.

It was not implied, advocating the initiation of violence for political purposes. That is not related to what was being said.

Mad Zionist said...

Dr. King was a true Zionist and a real friend of Israel and the Jewish people. I've dedicated a post to him on my site.

beatroot said...

Firstly, I much appreciate the shorter post! And for complicated things maybe use more hypertext within the posts…cuts down on having to give the background!

I was not aware of the quote above. Interesting. Maybe this was the influence of Malcolm X?

The aptly named Mad Zionist says “Dr. King was a true Zionist and a real friend of Israel and the Jewish people. I've dedicated a post to him on my site.”

Is this irony, or what?

beatroot said...

It’s arguable who had more influence on the hip hop scene and black youth culture generally. King or X? I think it is obvious that it was Malcolm. Especially after Spike Le’s film - which was ace. But they were both brave guys. Respect.

liberal white boy said...

Dr. King was a true Zionist and a real friend of Israel and the Jewish people. I've dedicated a post to him on my site.

Why do I sometimes get the feeling Mad Zionist is historically impaired? If MLK got a sniff of the murderous savagery we have just witnessed in Gaza I think his Israel loving days would have come to an end in a hurry. The following is just as true today as the day it was written.

How To Become A Zionized African American Talking Head On Television

In 1965 Dr. King was presented with the American Liberties Medallion for his advancement of the principles of human liberty. This award was presented by the American Jewish Committee (AJC). If Martin Luther King, Jr. were still alive today would he have joined in solidarity with the long suffering Palestinian people and given this award back to the ADJ. Would he have joined Desmond Tutu in his criticism of the Apartheid State. I believe so.

The ADJ's mission statement is allegedly “to safeguard the welfare and security of Jews in the United States, in Israel, and throughout the world; to strengthen the basic principles of pluralism around the world (unless you live in Apartheid Israel), as the best defense against anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry(unless of course you are a Zionist bigot); to enhance the quality of American Jewish life by helping to ensure Jewish continuity and deepen the ties between American and Israeli Jews.(so Israel can continue the hideous injustices in Palestine and ignore completely the security and welfare of the Palestinian people, who's numbers equal their own in Israel and Palestine)”.

Although African American talking heads on TV today do provide a diverse array of opinion (but for some reason seem disproportionately conservative), there is one area in which they are perfectly uniform. Their lack of criticism for Apartheid Israel. Is this their deal with the Devil so to speak? Are they so removed from the injustices perpetrated upon their forefather's that the Palestinian experience which parallel those of their own people mean nothing to them? Why so great an outcry about Apartheid injustices in South Africa, but nothing for the oppressed of Palestine? Is it just the difference in the white people involved? Where are the protests of Jesse, Al and the rest(of course we know better than to wonder about the protests of Congressman Ford, he is still dodging the phone calls from his old pal Imus, asking for his support in the nappy headed Ho matter)?

Would MLK have sacrificed the Palestinian people on the alter of perpetual injustice, to advance his or his peoples interests simply to placate those who effectively control our television programing? If you believe so, you may qualify to be an African American talking head on American television. Take the stage with your cowardly white brothers. And Happy Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.

WeezieLou said...

interesting points. as a devout follower of gandhi, i don't know abt violence ever becoming acceptable to King. i also often wonder where RFK would have headed. all these men have grown in stature since their deaths - all they embodied grows with history. perhaps, as a country, we can fulfill some of their dreams. since, ding-dong, the witch is gone - i keep trying to let go of cynicism........although it's a great defense mechanism.

Frank Partisan said...

I can safely the civil rights movement was beheaded, with the loss of Malcolm and Martin. Having lived through that era, I can safely say the quality of movement leaders went down the drain.

Beatroot: Malcolm X gets the coolness factor. In addition his autobiography is considered classic.

I think both Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, were politically evolving. It wasn't immediate or easy for MLK to come out against the Vietnam War. I don't think he dealt with Israel as a politician, but as a minister.

Weezie: I'm only saying MLK was rethinking his position on nonviolence. I can't say what that meant. My guess is he was changing from nonviolence as a principle.

RFK as attorney general, wiretapped Martin's phone.

Mad Zionist: I'll check out your post.

I don't remember him ever faced with having to make a decision about Zionism. Opposing the Vietnam war was a big step for him.

LWB: It's inappropriate to talk about '"Zionized" media. The Zionist Movement is not in control of anything. When the US changed its position on attacking Iran, Israel immediately followed.

There was media attacks on Israel's latest incursion on the PBS, CBC, and Amy Goodman. Israel barring the press in Gaza, didn't help them.

The civil rights movement was beheaded. Malcolm X was killed by a government agent.

Most talking heads are worthless. Instant polling shows they are isolated thinkers.

I doubt if MLK would have supported Israel last week, even if he supported Zionism.

nanc said...

if the dalai lama can change his stance on fighting violence with violence, then i suppose mlk would have eventually come around to that way of thinking.

i wondered why the bank and post office were closed today...although my husband's bank was open and it was robbed! by a black man!


probably pist because the bank was open on mlk day?

SecondComingOfBast said...

Robert Kennedy was a hypocritical little punk turd. That's one of the guiding spirits of the modern Democratic Party for you. By the way, Martin Luther King was a Republican. I think he started to catch on to LBJ's misuse of the black vote, and that's probably one of the reasons he started to come out so strongly against the Vietnam War. Vietnam was a war with a disproportional representation of black folks. I think he was starting to grow very wary of the Great Society and the impact of welfare on it's people as well.

I'm not trying to infer here by the way that Johnson had King killed, or in fact that anybody else was involved other than James Earl Ray.

But I do think the man would not have been pleased with the way things turned out in the black community, by any stretch, and I don't think he would by any means be as quick to play the "blame whitey" race card so many of his "heirs" are so famous for today.

Frank Partisan said...

Nanc: My bank's vp runs the blog Powerline. Needless to say it was open today.

Pagan: MLK never became a Republican.

J. Edgar Hoover hated King with a passion. Some suspected him being involved. because the police were on the scene so fast, and no all points bulletin went out.

The FBI transcripts are locked until 2027.

The present black leaders militant and moderate, are tied to the Democratic Party.

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

When I saw you'd posted on Dr. Martin Luther King I let out a small cry becuase I feared the kind of comments that might start flying in. Thankfully on MZ has stuffed his own face in his ass via his words.

Quite frankly, I have no time for hypothosizing about MLK's future actions, when that future was stolen from him and speculation serves no purpose, aside from to stir up anti-MLK feeling.

His legacy stands.

Mad Zionist said...

Thankfully on MZ has stuffed his own face in his ass via his words.

troutsky said...

Even the mainstream press has picked up the narrative that "the dream speech was about economics". In the speech on Vietnam he said "the US is on the wrong side of the world revolution". People will put 2 and 2 together as to where he was headed politically.

K. said...

Martin Luther King, Jr., was not a Republican. (His father was.) Coming out against the war was a momentous and difficult step for King to take because he did not want a public split with Lyndon Johnson. However, King had concluded that the war was retarding the progress of the Great Society in particular and the advancement of the poor in general.

At Canaan's Edge, the third book Taylor Branch's America In The King Years trilogy details the intricate relationship between King and Johnson, which was as momentous a political partnership as this country has ever seen. It was alternately complex and petty, fruitful and counterproductive, frustrating and inspirational. At the end of the dat, neither man ever lost sight of how important they were to each other.

SecondComingOfBast said...

I think King was one of those men in whom people tended to see what they want to see, myself included. So far just here in these comments, King has been a Republican, a Zionist, an anti-Zionist, and a communist. Pretty neat trick. I think we might as well come out and add God to that. Might I be forgiven the heretical statement that he was just a man? Of course, people have always needed their deities, whether they recognize the process or not. Just look at all the little Obama-bots.

Oh well, I guess King is more worthy of worship than Che Guevara at least. I'd have to put him right up there with Elvis, but not quite up to the level of Washington.

Bob said...

People will put 2 and 2 together as to where he was headed politically.

Not really, the Vietnam speech isn't taught in schools. For most all they know about him is the "I have a Dream" speech, the fact that he was shot down, and the riots that occurred after his death.

Una said...

Hours ago I see on CNN and other TV because I have great confidence in Obama

Una said...

Nobody is perfect, but people are memorable examples like MLK, Gandhi and many who use all their time to improve the lives of others

Frank Partisan said...

Daniel H-G: Too bad you were not around in those times. It was exciting. People were discussing ideas. King was part of the times. The war and draft, really radicalized the population. King was getting more radical.

Pagan: You don't get it. He was leaning in a more radical direction. I wouldn't call him a socialist or anything. He was getting more radical. Coming out against the war, was a big deal. It united two movements.

Troutsky: I agree.

Tere: He was a tremendous leader. I know few in my lifetime like that.

Bob: The black leadership in the US, when King and Malcolm X were killed, beheaded the movement.

K. The Vietnam War killed LBJ's legacy. He was unappreciated to say the least. He was hated like Bush. J. Edgar Hoover was important in the story.

MZ: King was not a Trotskyist or a Kahanist.

Larry Gambone said...

Pagan, where exactly does anyone here say that MLK was becoming a "communist"? I have read the comments 3X and just can't find it. Whoever said that deserves a verbal arse-kicking, or is this something you made up?

Frank Partisan said...

King had some socialists in his organization. He was thinking in the direction of socialism. He probably meant social democracy.

Malcolm X was close to then Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party. He was friends with George Breitman. Still we don't know how he would have evolved.

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

This is what I mean, like the King legacy will be at all effected by the pissing in the wind here.

SecondComingOfBast said...

No wind-pissing here, just mainly pointing out that people tend to see in Kind what they want to see in him, good and bad. Like for example when Troutsky said the following-

"In the speech on Vietnam he said "the US is on the wrong side of the world revolution". People will put 2 and 2 together as to where he was headed politically."

Seemed to be a pretty strong hint that Troutsky at least thought he was leaning in the direction of socialism, or communism, or whatever.

I think a lot of the reason people project their own ideals onto King is precisely because he can't be neatly dove-tailed and pigeon=holed in any specific category. He was not a partisan ideologue, in fact I think he probably consciously refused to go that rout. Why would somebody who devoted his life to bringing people together fall into that trap?

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

It wasn't about you.

Anonymous said...

It's pretty obvious from the above statements that King was no economist and that he had very little faith in the power of liberty to provide financial opportunity.

But then patience and modesty are not virtues for needy men. So instead of ambition, liberty was sublimated into resentment.

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

He may have been no economist FJ but he was all about the fact that you give a man liberty and this enables him to fight a better war against poverty.

As for you last bit, it makes no fucking sense but no surprise there.

SecondComingOfBast said...


King didn't sublimate liberty, it was already sublimated. He just recognized the problem and went about his way of addressing it.

K. said...

King gave his life fighting for liberty as surely as any lost Minuteman or Union soldier. And not only for African-Americans: He correctly understood that no nation was free if one group's liberty was compromised.

As for whether he was becoming a socialist or Communist or Trotskyite, it's one thing to become radicalized and another to sign up for a political ideology. King had consciously avoided both personal and movement identification with political parties on the sound basis that he couldn't act independently once he did that.

King's overarching strategy was to pull the mainstream in the direction of the movement. In this country, he couldn't possibly have done that by declaring allegiance publicly or privately to any left-wing ideology. Also, the chances that he would have signed for something that gave marching orders from a Central Committee or from anywhere outside the Civil Rights movement are zero.

The nut of economic justice is a tough one to crack. Once the Civil Rights movement began tackling issues outside of the South, it experienced defeats. It's likely -- though not known -- that King wanted to expand the movement to encompass the poor of any race. King was a theorist as well as an activist, and thinking on this was evolving greatly when he was murdered. Where it would have taken him is a great "what if," but we can be sure that it couldn't have been easily labelled and that he would have avoided easy labeling.

Frank Partisan said...

FJ: You're way off base.

I don't really want to go to where your premise leads.

Pagan: I think King was becoming more radical. My info is from people who were around him. I was involved with the Poor People's Campaign.

Daniel H-G: Not even Obama can compare to him as a speaker.

K: I think he was becoming more radical. I heard that during the Poor People's Campaign which expanded beyond Afro-Americans.

Malcolm X had an interest in Trotskyism. I wouldn't call him one. He had serious discussions with George Breitman.

Anonymous said...

My premise leads to the truth.

All things being equal, if you give a man his liberty and he's ambitious, he'll use it constructively to provide himself a fortune. If he's slothful and resentful, he'll mope around complaining that the government or some other outside force hasn't handed him a job that earns him as much as his more ambitious neighbor.

MLK chose to pursue the second route... understandable at the time but now a path which leads to certain misfortune for all races.

There were obstacles (racism/ discrimination) then that forced MLK down his chosen path... but now that they're gone, anyone chosing the latter course would have to be a fool.

That's your cue, Ren/Danny-boy...

Anonymous said...

King didn't fight for liberty so that America could become an economic totalitarian government run monopoly. That path impoverishes everyone.

Anonymous said...

And Ren, had MLK decided that violence was the solution, we wouldn't be celebrating MLK Day as a holiday... the day would be set aside in honor of the KKK crushing of the 1968 slave revolts.

K. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...


I've enjoyed your thougthful and well worded comments here and, I'm afraid, you'll have ignore the fucking asshat that is FJ, who trolls by here on such a regular basis that it nearly sucks the joy out of the place. Which I think is the aim.


Comment 1 - "my premise leads to truth" HA HA HA! You wouldn't know truth if it fingered you rude boy. Leads to a fortune?, that is not a means by which to measure any human, you break it down into such a basic and simple two-step form it barely resembles real life at all. You're jealous because MLK dwarfs you in all respects.

Comment 2- I thought fighting for liberty was somehow the wrong thing to do in your fucked up Comment 1 logic? Now you use it to feed your own slant on matters? FAIL!

Comment 3 - hypothetical bullshit becuase none of the elements of your point are or where a reality.

You are such a motherfucking troll it beggers belief.

Larry Gambone said...

Isn't it interesting that one of the few times (ever?) we all see eye-to-eye on a posting (our mutual appreciation of MLK) Farm Boy shows up to spread his stink about the place.

K. said...

Thanks, Daniel. Now I'm even more embarrassed by having to repost because of missing and incorrect words. Nonetheless:

Martin Luther King was slothful and resentful? That's original, I'll give you that much.

My B.S. detector starts buzzing loudly the minute I read things like "My premise leads to truth." The problem with your premise is that all things are not equal. They aren't now and have never been in the history of humankind.

BTW, I didn't read Ren's comment to mean that King had decided in favor of violence as a solution. Many Civil Rights historians and theorists argue that King was rethinking the validity of self defense. It is an open question that remains an arguable point, by which I mean that an absolute statement either way is suspect.

Anonymous said...

Nope, there's no shortage of fools here.

The problem with your premise is that all things are not equal. They aren't now and have never been in the history of humankind.

No kidding. But things are more equal today than ever before in history. And it's not going to get better under a socialist system, for all socialism will do is REDUCE future economic opportunities "equally".

That may be "fair", but it certainly isn't "wise". Not that any of you asshats knows what wisdom is.

Anonymous said...


I love you too, sweatheart! :*

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

I win.

Frank Partisan said...

FJ: You should read Marx's "Critique of the Gotha Programme." He argues against the idea of equality, where everyone gets the same. He was for more skilled and harder working getting paid more. That was until no class differences exist. Marx is blamed for an idea he opposed.

King was rethinking something about his ideas on violence. It has nothing to do with advocating violence.

Larry: Did Canada have a MLK?

Daniel H-G: Was there a civil rights movement in the UK, like here?

K: Really good comments. If you weren't around when he lived, its hard to imagine how much of an impact he had.

K. said...

I was almost 13 when King was murdered. We had just moved to South Texas from a Columbus, Ohio suburb. It was a real eye opener for me to hear many of my peers muttering that he had it coming. One teacher told a couple of them that she agreed, but that they should still keep it down.

Ren, Daniel knows a lot more about it than I do, but I do recommend Adam Hochschild's Breaking the Chains as a good and readable account the British abolitionist movement.

Larry Gambone said...

No Canada has never had an MLK, though we have had some pretty together First Nations and African-Canadian leaders. Back in the '60's there weren't too many Black People in Canada outside of Toronto and Montreal, except for Halifax where there was a large population descended from the Black Loyalists who arrived in 1790. They were treated as badly by the whites as anything you could find in the Northern States, at least. The leader of the Student Movement for Peace Action (Canadian equivalent of SDS in 1966) named Rocky Jones formed a Black Power Movement there and got things going. Later in the 1970's, Rosemary Brown, who immigrated to Canada in 1950 as a McGill student and fought against racism then, was part of the NDP government in BC and later ran for leadership of the Federal Party, coming in close second to the establishment candidate. Rosemary, now deceased, is revered, much like Tommy Douglas.

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

Ren: UK never utilised large scale discriminatory legislation against non-whites in the modern age, slavery was renounced in 1833 although it took a while to feed through but due to our Empire, our society remained mostly white.

We didn't realyl get large scale non-white immigration until after the second world war and as we had no apparatus of repression based on skin colour we had no real need of a movement.

Of course racism was rampant and still is to a degree but it was never compounded by the state, a blessing indeed.


You have William Shatner, god amongst men!

SecondComingOfBast said...

Wow, Daniel's a Trekkie. No wonder he talks in "warped" drive sometimes. HaHaHaHa

(Relax, Daniel, just kidding).

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

I love Shatner for TJ Hooker, Boston Legal and his work with Ben Folds.

Star Trek leaves me cold but Shatner is just the fucking best.


Frank Partisan said...

Shatner also did some Twilight Zone episodes, that were good.

I loved TJ Hooker.

Larry Gambone said...

Shatner is great, but Daniel, England gave us John Cleese, for whom I am willing to forgive all the sins of the British Empire.

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

You're too kind sir.

Anonymous said...

Of course racism was rampant and still is to a degree but it was never compounded by the state, a blessing indeed.

Evidently, it sprang whole cloth and fully developed out of the American Revolution in 1776...

Get a grip, Dannyboy.

Larry Gambone said...

"Evidently, it sprang whole cloth and fully developed out of the American Revolution in 1776...

Get a grip, Dannyboy."

You are stupider than a sack of hammers, Farm Boy. He is obviously referring to Jim Crow laws, the like of which never existed in Great Britain - or Canada for that matter.

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

FJ: you know as much about the UK as you do about the world.



Anonymous said...

Yes, Jim Crow was much worse than it's predecessor... slavery.

Anonymous said... were colonialism and merchantilism, and the murder of millions during the Bengal famine... and the opium trade.

Great Britain... the world's first international drug cartel.

Don't worry, the Irish still love you.

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

Britain didn't invent slavery you'll be shocked to learn you anti-book reading fuck.

It's as old as time and comes with biblical approval.

Do you really want me to list the entire catalogue of horrible, evil, nasty fucking errors that have littered America's oh so brief tenure as a nation you fucking cunt face?

Don't make me break you.

SecondComingOfBast said...

Doctor King would be so proud of you, Daniel.

I wonder what he would have to say about the British contribution to the slave trade.

Anonymous said...

I'm not the one claiming racism never stained an English banner or law book, dick breath. That would be you.

And ALL those evil, nasty fucking errors that littered America's admittedly brief tenure as a nation ALL originated in English Law... as did innumerable other attrocities committed by the British colonizers upon unsuspecting and easily mislead people throughout the known world.

In the nineteenth century, the self-important British racists even went so far as to invent their own perverted form of pseudo-science "proving" their racial superiority (eugenics), only to have it usurped by the Nazi low-brows and the American women's movement liberals(Margaret Sanger) to use as a tool to obliterate the "inferior" (aka - less neurotic) races and classes.

So yes, Danny-boy. You English sons of pigs do believe yourselves to be so fucking superior to the rest of us that even we have would be inclined to believe it if you told us that your queen's flatulent arse sounds a royal fanfare as she walks... well if not hers, then certainly yours, poofter-boy.

And the only thing you're able to break, Danny-boy, is wind, so please... have at it.

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...


Yes he would because I'm not a fucking racist bigot like you and FJ and I give my spare time voluntering in my local community and with disadvantaged young people of all colours.

You know as well as I do that the slave trade pissed him off, because America's treatment of black people as subhuman was one of the many knock-on effects of that.

But at least we never had aparthied and I say again, BRITAIN DID NOT INVENT THE SLAVE CONCEPT YOU THICK FUCKS.


Quote me where I said that bitch and then shut the fuck up cuz I never did ass flap.

And the idea that everything bad about America comes from the UK is as fucked up as the smallness of your tiny penis.

Your ideas have already been exposed as empty, wrong and fucking useless, so fuck off now before I have to break the bits of you I left alone because I pitied you, you thick cunt.

SecondComingOfBast said...


Please don't take this the wrong way, but sometimes I think you're as dumb as a fucking box of rocks. What in the hell is colonialism but a form of apartheid? Get with the program and stop being a dumb fuck who just flings shit to no legitimate purpose but argument for argument's sake.

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...


Colonialism is the extension of a nation's sovereignty over territory beyond its borders.

Apartheid (meaning separateness in Afrikaans) was a system of legal racial segregation enforced by the National Party government of South Africa.

You don't have to thank me and 'from of' is just to vague for serious debate.

Not that any of the shit spouted here is that.

Larry Gambone said...

Daniel, Farm Boy is so lacking in originality he is now trying to imitate your superb English invective. He should stick to his endless irrelevant quotes from the classics. At least they are well written.

Anonymous said...

Danny-boy, just because the British didn't invent slavery doesn't mean that you racist pigs don't harbor delusions of racial superiority.

And yes, Larry, quotes are much more effective than ad hominem... for they reveal the truth of the matter currently under discussion:

The 18th century British philosopher David Hume, who wrote contemptuously of the Irish, also maligned the Africans. In his essay, "Of National Characters" he wrote: "I am apt to suspect that Negroes, and in general all other species of men (for there are four or five different kinds) to be naturally inferior to the whites. There never was a civilized nation of any other complexion than white..."

In the British view of the world, the Irish occupied a position way below themselves, but just above the Africans. The two were often compared, as in these verses from the British magazine Punch in 1848:

"Six-foot Paddy, are you no bigger –
You whom cozening friars dish –
Mentally, than the poorest nigger
Grovelling before fetish?
You to Sambo I compare
Under superstition's rule
Prostrate like an abject fool."

In 1849, British historian Thomas Carlyle published "Occasional Discourse on the Nigger Question." Mr. Eric Williams, former Prime Minister of Trinidad, and a historian, called it "The most offensive document in the entire world literature on slavery and the West Indies." Carlyle argued that the recently emancipated slaves should be forced to work for the whites: "Decidedly you will have to be servants to those who are born wiser than you, that are born lords of you; servants to the Whites, if they are (as what mortal can doubt they are?) born wiser than you."

Carlyle visited Ireland soon after the famine and filled his journal with tirades against what he called "this brawling unreasonable people". Ireland, he wrote, was a "human swinery", "an abomination of desolation" and "a black howling Babel of superstitious savages".

And Danny-boy still thinks he's superior, "I give my spare time voluntering (sic) in my local community and with disadvantaged young people of all colours."

As if his cover for cruising the neighborhood for young boys makes him better than those of us who don't. What a maroon!

Your "community service" as a paedophile priest wannabe scamming children for your own personal sexual pleasure pails in comparison to the parent who raises and provides an education for his own children.

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...


Just because America didn't invent slavery doesn't mean that you racist pigs don't harbor delusions of racial superiority.

Block quote your own mum bitch, the fact still stands you're a hated waste of comment space with no redeeming features apart from impending death.

When you understand humanity and being decent come back to me, until then, fuck off.

Anonymous said...

You Lost. Again. :*

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

Just because you feel it bitch, doesn't mean it's there.

I never lose, stop projecting your pain onto me.

dinoibo said...

Really trustworthy blog. Please keep updating with great posts like this one. I have booked marked your site and am about to email it to a few friends of mine that I know would enjoy reading
Sesli sohbet Sesli chat
Seslisohbet Seslichat
Sesli sohbet siteleri Sesli chat siteleri
Sesli Chat
Sohbet Sesli siteler
Sohbet siteleri Chat siteleri
Sohbet merkezi chat merkezi
Sesli merkezi sesli Sohbet merkezi
Sesli chat merkezi Sohbetmerkezi
Sesli Sohbet Sesli Chat
SesliSohbet Sesli chat siteleri
Sesli sohbet siteleri SesliChat
Sesli Sesli siteler
Seslimuhabbet sesli muhabbet
sesli sohbet sesli chat siteleri
sesli sohbet siteleri sesli chat
seslisohbet seslichat
seslikent sesli kent
sesli sohbet sesli sohbet siteleri
sesli chat sesli chat siteleri
seslisohbet seslichat