My Thoughts on Martin Luther King
January 19, 2009
Because the nation's first African-American (aka Black, Negro, colored) President will take office tomorrow, I thought it was about time, 49 years late, to say my piece.
I read King's Stride Toward Freedom in 1960. I read it in California. That made a big difference. I was far away from the action.
First, if I had been in Montgomery in 1955, when Rosa Parks refused to get into the back of the bus, I would have said, "She's right. She paid her dime. First come, first served.
She refused, was arrested, and paid a $10 fine (close to $80 in today's money).
This had been planned months in advance by the local NAACP. The girl originally scheduled to do this found out she was pregnant on the day it was scheduled, so the PR would have been bad. Mrs. Parks, an active NAACP member, volunteered.
After her arrest, the NAACP organized a boycott of the bus line. This was illegal. A bad law. What moral right does a bus monopoly have to be supported by anyone? It was an anti-free market law.
They organized local rides for fares. Blacks with cars transported workers. The city made this illegal. By what right? It was an anti-free market law.
Then the volunteers drove workers for free. The city could not stop this. It went on for a year.
The NAACP wanted a pastoral spokesman. King, new in town, reluctantly volunteered. That launched his career.
The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court. The bus line lost in late 1956. No more "back of the bus." That seemed reasonable to me in 1960. It still does.
King was an effective organizer. He spoke powerfully.
He was an adulterer, over and over. That was covered up. His wife never publicly complained. The husbands of the women never publicly complained. So, it was not a matter of legal action by the State.
I would have sued my wife for divorce and named King as the reason. But that was not what happened.
The FBI tapped his phone. By what right? He committed no Federal crimes. I would resent my phone being tapped. (For all I know, it is.)
He was surrounded with leftists and a few Communists. He was not a Communist. The Communists always swooped in when there was political hay to be made. Read Douglas Hyde's book, Dedication and Leadership. He discusses this tactic. They did it to make headlines, not solve problems.
He was also a liberal theologically.
He plagiarized his Ph.D. dissertation. Boston University has known this for almost a decade. It refused to revoke his Ph.D. Gutless academics. What else is new? Here was my assessment in 2002. http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north90.html
He was a spokesman for a movement that had a legitimate gripe. The State had different laws for different people. That violated the principle of the rule of law (Exodus 12:49). That system had to be overturned by law, and it was. There was little violence on King's side. He was a follower of Gandhi. He just wasn't a follower of the Jesus of the Bible.
The best book on King is James Bales' biography. It was published the month King was killed. Bales never released it to the public. He gave me a copy. Someday, I will scan it in and post it on this site.
James Earl Ray was a fool to shoot him. That made King a martyr. That got him the holiday.
My dad helped solve that case. //www.garynorth.com/public/333.cfm He didn't celebrate the holiday.
I will be working today, as I do on most national holidays.