[Leonard D Neubache]

Countering the rhetoric of violence among your people is entirely moral and impressive, regardless of whether you're in a minority.

When you have violent agitators dragging angry people toward being crushed in some fool crusade it takes a man of incredible character to drag those same people twice as hard away from violence and back towards peace.

How is that even difficult to understand? This man could have preached violence and had a line of moronic lackeys running through five states, but instead he chose to take the high road and save lives AND souls.

And we're supposed to believe it was just some cynical wargaming that led him to play rope-a-dope with whitey?

(11-14-2017 09:25 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

...
Although non-violence was the smart move, it wasn't that big of a deal because had the Blacks gone violent they would have been put down brutally. They would have never had a chance.

Non-violence is only truly impressive when you've got the majority in your hands. If your group is the weaker group and you promote non-violence, that doesn't take virtue as much as pragmatic thinking. So there was no virtue on MLK's part for advocating non-violence, just realistic thinking.

Conversely, in many countries where Blacks have assumed majority over Whites the outcome has been completely opposite; Zimbabwe, Haiti, and South Africa show much different outcomes.

The Whites are far more commendable in America where they have had power for centuries and yet never genocided the Blacks, indeed Blacks have prospered more in America than any other country on the planet.

So not even the non-violence aspect of MLK is anything special.
...

Foolproof logic right there.

Blacks sometimes genocide whites.
Only when they have the numbers.
MLK was black.
MLK therefore wanted to genocide whites.
Didn't have the numbers.
Sneakily preached peace instead.