| OCR Text |
Show More Mailbox Is This Non-Violence? Editor: It is strange that a "non-violent" such as the late Martin Luther King claimed to be would fail to disavow dis-avow those violent dissidents who took such an active part in the recent march through Memphis (led by the then-living Dr. King). As I recall, Dr. King was not even up to apologizing (as if an apology were sufficient) for those vicious acts of destruction committed in the name of "non-violence." Doesn't this in fact mean that Dr. King by refusing to make restitution for these violent acts of individuals under his supervision was a partaker in their deeds? He certainly could not have been correctly cor-rectly labelled a ncn-violent in the sense in which he always described himself. His Real Goal It is possible that Dr. King's objective was "to provoke some outrage against Negroes that would heat up tempers among both Negroes and whites," as the National Observer once described his purpose when he organized the famous march on Selma? Or as Newsweek once stated about this same trek through Selma, was Dr. King's aim that of trying to cause "creative tension" or a "setting for a paroxysm of violence that can shock the nation to action . . .? Can an individual be truly a non-violent while at the same time organizing and carrying out protest marches and demonstrations when he is conscious of the conditions under which violence will be the end result? Is This Non-Violence Even if his group does not instigate the violence, at least the blame should be shared between both "onlookers" and participators. But even if such be the case, those who are only partially responsible for violence vio-lence can hardly be considered "non-violent." In other words, if this is non-violence, then just what is the meaning of the word violence? And to put it more bluntly, what is necessary to motivate individuals in-dividuals to penetrate the phony veneer of people such as the late Dr. King? There is too much of the ready acceptance of the label, the image, the external glitter or trappings. And too often reality turns out to be the direct opposite of what people thought to bo the case. The phrase "peaceful coexistence" so often promulgated by the communists is a prime example of this semantic subversion. I refer the reader to Eugene Lyon's Workers Paradise Lost, Chapter 18: "Peaceful coexistence is the myth that the coexistence slogan means what it says." Further evidence would also seem to indicate that some of the late Dr. King's friends and associates throughout his later life at least were not exactly of the highest moral caliber. Even Joseph Alsop has stated that Martin Luther King "has accepted and is almost certainly still accepting communist collaboration collabora-tion and even communist advice." (Now I have not called Dr. King a communist, nor do I even find it necessary to my argument to do so.) The background and activities of many of his close friends and associates, such as Bayard Rustin, Carl and Anne Braden, Hunter Pitts (Jack) O'Dell and others, has been well known and documented. I will leave this for other individuals to comment upon, however. The testimony of Karl Prussion, a former counterspy counter-spy for the F.B.I, who swore under oath and under penalty of perjury I submit: "Rev. Martin Luther King was always set forth as the individual to whom communists should look and rally around in the communsit struggle on the many racial issues. "I hereby also state that Martin Luther King has either been a member of, or wittingly has accepted support from over 60 communist fronts, individuals andor organizations which give aid to or espouse communist causes." Dupes Are Dangerous Now again I rave not called the late Dr. King a communist. But there is one crucial point to be made here and that is that communist sympathizers, fellow-travelers and even dupes themselves are far more valuable to the party's cause than the actual hardcore hard-core communist himself, in that these individuals are able to attain a much higher degree of respectability in the eyes of society. Therefore the danger of the communist party U.S.A. extends far beyond the meagre number which makes up the party itself. I would close with a statement of Benjamin Gitlow, former general secretary of the communist party U.S.A. which relates directly to Dr. King, other men of his persuasion and the truly violent members of the civil rights movement: "The communists are deliberately maneuvering among the Amereican Negroes to create a situation (like unto) the civil war . . . The communists know where they are going and they are hell bent on getting there, even if they have to drown the American Negroes Ne-groes in their own blood to get the power they covet." Will the real apostles of non-violence stand up and be counted? Bill Bain |
