Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The National Review: Trashing Nobel Prize Winners Since 1965

Posted by Oliver Willis at 1:00 PM on October 16, 2007.


Oliver Willis: Is it any wonder that the same publication that argued so strongly against Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King now attacks Al Gore?

This post, written by Oliver Willis, originally appeared on Like Kryptonite to Stupid

Thanks to reader "Dr. Victor Davis Handjob", comes this story written in the conservative National Review a few months after Martin Luther King Jr. won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964:

"For years now, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King and his associates have been deliberately undermining the foundations of internal order in this country. With their rabble-rousing demagoguery, they have been cracking the "cake of custom" that holds us together. With their doctrine of "civil disobedience," they have been teaching hundreds of thousands of Negroes -- particularly the adolescents and the children -- that it is perfectly alright to break the law and defy constituted authority if you are a Negro-with-a-grievance; in protest against injustice. And they have done more than talk.

They have on occasion after occasion, in almost every part of the country, called out their mobs on the streets, promoted "school strikes," sit-ins, lie-ins, in explicit violation of the law and in explicit defiance of the public authority. They have taught anarchy and chaos by word and deed -- and, no doubt, with the best of intentions -- and they have found apt pupils everywhere, with intentions not of the best. Sow the wind, and reap the whirlwind."

Will Herberg, "'Civil Rights' and Violence: Who Are the Guilty Ones?", The National Review Sept. 7th, 1965

The more things change, the more they change the same. Proving that conservatives are almost always on the wrong side of history. In 1965 they attacked Dr. King and civil disobedience against racist laws that were the rule of the land, laws that were morally wrong and fundamentally un-American.

Is it any wonder that the same publication arguing so strongly against the man who was one of America's greatest leaders now attacks Al Gore? If the National Review had had its way, I would at best be writing this on the "blacks only" section of the Internet.

Digg!

Oliver Willis is the blogmaster at Like Kryptonite To Stupid


Obama Wins Dems Abroad Vote, Now Virtually Tied with Hillary in Texas, Ohio
This may be the end for Sen. Clinton as the ABC/Washington Post poll confirms what these other polls are saying.
February 21, 2008.
Clinton Campaign Co-Chairman Resigns Over "Drug-Baiting" of Obama
The whole episode has just been so stupid and insulting.
December 14, 2007.
The Cartoon Mitt Romney Doesn’t Want You To See [VIDEO]
Whether or not the piece of propaganda is accurate, it certainly might provoke and persuade a lot of people to have problems with Romney.
December 12, 2007.
DiCaprio, Clooney to Star in Film Based On Howard Dean's '04 Campaign
Oliver Willis: DiCaprio will play the young communications chief while Clooney stars as the Dean surrogate.
October 12, 2007.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Well-known plagiarist and philanderer MLK, Jr. was criticised in the National
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Oct 16, 2007 2:29 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Review?!? And now they criticise the eminent climatology expert Gore (with several highly advanced degrees in meterology, thermodynamics, geology, and oceanography and is published in many major academic journals) is also "under attack" from the magazine. What, pray tell, is wrong with people learning the truth? Or shall we all be forced to believe in sacred cows? Normally the "progressives" love to revise, distort, or discover new information (usually bad) on historical figures. I guess it is wrong to do so on these figures because one is black and the other is providing jobs to many a hippie!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What the hell dude? Posted by: Techubus
» Rush is that you? Posted by: momilitia
Well-known blah, blah, blah
Posted by: particle on Oct 16, 2007 2:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is it just my imagination or is AK becoming more even more vile and incoherent?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The National Review, eh?
Posted by: PJAW on Oct 17, 2007 5:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Founded in 1955 by William F. Buckley and now the stomping grounds for such intellectual giants as Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter? That National Review? Those folks never elevated their minds past the schoolyard. Their snippy arrogant little attitude makes me want to smack 'em in the head and take all their shit. Dipwads.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

National Review
Posted by: frank69 on Oct 17, 2007 8:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This wingnut rag is neither national nor a review. Just chock full of nutty diatribes. I almost said chock full of shit, but that would lower me to National Review level.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]