MLK is an unethical Character

[bloomer]

Okay let me explain the title, it can't really be argued that Martin didn't make brilliant strides for civil rights in America. But MLK was a woman beater, a communist (only issue was it's atheism), womanizer, apparently he had a thing for white women lol. Plagiarist, plagiarized many speeches and much of his dissertation, and supposedly watched as a friend and pastor raped a woman (according to an FBI report). Why do I mention this? Not to disparage MLK's work but just to point out that he's human. When you have the Jordan B Petersonite advice of...

"CLEAN YOUR ROOM BEFORE YOU CRITICIZE THE WORLD BUCKO."

Ironically Peterson being a man who did and does no such thing. I'm sure his rooms a shithole and he too has mental health problems, which he's shown again and again proving himself to be a hypocrite. He still has plenty of critics of the world, but Peterson is besides my point. My point is that many historical characters that have formed cultural and political movements themselves haven't always been good men or women. Examples -

Abraham Lincoln may have ended slavery but didn't really want to just had to, to dissolve the Confederacy. His plan was to repatriate all blacks to Africa. In fact I believe the first African American to be invited into the White House to speak with the sitting president was Fredrick Douglass to discuss repatriation after the war.

Quote

If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. - Lincoln 

 I mentioned Churchill in the previous thread. Many many men who themselves might have a dark side and be shady characters have despite that become the figure head of social movements and achieved great things. It stops being about who you are as a person, you become a symbol, you become something more than a person when people rally around you. For instance all John Lennon said about peace he still would beat Yoko Ono. 

T.S Elliot, Miles Davis, Charlie Chaplin, Gandhi, Teresa, Henry Ford, Charles Dickens, Albert Einstein, Thomas Jefferson, Pablo Picasso, Steve Jobs, Bobby Fischer. All these men had personal problems and many figures that had huge and positive impact still may as individuals be unethical characters. So I believe it's unfair to dismiss an individual just because that individual may have done immoral things at some point in their lives.  

@Leo Gura

Quote

Actually Tate is setting young men back.

When your movement is lead by such an unethical character, it delegitimizes the movement in the same way that if MLK was a self-admitted sex trafficker and rapist, the Civil Rights movement would have failed.

So if you care about men's rights as a cultural movement then you should be extra careful about supporting toxic leaders within it.

One of things Tate is teaching you is how important ethics and character is for any leader to be effective long-term.

The governments file on MLK will not be unsealed until 2027. But he was likely a revolutionary communist, plagiarized his dissertation so it's tough to call him a real doctor. Plagiarized even his "I HAVE A DREAM" speech. On the night of his assassination was actually beating up 3 white prostitutes. Good luck really finding any evidence that Andrew Tate has been kicking the shit out of prostitutes. The CIA who were recording King said that when he would fuck these hookers he'd say shit like "IM FUCKING FOR JESUS, IM FUCKING FOR GOD NOW". Tell me that's not narcissism lol. It also takes a degree of sociopathy to happily kick the shit out of hookers. There's also plenty of accusations that King would use church money to pay hookers and have orgies. 

But despite all that the civil rights movement didn't fail. What matters is the movement and what the media choose to shine a light on. I think it's not hard to say that MLK in many respects could be a toxic leader. OKAY FINE, that doesn't mean he's not a great man. Nor does it mean that his achievements for civil rights haven't held up in the long-term. America's come a long way since the 60s has it not? 

Edited January 17, 2023 by bloomer
forgot to put DIDNT in the first sentence lol

[Leo Gura]

First of all, I don't know how much of that is true. You'd need to show receipts for such bold accusations. But even if it is, that's what we call corruption. The more corrupt a leader is the worse of a leader he will be. But that does not mean that you must be 100% pure to be an effective leader.

Integrity is a complex thing. It's not a single factor. Someone can have integrity within a domain like civil rights while having a twisted private sex life. Also you have to consider than social norms were differemt back then. Women were treated much worse back then than today. Also keep in mind that prostitutes can be shady characters themselves. A prostitute can rob you or drug you. So you'd have to look into why he was fighting with them.

The issue with Tate is not only is he corrupt but he teaches corruption to others. It's one thing to beat up a prositute, it's another thing to publicly spread a philosophy that beating up prostitutes is how men should conduct themselves.

No matter what MLK did in private, the reality is that in public he promoted a very egalitarian positive message. Sure, hypocrisy is not a good thing, but it is still better then straight up promoting abuse. MLK did not promote abuse and exploitation. That's the key difference.

If Tate raped women in private but all his social media was about teaching men how to treat women well, that would actually not be so bad.

Do not mistake this issue for one of moral judgment. That's not what I do. What I'm looking at is the influence various ideologies have on society. Is corruption being spread? That's the key. Personal private crimes can be handled by police and the courts.

P.S. If the CIA tracked all of Tate's moves, I'm sure you'd see some really ugly things.

Edited January 17, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Thought Art]

Are you calling MLK an atheist? Wasn’t he a preacher? Didn’t he study religion etc and work for his fathers church?

[bloomer]

@Leo Gura

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

First of all, I don't know how much of that is true. You'd need to show receipts for such bold accusations. But even if it is, that's what we call corruption. The more corrupt a leader is the worse of a leader he will be. But that does not mean that you must be 100% pure to be an effective leader.

Hold up, gonna find my receipts.

This is the plagiarism of his I have a dream speech. Taken from another black pastor.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/08/28/216466421/listen-rare-recording-of-52-speech-that-king-drew-from

Plagiarism on his dissertation.

https://www.nytimes.com/1990/11/10/us/plagiarism-seen-by-scholars-in-king-s-phd-dissertation.html

One of MLKs close friends Rev. Ralph Abernathy, wrote a book that talks about MLK's obsession with hookers and white hookers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_the_Walls_Came_Tumbling_Down

As for Communism he has many quotes talking about the evils of Capitalism. His advisor Bayard Rustin was a organizer of some communist leagues. His speech writer, book editor, tax advisor and event organizer Stanley David Levison was leader of the communist party of the USA.

https://www.okayplayer.com/culture/fbi-document-martin-luther-king-john-f-kennedy.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Levison

Yes it is corruption but despite his corruption he still achieved a great deal. I know you don't have to be 100% pure which is why I still like Tate. I don't worship him and there are a lot of problems with him but as you said...

Quote

So if you care about men's rights as a cultural movement then you should be extra careful about supporting toxic leaders within it.

So just as you can argue King was corrupt and toxic, which despite that he still achieved a lot of success for the civil rights movement. I think Andrew Tate is corrupt and toxic but still will achieve a lot of success for men's rights as a cultural movement. Only time will tell but Tate is the the one man to really take this into the mainstream. Hopefully someone better will come along but someone is needed. 

18 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

No matter what MLK did in private, the reality is that in public he promoted a very egalitarian positive message. Sure, hypocrisy is not a good thing, but it is still better then straight up promoting abuse. MLK did not promote abuse and exploitation. That's the key difference.

This is a good point. Plenty of rhetoric of Tate is harmful. But not all of it. I think King's communist rhetoric also is harmful and promoting abuse. What matters mostly though is the impact of what is promoted. 

[bloomer]

@Thought Art

4 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

Are you calling MLK an atheist? Wasn’t he a preacher? Didn’t he study religion etc and work for his fathers church?

LOL no. That's the opposite of what I'm saying.

42 minutes ago, bloomer said:

a communist (only issue was it's atheism)

I'm saying that MLK's major problem with communism was it's link to atheism. 

Edited January 17, 2023 by bloomer

[Leo Gura]

Dude, communism was popular at the time. That doesn't speak to his corruption at all. All that says is that he wanted equality and maybe subscribed to a misguided ideology to try to achieve it.

Here's the thing, if you are corrupt, but you manage to fully hide your corruption from public view, and you are able to behave decently in public, then you will not have a negative effect on the movement -- that it is until news of your corruption leaks out. But if that takes a long time, your movement may have already succeeded.

The problem is that this is a bad overall strategy because corruption tends to leak out quickly, as it for Tate.

It is possible to rob a bank and get away with it. But to then make that into a life philosophy that you teach others is beyond foolish.

Edited January 17, 2023 by Leo Gura

[bloomer]

@Leo Gura

Just now, Leo Gura said:

Dude, communism was popular at the time. That doesn't speak to his corruption at all. All that says is that he wanted equality and maybe subscribed to a misguided ideology to try to achieve it.

Fair enough communism was popular, probably is more popular now among the youth lol, but that doesn't take away from how destructive it is. I don't think being a communist just means you want equality. But obviously there's more nuance to it. 

Just now, Leo Gura said:

Here's the thing, if you are corrupt, but you manage to fully hide your corruption from public view, and you are able to behave decently in public, then you will not have a negative effect on the movement -- that it is until news of your corruption leaks out. But if that takes a long time, your movement may have already succeeded.

That's fair. But Tate in many ways has been trying to hide his corruption but it get drags out by the media to smear him and more importantly the men's rights movement. It was easier for MLK to hide his corruption as he wasn't in the social media age of everyone having a smart phone and having your whole life recorded. Tate talks about changing his rhetoric to something more decent since his incredibly rise in popularity. But it's hard to hide all the egregious shit you've said before especially when the media wants to drag it out. I don't think Tate wants to hide it because he really cares for the men's rights movement. But I do think he does a bit. He is unquestionably rich, could just live out the rest of his life doing what he wants but instead decides to take on a political cause and say deeply controversial things in our time championing what I think are some important causes and I respect that. 

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The problem is that this is a bad overall strategy because corruption tends to leak out quickly, as it for Tate.

True but that's happened for the reasons I mentioned before. 

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It is possible to rob a bank and get away with it. But to then make that into a life philosophy is beyond foolish.

I don't think that's exactly what he's been doing but there's some truth to what you're saying. Ironically though his promotion of sleeping with loads of women isn't what the media demonizes him for because that's promoted by the popular culture. 

[Leo Gura]

Dude, the things you say are absurd. You want us to feel sorry for Tate because the media found his own recordings of him abusing women?

Listen to yourself. You're saying nonsense.

If you're gonna be evil, the leaking out of your evil is not our fault, it's the natural consequence of your evil ways and why evil shouldn't be done. Evil always leaks out and bites you in the ass. That's not a bug, that's feature.

Why are you following my work if you are so blatantly goddam biased? You should look at your lines of logic and become disgusted with yourself. That would be progress for you.

Your ego-mind is just inventing stories to rationalize why you like Tate. That's all you are doing. Nothing intelligent is going on here. You're just behaving like a baboon.

If you like Tate, just like Tate. Stop with these mental gymnastics.

Edited January 17, 2023 by Leo Gura

[bloomer]

@Leo Gura

Just now, Leo Gura said:

Dude, the things you say are absurd. You want us to feel sorry for Tate because the media found his own recordings of him abusing women.

I don't feel sorry for Tate. I just mean that the media is going after him to disparage the men's rights movement. They can go after him far more ruthlessly now than the FBI could go after MLK in the 60s. That's if the FBI didn't kill MLK lol. Now his recordings were probs bdsm shit, stuff MLK likely did to hookers as well. 

Just now, Leo Gura said:

Listen to yourself. You're saying nonsense.

All I'm saying is that Tate is an important cultural and social figure currently, which is why you made a 3 and a half hour video on him and why there's so much discussion right now in the world and on this forum about him. I think his impact is mostly positive even if personally he's a bad guy, which I don't doubt, but bearing that in mind he still has good qualities that we should keep in mind when criticizing him. Which is what enables him in large part to appeal to a lot of men. I disagree with your Tai Lopez example. There was some truth to the fact that Tate dangles the carrot of pussy and fast cars to switch men's brains off. But there's also truth to Tate's rhetoric that in this world no ones coming to save you as a man and you have to rise up, take responsibility and save yourself if you're ever going to get what you want out of life. Which many men today need to hear. 

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

If you're gonna be evil, the leaking out of your evil is not our fault, it's the nature consequence of your evil ways and why evil shouldn't be done.

I don't think evil should be done dude. 

Quote

"Absorb what is useful. Discard what is useless. Add what is uniquely your own"- Bruce Lee

 

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, bloomer said:

I just mean that the media is going after him to disparage the men's rights movement.

That is your paranoid projection.

Media is going after him because he has said evil things and the public is outraged, in the same way that people were outraged that Kanye said he loves Hitler.

The media will go after anyone who promotes rape culture. As they should.

Edited January 17, 2023 by Leo Gura

[bloomer]

@Leo Gura

Just now, Leo Gura said:

That is your paranoid projection.

No it's not projection or paranoia it's exactly what the media is doing. They constantly attack the red pill movement. Slander everyone as misogynist incel far right extremist white supremacists which I see on this very forum who claim that perhaps not everything Tate does and says is all bad. No wonder when that's the rhetoric of the media and in the main stream we have such polarization. Especially when people can't even acknowledge that fact instead slap you with the label of "paranoid conspiracy theorist" for pointing out the exact thing that the media will gladly admit to.

Just now, Leo Gura said:

Media is going after him because he has said evil things and the public is outraged, in the same way that people were outraged that Kanye said he loves Hitler.

The media is in part going after him for the evil things he's said. But what's most important to the media is their narrative. They don't really give a shit about Tate. The bottom line is ALWAYS there agenda and they'll only cover what they need to cover to push their agenda. Same thing applies with Kayne. 

[Thought Art]

How does two wrong make a right? Two men’s corruption doesn’t change anything. 

[Rafael Thundercat]

A Man Convinced Against His Will, Is of the Same Opinion Still 

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2021/05/15/convinced/?amp=1

 

 

[bloomer]

@Thought Art

I’m not saying that two wrongs make a right. What I am saying comparing MLK and Tate is that although there may have been personal faults and they might both not be pure. It may have taken away from their movements because of corruption. That doesn’t necessarily mean that you can entirely dismiss a person or their cultural influence or denigrate their achievements. Obviously MLK is a far greater and more moral man than Tate. I just think Tates positive impact is easily overlooked by people who don’t like him. It tends to only be his sycophants and people already in the manosphere, red pill group that understand his positives. Tate is a huge and important figure for a reason. 

@Rafael Thundercat

Look sure I don’t necessarily disagree with that quote. Obviously if it’s against someone’s will they won’t change their minds. Is it against my will? Yes. So? You have to prove to me that there’s a reason for me to change my will for me to change my mind. My will is what it is because I believe Tate has in many ways had a positive social impact. You disprove that fact, not the fact that he’s a bad guy, and then you’ll change my mind. It seems that a lot of people don’t want to discuss that and instead want to dismiss you as a paranoid conspiracy theorist for thinking society today with “toxic” masculinity isn’t really to friendly to men.

[Thought Art]

@bloomer Yeah, I guess there’s a lot of people who also find red pill in general toxic. Makes sense you like him if you resonate with that kind of thinking. 

[trenton]

Why is it that this talk about Andrew Tate is causing so much backlash?

It seems like common sense for a drug dealer and potential sex trafficker to follow a very toxic ideology.

For example, my dad was a drug dealer who fled the state to avoid paying child support. He still believed in karma, but his version of karma was heavily biased by life of crime. He thought that karma meant giving people the crack they wanted without poorly weighing it or mixing it with rat poison. When customers come back addicted, this is good karma to a drug dealer.

Same goes for Tate. If he lives a life of crime it will give him a heavily biased and selfish view of the government. His philosophy calls the government the matrix because it doesn't suit his criminal life.

All of his teachings are deeply biased due to his survival agenda, especially the way in which he abuses women.

[Leo Gura]

8 hours ago, trenton said:

Why is it that this talk about Andrew Tate is causing so much backlash?

The repitial brain wants an easy path to sex, money, and fame. So it gets upset when that path is shown to be deeply unethical. The reptilian brain finds ethics very annoying. So it plugs its ears and says, "Nah, nah, nah... I can't hear you. Does not compute."

Edited January 18, 2023 by Leo Gura

[trenton]

@Leo Gura do you think you need to make a video on how to control the reptilian brain, or is this essentially what all of your videos are ultimately about anyway such as the stung drunk monkey that is the ego mind?

[Leo Gura]

@trenton I have some powerful videos planned about the structure of the ego-mind.

[Aiwass]

21 hours ago, bloomer said:

Okay let me explain the title, it can't really be argued that Martin didn't make brilliant strides for civil rights in America. But MLK was a woman beater, a communist (only issue was it's atheism), womanizer, apparently he had a thing for white women lol. Plagiarist, plagiarized many speeches and much of his dissertation, and supposedly watched as a friend and pastor raped a woman (according to an FBI report). Why do I mention this? Not to disparage MLK's work but just to point out that he's human. When you have the Jordan B Petersonite advice of...

"CLEAN YOUR ROOM BEFORE YOU CRITICIZE THE WORLD BUCKO."

Ironically Peterson being a man who did and does no such thing. I'm sure his rooms a shithole and he too has mental health problems, which he's shown again and again proving himself to be a hypocrite. He still has plenty of critics of the world, but Peterson is besides my point. My point is that many historical characters that have formed cultural and political movements themselves haven't always been good men or women. Examples -

Abraham Lincoln may have ended slavery but didn't really want to just had to, to dissolve the Confederacy. His plan was to repatriate all blacks to Africa. In fact I believe the first African American to be invited into the White House to speak with the sitting president was Fredrick Douglass to discuss repatriation after the war.

 I mentioned Churchill in the previous thread. Many many men who themselves might have a dark side and be shady characters have despite that become the figure head of social movements and achieved great things. It stops being about who you are as a person, you become a symbol, you become something more than a person when people rally around you. For instance all John Lennon said about peace he still would beat Yoko Ono. 

T.S Elliot, Miles Davis, Charlie Chaplin, Gandhi, Teresa, Henry Ford, Charles Dickens, Albert Einstein, Thomas Jefferson, Pablo Picasso, Steve Jobs, Bobby Fischer. All these men had personal problems and many figures that had huge and positive impact still may as individuals be unethical characters. So I believe it's unfair to dismiss an individual just because that individual may have done immoral things at some point in their lives.  

@Leo Gura

The governments file on MLK will not be unsealed until 2027. But he was likely a revolutionary communist, plagiarized his dissertation so it's tough to call him a real doctor. Plagiarized even his "I HAVE A DREAM" speech. On the night of his assassination was actually beating up 3 white prostitutes. Good luck really finding any evidence that Andrew Tate has been kicking the shit out of prostitutes. The CIA who were recording King said that when he would fuck these hookers he'd say shit like "IM FUCKING FOR JESUS, IM FUCKING FOR GOD NOW". Tell me that's not narcissism lol. It also takes a degree of sociopathy to happily kick the shit out of hookers. There's also plenty of accusations that King would use church money to pay hookers and have orgies. 

But despite all that the civil rights movement didn't fail. What matters is the movement and what the media choose to shine a light on. I think it's not hard to say that MLK in many respects could be a toxic leader. OKAY FINE, that doesn't mean he's not a great man. Nor does it mean that his achievements for civil rights haven't held up in the long-term. America's come a long way since the 60s has it not? 

Do not use your low IQ to spread propaganda on this forum. Conspiracy theories and A.I generated evidence ain't gonna cut it here. This is not the place for this Low IQ nonsense. Thank you

 

Edited January 18, 2023 by Aiwass