Monday, July 23, 2007

Kentucky Enquirer Smears Local National Alliance Activist Who Spoke Out Against Renaming A Covington, KY Street After Martin Luther King

On July 18th, 2007, the Kentucky Enquirer website reported that three of five city commissioners in Covington, KY tentatively approved a scheme to rename a major east-west artery connecting Covington and Newport after Martin Luther King. If ultimately approved, the street would acquire the unwieldy name of "Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard/12th Street". This represents the fifth time in 17 years that Northern Kentucky acolytes of the late civil rights rabblerouser have attempted to get a local street named after Dr. King. Covington would then join the 777 American cities that have named (or "co-named") a street after King (I am pleased to mention that Anchorage, Alaska is NOT one of them).

At a 90-minute public hearing held on Tuesday July 17th, 17 people asked the commission to consider co-naming the street "Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard/12th Street." Three people spoke against the proposal during the hearing, and a fourth man prompted an abrupt end to the commission meeting that followed the hearing when, according to the Enquirer, he used "derogatory" terms to describe King.

Of course, the use of the word "derogatory" immediately makes the reader think that a racial slur was used. In fact, no racial slur was used, and when the fourth person attempted to get the Enquirer to clarify the story, he was turned aside rather abruptly and bluntly.

Fortunately, we have a growing collection of pro-white media to allow white activists to tell the truth regarding their activities. And this fourth person turned to the National Alliance News Service, which permitted him to report an unbiased account of his testimony and related activism.

That fourth person is Robert Ransdell, a Cincinnati-based National Alliance activist. Under his leadership, the Cincinnati Unit of the National Alliance (NA) has focused much of its recent activity and attention upon the proposed renaming of 12th street. Unlike most of the 777 cities that have named a street after King, Covington is still a white majority community, although it is suffering from the rising crime that accompanies an influx of non-whites, in this case mostly blacks from the notorious Over-the-Rhine neighborhood in nearby Cincinnati. Previously, the Cincinnati Unit had attempted to raise awareness by distributing literature on 12th street, but a local TV station misrepresented the effort in their report.

As a result of the media distortion, the Cincinnati Unit decided to take another step towards informing the white community regarding the truth about Martin Luther King's character deficiencies, which have been trivialized and sanitized by the mainstream media, the government, and the schools. Documented facts, consolidated and posted on the website, show that King, far from being a hero and a "god" in human form, was a plagiarist, a Communist, and an adulterer who proved to be little more than a useful, if unwitting tool of the Communist movement in America which orchestrated the civil rights movement during the 1960s. Jewish activists were disproportionately influential in this movement. Political prostitutes such as the leaders of the city of Covington, who are all white, name streets after King to please minority interest groups and to gain good press. It's also a cheap form of "riot insurance".

The National Alliance, along with numerous other racially-conscious whites and even racial populists like the Council of Conservative Citizens, are concerned because not only is this another sign of white dispossession in America, but also it lowers the formerly high standard of stature once required in America of any figure considered for the honor of having a street, monument, or award named after them. If we are going to name a street after a plagiarist, communist, and an adulterer then just who doesn't qualify for this honor? Indeed, black activists in Brooklyn, New York attempted to lower the bar further when they campaigned to have a street renamed after Sonny Carson, who publicly admitted to being "anti-white". His record of hate is briefly summarized in this April 2007 New York Post editorial. Fortunately, on May 30th, by a vote of 25-15 split nearly along racial lines, the New York City Council voted against this measure.

As a result, Ransdell took the next step by attending the July 17th Covington City Commission meeting to deliver testimony regarding the documented facts of King's questionable character and to ensure that members of the public in attendance would also become aware that the information the National Alliance wants the white public to know about regarding King is not "racist" dengiration, but the TRUTH.

Here's a brief description of Ransdell's experience, in his own words:

After waiting for over 2 hours I finally got the opportunity to speak, but for only 2 minutes or so as the council was obviously not interested in the facts. After repeated pleas on my part that I had waited for 2 hours to simply share some facts that the commission may not be aware of and that I felt were important, after telling them that these facts were documented by sources such as the NY Times, Wall Street Journal, and other mainstream sources, the mayor angrily ended the meeting, obviously opposed to hearing the truth about King as it is indeed a politically incorrect truth.

I walked out of the city chambers, got in my car, and headed home. Even though I did what I could and was censored by the mayor, I still felt that I had failed. I also was angry, but not so much because I had waited patiently for 2 hours so I could be shouted down by the political prostitutes on the Covington city council, though that was not something I was too happy about.

One of Ransdell's greatest concerns is that repeated efforts by the establishment to censor or repress dissidence in racial matters will enrage the white community to the point where they will turn to illegality or gratuitous violence as an outlet for their frustrations. After the Kentucky Enquirer published their hit piece, he contacted the reporter to set the record straight. Here's his account again:

Now back to the article that was written regarding the hearing on the name change. Of course I was the individual who the reporter described as using "derogatory" language to describe King. Now most people would read that and assume that some rude and angry White racist went down there just to call King a "nigger" or a "coon", just to get a reaction. Would it have been that difficult for the reporter to briefly mention some of the specifics of the material that I covered rather than leave the reader to assume the former? You can make up your own mind on whether this was deliberate based on the following account of a phone call that I placed to the reporter.

I contacted the reporter and mentioned the article with which she was immediately familiar. I told her why I had went to the meeting and relayed to her some of the facts about King's questionable character, some of which she had surely heard me state at the meeting a few days before. I said that I disagreed with my comments being labled derogatory as the comments I made were indeed truthful. Then I asked her simply "Is the truth derogatory?" She replied "yes". Taken back a bit I said that I found that very disturbing to which she replied by saying that I was disturbing and that she was going to hang up which she did.

Rarely are representatives of the controlled media so blunt and considering how much I personally despise the majority of the media moguls, government officials, and others who always act as if they are people who are truthful and honorable individuals when they really are the evil individuals who are spearheading the destruction of our civilization, at least this reporter, Cindy Schroeder, is blunt and honest regarding her opposition and hatred of the truth.

So in other words, this reporter, like so many in her profession, thinks it is more important to avoid offending people rather than accurately reporting news. However, many journalists, in their specialized university education, have been taught that, because whites supposedly have a "unique legacy of oppression", their reportage must present pro-white events in unfavorable terms and under-report black-against-white crimes in order to "balance the scales" and "make up for that historical legacy". And their reportage frequently reflects this indoctrination.

And one final thought - apparently none of the commissioners own businesses or residences along 12th Street, or they might be more sensitive to the economic impact upon residents and merchants. In particular, merchants would then have to spend more money on generating corrected advertising and listings. This might be no problem for a mighty Wal-Mart, but to a mom-and-pop operation, it could eliminate their profit margin for an entire year. But no sacrifice is too great when it comes to "King-worship", is it? Even if the impact falls mostly upon the little guy.

While Robert Ransdell considers his mission incomplete, he intends to persevere. The National Alliance also operates the Resistance discussion forum, where matters of interest to whites are aired and debated.

No comments: