No, you half-literate buffoon. I accuse King of NOTHING. King grew into his practice of the philosophy of nonvioence. He gradually came to accept nonviolence as a way of life. It didn't happen all at once. He did obtain arms, but actually got rid of them even BEFORE the Montgomery boycott came to a close. People develop and grow over time. But while King accepted nonviolence as a philosophy or way of life, he was wise enough not to insist that the ENTIRE Black community do so. He asked only that they accept nonviolence as at least a TACTIC in the context of the struggle that he was leading.. Had I been around and old enough to make decisions, I might very well have accepted the discipline of nonviolence in any demonstration led by SCLC or SNCC. Which means I would not physically fight those pigs in the middle of what is supposed to be a nonviolent demonsttation. But I migh very well blow a pig's head off if, apart from Movement activity, a racist fool ws stupid enough to attack my home. I would observe the discipline of the Movement in any Movement activity if it has accepted nonviolence as its principle of action. Either that or I would not participate in an action or demo that was supposed to be nonviolent--unlike those "Invaders" in Memphis. But the same cop whom I refused to fight in a demonstration led by King would get his head knock off if he aggressed against me outside that context of Movement activity. Probably, that's also the differenc with King. Since nonviolence gradually became a way of life with him, he would probably not retaliate even in a situation where he's coming hom from work and some stupid cracka punch him in the mouth. I'd take the stupid mofo's arm off. But I would not jeopardize the Movement by violating its discipline. That's basically all King asked of those who participated in the Movement. "This is going to be a nonviolent demonstration" I heard him say in a clip. "If you can't be nonviolent, don't get in it." Fair enough. I might be "situationally nonviolent", which is all that King asked for . But it was a way of life for King.<quoted text>
Ah! So you are accusing MLJK of situational non-violence? Why blow me down. I never expected YOU to stoop so low. We Nkrumahists are NOT situationally non-violent. We see non-violence as an integral part of Positive Action against the enemy. But when that does not work, we will also employ violent self-defense. Who makes more sense to you? Nkrumahist Positive Action or Kingian "non-violence". I ask you 'cause you are a well-known "thinker".
I keep forgetting that with Assduratin's childish mind, you have to explain almost everything in detail (and repetitively) on a first grade level. And even then he might not get it.