NAACP and Their Pro Bono Lawyers

  

Dominant Male Group Theorem and historical structure of a human society:  
Prior to 1964, all human societies in recorded history basically followed the same pattern to their establishment, which was homogeneity in their race, language and religion. These characteristics undoubtedly played a vital role in maintaining stability within the society. For example, note how few civil wars have been recorded since the time of the ancient Greeks (regarding the American Civil War, as president Lincoln said to a group of prominent Negroes "..consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be war.").₁

Since all of human history demonstrates a predispose male grouping behavior in the establishment of a society, as well as its continuation (at least I cannot find a single exception in recorded human history), let's express this grouping pattern for the establishment of a society in the following way::

When a male group (males similar racially, linguistically and religiously) establishes claim to a geographic area, this group then seeks to create a society. A society must have a social stratification system; and when that social stratification system exists ... a society is then formed. When the society is formed the male group that created it becomes the Dominant Male Group. There are two primary functions a society serves, which allows it to achieve stability and longevity: (1) stratify the Dominant Male Group; (2) perpetuate the Dominant Male Group.

Again, there is no known deviation from the above grouping behavior for establishing a society's social strata (that I'm aware of) prior to 1964.

Females historic role within a society: Prior to 1964, throughout human history females had always been separated from the males; and never allowed into the male group's social strata. Female's historic role within a society was simply to procreate for the male group...and to raise the children. Keeping the females separate wasn't - isn't - a pejorative act by males. Females lack 'true status' (as do males outside the DMG). Theoretically then , that is if the DMG theorem is an immutable law of human nature, as all of human history suggest it is, if the social stratification system (systems specifically stratified by occupational titles) created by the DMG is compromised ... the structure itself will become compromised. Collapse of the system would seem to be inevitable.

Do you think America is as stable politically today under the compulsory integration laws than before the laws were passed (specifically, the Civil Rights Acts '64, 65, '68)?


Historical Group Recognition (HGR): In order to build societies throughout human history males from the dominant male group used "group recognition", or HGR. All racial and ethnic groups on our planet ... are here today because of this recognition characteristic.

'True status': The theory behind 'true status' infers that only members of same male group (racially, linguistically, religiously similar)  may have status in a male group social stratification system (macro or micro group structure). 

-------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------

NAACP

From the NAACP's beginning (1910) to around 1925, in these formative years, and with the organization basically destitute year in and year out, the NAACP was forced to rely on white male attorneys who were willing to work  pro bono (without compensation). There were three lawyers who were willing to do the bulk of this kind work for the advancement of the NAACP ::

-- Albert Enoch Pillsbury (born 1849 - died 1930)

-- Moorfield Storey (born 1849 - died 1930)

-- Arthur Spingarn (born 1878 - died 1971)
Note: black lawyers at that time could not afford to work pro bono.  

   However, there are two things regarding the NAACP in these formative years which I find more than a little troubling (and I hope you do as well)  :: 1) the legal strategy they used; 2) the apparent hypocrisy of the white pro bono attorneys.

1.   Legal Strategy::  Much emphasis is generally given in today's literature to the legal strategy the NAACP' employed in pursuing its lauded integration agenda. However, there is another aspect to this strategy which has been given little importance or recognition (if any) and I think it bears pointing out: the NAACP's  activities were not in any way consistent with existing rules for lawyers in 1910 --   all the way up to 1964 for that matter.  Also never noted is the unprecedented special treatment NAACP lawyers consistently received at the hands of the New York State Bar. That is, what ethical boundaries other lawyers were either forced by their state bar to accept, or morally bound to respect, the NAACP lawyers were always allowed to freely engage in violating. Lawyers (in 1910) were supposed to represent for a fee individuals, companies or, from time to time, a group of any other sort seeking redress over a legal issue or point of law.  Lawyers were not supposed to stir up lawsuits, advertise their services in any media or call upon prospective clients and offer their services pro bono . However, for the NAACP lawyers, when they brazenly stirred up lawsuits, or called upon prospective clients and offered their services pro bono (cases were generally selected based on whether it could create publicity for the organization), they always got a pass.  Perhaps because of the clients the NAACP were pursuing, ones that could never afford to pay a fee for lawyer services, the New York Bar allowed these guys to get away with all their ethics violations. However, the following point still needs to be driven home here: For lawyers to work for an organization, and where the primary purpose of that organization is to stir up lawsuits, claiming their efforts are for the "public good", was, prior to 1910, unprecedented in America, as well as in every other Western Civilization country. 1

2.    Hypocrisy::  I have also found it very troubling that the white pro bono lawyers for the NAACP (as well as all the other members of the NAACP who were white), who worked for or on behalf of this organization - which promoted racial integration - were unwilling themselves to practice what they were promoting.  In other words, none of the white attorneys for the NAACP were willing to live among the Negro people (Arthur Spingard was a man of considerable wealth who chose to live in an exclusively white community on a palatial estate in upstate New York); nor were they willing to send their children to a predominately Negro school; nor were they ever willing to try to make a living exclusively among the Negro population. Yet, they were essentially telling America’s White population that integration and race-nullification was the right direction for their people; and not only was it the right direction, but the moral one as well.  The way I understand hypocrisy, this does appear to fit the definition. If integration of the races, still an unknown concept in human history at that time (1910 to 1925), was, as the NAACP was claiming, actually the right course to commit to, it does seem that the ones promoting this "radical" new agenda should be the ones at very least practicing it themselves. 

------------------------------------

On July 2, 1964, the political / economic system of Compulsory Inclusionism (Civil Rights Act) was created in the USA, and its main purpose was/is to integrate the Dominant Male Group (white Christian males). NOTE: It's also interesting to note that only countries of Western Civilization origin have established - thru written laws - a compulsory integration system. (the ability of white males to become slaves to their written laws...never ceases to amaze me)

AGAIN, do you think America is as stable politically today under the compulsory integration laws than before the laws were passed (e.g. Civil Rights Acts '64, 65, '68)?

----------

Are the following Links notable *consequences* when a DMG allows encroachment into their social stratification system?

1) LINK...

2) OJ Simpson Double Murder/ Acquittal (black jury)...

3) LINK

4) Why do blacks continue to fail? Well, ...it's got to be white people's fault - they're "born to be racist" LINK

5) 1947... Mendez, et al v. Westminister School District of Orange County (CA)... Hispanics won the case for a desegregated school... Guess what? The school is 100% Hispanic today...and they aren't complaining one bit! LINK

6) MASSACRE LINK

-------------------------------------

NOTE: In the 100 years existence of the NAACP, there has yet to be a documented case of a white male / female member of this organization that moved from their predominantly White community into a predominantly black community. 2

------------------------------------
Lincoln (1862): "We look to our condition, owing to the existence of the two races on this continent. I need not recount to you the effects upon white men, growing out of the institution of Slavery. I believe in its general evil effects on the white race. See our present condition---the country engaged in war!---our white men cutting one another's throats, none knowing how far it will extend; and then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be war...  It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated."

1. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln5/1:812?rgn=div1;view=fulltext

2. I could not find a single documented case. If someone knows of a case(s), please include it below in the comment section (with a source).

Walter White & The NAACP

The little black male in the middle is Walter White

   Walter F. White was born in 1893 in Atlanta, Georgia. He attended an all black high school and an all black college. At 25-years-old, Mr. White joined the NAACP (1918). In 1931, at 37-years-old, he became the Executive Director of the NAACP, and would remain in that capacity until his death in 1955 (White also booted W.E.B. Du Bois from the organization in 1934).

         But aside from Mr. White's career choice and his performance within the NAACP, there is one thing which I found about Mr. White to be more than a bit peculiar (and many others during his lifetime as well), which is what he claimed as his actual race. He looked undeniably like a Caucasian male.  His hair was blond, eyes were blue, and his skin tone was white as an Englishman. Yet he always insisted to everyone, and quite freely, he was a Negro (Walker claimed both of his parents were very light-skinned blacks).1   However, an incident in Atlanta in 1906 undoubtedly had to register with the then 13-year-old Walter regarding his appearance (that is, if Walter really was spawned from negro parents...and he really did believe he was black).  A race riot had erupted (black males raped four white females in the month of September - and local white males had had ENOUGH) and white mobs formed looking for blacks ... and revenge.  Walter and his father were driving home when they encountered one of the many angry white mobs that had formed. Upon seeing Walter and his father, however, the mob simply ignored them - because they looked white. Naturally, it is a given Walter didn’t leap from the car and shout to that raging mob he was black (one does have to wonder, if it were blacks attacking white people [like the Watts Riot] and they came upon Walter, would he have escaped their racial attack by insisting he was black?). So in this case, Walter’s appearance saved him a certain beating, maybe even his life. In essence, Walter was one of the very few males in America at that time who could play two race cards. In Walter's case, it was akin to him sitting at a poker table and being the only player who was allowed to substitute a King for Queen, or vice versa, whenever he felt there was an advantage to do it. Naturally, with an advantage like that, Walter would do quite well at a poker table. And at America's racially separated table, Walter, not surprisingly (human nature being what it is), often leaped from one side to the other - that is, whenever it benefited him. Everywhere a black man couldn't go because of the established color line, Walter had no trouble crossing over. He ate at restaurants traditionally reserved for white people. He stayed at any hotel he fancied, and went into any white theater or white community he chose to visit. And, again, it's a given that Walter, while in the process of receiving the benefits or services normally reserved for white people, he never once revealed he considered himself a Negro. In the area of employment, the most crucial of all stations in life for a male at that time, Walter's appearance turned out to be the deciding factor in his career choice. Weldon Johnson , a Negro, recognized Walter’s appearance as an advantage to the NAACP and arranged a nice paying job for him (Walter was basically hired as a spy for the organization). This was also a time when most urban adult Negro males were unemployed (1918). So Walter was able to secure employment at the NAACP because of the way he looked, and he did quite well there financially, assuming control of the whole organization in 1931 --the beginning of the Great Depression.  Yes, no question about it, Walter, being able to jump the color line whenever he recognized an advantage to be had, was able to live far better than the average Negro male.

      But, of what race did Walter White belong? White? Or Black?  Even though Walter White would never admit it , and which was obvious to everyone,  he was in fact a white male. But what about the  one drop rule (one drop of black in your lineage you're black)? The one drop rule should be regarded exactly as it sounds to rational thinking people : Absurd.  Let's look at it this way...  Appearance equates to what the human being is cognizant of. Walter White’s appearance was Caucasian.  The racial message he conveyed to people then ... was that he was Caucasian. Additionally, let's look at Walter's situation through the DMG Theorem.  According to the Theorem, a Dominant Male Group is composed of males racially, linguistically and religiously similar (including the non-religious).  Walter's appearance was unmistakable Caucasian, he spoke English and he was Christian. Therefore, according to the Theorem and, again, regardless of what Walter believed his racial identity to be, he was a member de jure of the Caucasian race in America (he was an American, not a Negro).

1. There is no evidence Walter's parents were "light skinned negroes". No picture of his parents - strangely - exist. Hmmm.  Could be that little Walter was just so desperately seeking attention...so he claimed he was black. And, of course, among blacks he sure would stand out. People do weird things. Also, I do believe it is genetically impossible for a person to have blond hair and blue eyes and come from even light skinned negroes. No doubt in my mind...Walter's parents were both white. 

Martin L. King's REAL Agenda In Memphis (1968)

<<<  MEET THE UNEMPLOYED BULLIES

                                                                                                                                                                                                        






Law-Abiding White People vs. The Black BULLIES

White People:: “The Negro race is supposed to be separate and be a self-reliant people. There is no constitutional right to integration. What is wrong with building your own towns, cities, industries, tax base and residential housing? –White people did it.  Or,  colonize a place in America if you insist White people are your brutal oppressor.”

The Black BULLIES:: “No we ain’t gonna do none of that. I mean build nothin’! You gonna SUBMIT to race-nullification, gift us double standards, preferences and set-asides.”

White people:: “Every distinct people must achieve self-reliance. Why, Mr. American Black man, should YOU be the only example in human history where that requirement of achieving self-reliance as a people doesn’t apply?”

Black BULLIES:: ”Yeah, well you don’t tell us NOTHING. We tell you. When we want somthin’ you give it to us. If we ain’t got it, well, you damn well better get it for us.”

                                                                        ——

  In late March of 1968 Martin Luther King arrived in Memphis,  Tenn. to support the city's sanitation workers' demand for higher pay. His presence has often been hailed - by King's admirers - as yet another example of King's unyielding commitment to people's (his people) pursuit of equality and civil rights. Well, for those who want to believe King's presence in Memphis was about "civil rights' or "equal rights", both contentions are conspicuously, and I have to add, absurdly, inaccurate. He certainly did have an agenda, and it did include higher wagers for the city's garbage men.  But King's real agenda was, as the facts below will demonstrate, far more self-serving. Specifically, he had been given the opportunity to launch a new career.  This was his main concern.  However, before we get to this 'new' career opportunity for King, let's first break down the issues concerning the striking sanitation workers. 

 To begin, let's address the notion that the sanitation workers strike was about civil rights and/or equal rights.  Blacks were the overwhelming majority of the sanitation workers in Memphis in 1968 -- and they weren't complaining in the least about that.  Civil rights at that time mainly concerned the desire by black males to achieve compulsory integration rights  into a white male 'group.'   Since integration was not an issue in this strike,  then  the 'civil rights'  concern cannot be legitimately applied here.  As for the 'equal rights' assertion, it is impossible to nail down just what this can actually refer to.  Memphis sanitation workers, both white and black, were being paid equally and being paid more than the current federal minimum wage ($1.80 per hour - the federal minimum wage was $1.60). 

So, clearly the strike wasn't about civil rights or equal rights.  So what was it really about?  It was about the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME, which was run entirely by blacks) and their desire to get the mayor and the city council to agree to a checkoff provision attached to the sanitation workers’ contract (a checkoff would allow for automatic payroll deductions made directly to the union). Evidently, the sanitation workers, for a variety of predictable reasons, were constantly in arrears with regard to their union dues. A checkoff would eliminate this problem for the black union; and it would also mean official recognition of the union from the city.  However, the mayor and the city council were opposed to this checkoff provision (not the union itself). 

 (Note: The sanitation strike was not about gaining collective bargaining rights. The garbage collectors ALREADY had those rights. Again, it was solely about the black union wanting a guaranteed payday from the city - through a checkoff provision - rather than having to collect those union dues themselves from the workers.)

  In order to invigorate the sanitation workers to the 'cause'  the AFSCME  promised them a whopping 30% pay raise!  

The union also raised the matter about unsafe working conditions for the garbage men. Though, a closer examination of this issue showed it actually had no  merit to it.  This issue came about because two black males were killed on the job a few weeks prior to the strike.  When it rained or became cold, it was common practice among the city sanitation workers for the two workers on the back of the truck to sit inside the hopper. Naturally, this is an extremely dangerous thing to do.  If the compactor would somehow engage while they were in the hopper, they would literally get chewed to pieces. And the workers certainly knew the risk.  On a cold and rainy day in January, two black sanitation workers were riding inside the hopper, when... Well, you know.

  As for the mayor, he believed the garbage collectors , like the police and firemen , could not legally strike; and he was not going to give them a pass on that.  Which brings us to another aspect to this strike that could not possibly have escaped the mayor's reasoning, or the city council ( 3 of the 9 council members were black). Since the sanitation workers were at the bottom of the pay scale, if they were to get a raise then whatever pay raise they received that same percent pay raise would be expected by every other city department. That is,  everyone working for the city from the bottom up would be expecting a pay raise - a 30% pay raise.

  By March, and more than two weeks into the strike, the sanitation workers (and the union) still had made no progress on their wage demands - or the checkoff provision. The support for the strikers had at this point  grown to include the NAACP and all the black ministers in the area.

  For the blacks, apparently any issue now where whites appeared on one side and blacks were on the other , and the white guys weren’t knuckling under to the blacks' demands, it then had a tinge of suspect racism attached to it. And if the specter of racism wasn’t there, blacks were more than willing to invent it. When blacks marched through Memphis’ business district on February 23rd, and it was beginning to descend into yet another black male looting and burning episode (Memphis had endured a black male looting and burning less than a year earlier), the police interceded immediately and maced the marchers.  Evidently some of those maced were black ministers, who seized this opportunity to imply racism on the part of the police by telling the media that they believed it was a deliberate attack on them because they were black. Since the late 50s, urban blacks had won virtually every issue where they employed the tactic of marches, usually led by black ministers. But these marches were ostensibly for denied rights. Black ministers and the NAACP organizing and leading blacks in marches because black sanitation workers wanted higher wages ... and their union demanding a checkoff provision , obviously is a horse of a completely different color. Workers do not have a legal right to have a higher wage simply because they demand it; nor does a union have a right to a checkoff provision because they demand it. Blacks it seems had gotten used to winning through the use of bully marches. And, it seemed, they weren’t going to settle for anything but winning here. The black strike leaders (the NAACP, black ministers and black union representatives) sent black children into the streets - telling them to skip school - to support the strike and saw no problem with it. They created an illusionary racism issue by implying that working conditions were unsafe because the sanitation workers were mostly black ; and by implying that police maced black protesters, including ministers, because they were black (what white minister[s] ever marched for higher wages for white workers?). They led marches (with almost entirely black participants) down the streets of Memphis’ business district to deliberately disrupt white businesses and to try to frighten them.  The black strike leaders even urged blacks to boycott white-owned city businesses, even though these businesses had nothing to do with the strike.

  However, even with these bully tactics ... the mayor and the city council were not caving in. Black ministers and the NAACP clearly saw they were losing and they were getting desperate. They still had one final card to play::  the 'unemployed'  Martin Luther King.

  On March 3rd, the pastor of Centenary Methodist Church, James Lawson, who was not only a longtime acquaintance of Martin Luther King but was also chairman of the strike committee, pleaded to King to come and help the cause of the strikers. King agreed and made arrangements to come in mid-March.

  As part of a last ditch effort by the mayor to resolve the strike, on March 16th (the strike began on February 11th) he offered the union a compromise, suggesting the voters should approve official recognition of the union (and by so doing give or refuse them their checkoff provision). The black-run union turned it down. The stage was set now for King.

  On March 18th, King arrived in Memphis and gave a speech before a predominantly black audience and promised to return at the end of the month to lead a march.

  No one at this particular time should have been surprised that King would want to get involved in this issue - which had had nothing to do with forced integration. King in 1968 was essentially a man in search of a new purpose for himself and his SCLC organization. His civil-rights agenda had been almost entirely usurped by the Democratic Party, with only one issue from all his civil-rights demands still remaining: integration of the residential communities of the white population. However, King probably lost much of his desire to pursue this issue using his established method of marches. Back in early March of 1966, he and his black followers (no whites would join him on this one) were bombarded with bottles, bricks and rocks in Marquette Park, Ill. , while marching in a white neighborhood demanding whites practice race-nullification with regard to their living arrangements. Afterwards, King commented about his treatment in Marquette Park, saying he had “never seen as much hatred and hostility on the part of so many people.”   The reality here, however, was that King was now marching through a residential neighborhood, not down main street. And why shouldn't white males feel threatened?  Hadn't black males over the previous two years looted and burned thousands of white businesses across the country? And hadn’t blacks attacked and even murdered white people in these - all unprovoked - riots solely because they were white?  Hadn’t over one thousand blacks less than seven months earlier in Chicago, completely unprovoked by the police or white people, rioted , which included throwing Molotov cocktails at white police officers?   White people it seems had every right to be suspicious of blacks at this point.  Who's to say they wouldn't charge into white people's homes and perpetrate that same feral behavior?   To white males, the Marquette Park march was a deliberate attempt to threaten their wives and children.  And, last but not least, regarding the housing issue,  most whites also believed they elected political representatives to deal with this type of grievance.

  To virtually every white male in Marquette Park, King had gone too far this time (whites were still maintaining that blacks should build their own homes, communities, etc.; and still entirely perplexed as to why this male group had to be “allowed in” ... and with no QUID PRO QUO... everywhere white people went: schools, workplace and, now, their residential community). King did lead one more compulsory integration housing march through Cicero, Illinois, on September 4th; however, this time he had several thousand National Guardsmen protecting him. Since no more marches were conducted by King on this issue after Cicero, and none planned, it seems that King was just trying to send a message to the white community, as if saying, “See, you didn't scare me. You didn't win. I’m back.”  But clearly, King got the message in Marquette Park.

  With the housing issue proving too dangerous for King to continue to pursue, his abundance of free time now was concentrated on his new project : the Poor People’s Campaign, which was to involve another march on Washington D.C (being a full-time or even part-time pastor apparently no longer interested King).  Pastor Lawson’s plea for help in early March was likely only seen initially by King to be a brief diversion from his project. But certainly as the days pasted, King and/or his inner circle of associates had to see the profitable potential in this workers' strike. If King could end this strike to the union’s satisfaction, he would not just be a hero to the union in Memphis. This could be the beginning of a whole new line of business for him and his SCLC organization. Every strike, anywhere in America, King could offer his services - for a substantial fee, of course. What city, what company, what corporation wouldn’t knuckle under to King if he could threaten them by summoning thousands of his people to march down main street and deliberately disrupt businesses and community life? Yes, no one should question that ML King was in the beginning stage here  of launching a new career -- a shakedown organization.

Martin L. King arrived back in Memphis - as he promised - on March 28th.

  The Martin Luther King Jr. Riot … began on March 28th and lasted throughout the day. About 1000 - mostly blacks - participated in the march toward, and through, the city's [white] business district (King had instructed his people to "ratchet it up"). Once the young black males reached the business district of the city they unleashed their prearranged plan, which was to break into the stores and loot them. One 16-year-old black male looter was killed by police. And though this black-initiated riot lasted only a few hours, black youths still managed to loot and/or burn 150 white-owned businesses. On the evening of the 28th King made a quick apology for the riot then promptly left the city. However, he vowed to return to finish the job. On April 3rd King arrived back in Memphis and was immediately served a federal restraining order at his motel, preventing him from participating in any marches without a court order. The democrats, who ran the local gov't., wanted nothing more to do with King's immature tactics. That afternoon, pastor King, apparently in a jovial mood, asked one of his longtime associates, Ralph Abernathy , to "Come on over here, you big black motherfucker, and let me suck your dick. ..."1. Later that evening King had a pillow fight with Andrew Young, then left for Mason Temple church to give his Mountain Top speech.

On April 4, Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated.

--------------------------------------------------------------

1. Ralph Abernathy Book: And the Walls Came Tumbling Down: An Autobiography