Here, MLK makes an argument that non-violent protest does not necessarily mean promotion of 'peace,' as in lack of tension. A peace that tolerates a stagnant complacency with the status quo is less tolerable than a state of tension in which conflict, disparity, and disagreement between fellows becomes clear. A path to justice is not through understanding and compromise, but an active fight for a good future against evils of the past. A good peace is not simply a lack of some negative force, but the presence of a positive one. Justice. Goodwill. Equality. Here, MLK asserts that physically violent aspect of his movement represent a minority, and that this existence of a violent subset should have no bearing in either how his messages are perceived nor the moral value of his mission--which is to fight injustice. The moral character of the movement should be based upon the moral character of its majority--which is empirically largely peaceful and good. Here, MLK makes an argument that while he condemns the riots and believes it to be self-destructive, that it is ultimately the status quo which is at blame for causing the riots to break out. Condemning a riot and failing to condemn the status quo or the oppressive conditions which caused it thus constitute a morally irresponsible act. In addition, he condemns those who believe that status quo and 'tranquility,' that is, lack of protests and its accompanying riots, is preferable to justice and humanity, which he both noted previously must be fought for.