← Digital Social Hour
Digital Social Hour
Chad O. Jackson vs Austin Off Script – Martin Luther King DEBATE | DSH #1734
01:57:54
Loading summary
Transcript413 lines
- [00:00]
A
The communists found is that one of their biggest hurdles of disseminating their ideology into the west and into America in particular, is the fact that you have this Christian faith, you have a church going, people who are genuinely hostile to the spread of communism. How do we jump this hurdle? Earl Browder believed that you can't be hostile to these people, you can't be hostile to their faith. What you must do instead is infiltrate. And so what the communists then did in the 1930s is that they infiltrated churches and seminaries, both Protestant and Catholic. The communists were actively infiltrating the church. The reason that's important to bring that up is because this is the ilk from which Stanley Levison came. Before he actually worked with King, he worked with a Christian publication called the Churchman. So what is an atheist doing trying to working with the so called Christian magazine, this Christian journal? Essentially what he's doing is he's trying to, in a sense infiltrate, just like many communists were at the time, especially during the Cold War, infiltrate the church so as to subvert or to blur the lines between Christianity and communism. This was the editor, this was the, for all intents and purposes, PR person, the ghostwriter, the speechwriter for Martin Luther King, a so called minister.
- [01:07]
B
Okay, guys, Chad O. Jackson and Austin Julio Braun here today we're going to be talking about mlk. Nice little friendly conversation. Chad's first debate actually.
- [01:15]
A
So that's for the bravery first, very first debate.
- [01:19]
B
It's not an easy thing to put yourself in the spotlight like this, you know.
- [01:22]
C
No, it's not, Never is.
- [01:24]
B
Yeah, but let's do some quick intros and then talking points from there. Who wants to start off?
- [01:30]
C
Chad?
- [01:31]
A
Yeah. So I'm Chad O. Jackson. I am a filmmaker out of Dallas, Texas. I'm also an independent researcher and the owner of a plumbing company of all things, in Dallas, Texas. So very happy to be here. First time in Nevada, so. And welcome to Vegas. Yeah.
- [01:47]
C
And I'm Austin Julio Broughton. Some of you may know me on the Internet as the best fake doctor in social media, Dr. Julio. And remember, it's just a nickname, folks, relax. And that nickname actually came from Dr. Martin Luther King. From the time I was 8 years old, I learned all of his material, I learned all of his speeches and sermons and committed them to memory and learned about as much about the man as I possibly could. And so I'm just here today to kind of address some of the things that I've heard from your documentaries and from your research on King. I think that this will be one of the greatest conversations surrounding the core of the civil rights movement that the black community particularly needs to have. There've been a lot of things said about King over recent years that I think two intellectuals have the capability to discuss.
- [02:28]
A
Yeah, I agree.
- [02:29]
B
I love that. So you found him through his documentaries.
- [02:31]
C
Yeah, it was Uncle Tom, if I'm not mistaken. And I also looked at the MLK project that Chad was working on, and it was very, very. I mean, the points that you raised were some that I'd heard from multiple different sources. But the first one I think among them that I wanted to talk about was the claim that King was attached to communism. I wanted to give you a chance to kind of expound on that, certainly.
- [02:54]
A
So in order to do that, we first have to look at the history of communist agitation and infiltration in this country, dating as far back as the 1920s. During the Second Congress of the Communist International there in Moscow, the communists were trying to figure out how to basically penetrate the United States. And there was an American journalist by the name of John Reed. He was very much of a muckraker of sorts. And he told the delegation that the way to do it is through the Negro. He said that the Negro, by and large in America is the Negro lacks a kind of political consciousness and we need to raise a political consciousness of the American Negro. And so as a result of this, Vladimir Lenin himself greenlit the use of any means necessary to raise the political consciousness of the American Negro. So over the course of the 1920s, we saw all these race riots spring up seemingly out of nowhere. Whether you're talking about the Tulsa so called race massacre, they called it the race riot for a long time, but now they call it the race massacre again. All across the country we saw these race riots. And the question became, what's the hidden hand behind these riots? Because from the 1800s into the 1920s, you see relative success, or let me say an upward trajectory as it pertains to black Americans. This is documented by the late Walter E. Williams. This is documented by Thomas Sowell, among many other scholars. You saw this upward trajectory, this upward mobility. And there's this interesting speech that was delivered by manning Johnson, either 1956, 1957, somewhere thereabout. And he made an interesting point which was that the Communists wanted the Negro to unite not with ordinary white people, but with the white Communists. The reality of it is that the Communists believed in their ideology and they believed that their ideology would bring about genuine liberation. And they were pretty much perplexed by the Fact that there were so many blacks who were beginning to make their way in America through conventional means, through the free market. They were, in a sense, taking seriously the program of men like Booker T. Washington, who said, cast down your bucket where you are. This was rendering genuine upward mobility. If I'm Joe the shoe store owner, as a black man and I'm able to provide a service to my community, I'm able to provide shoes for the local miners, the local Negro school teacher and the children and everything else. If there's a race riot where tomorrow my business is no longer there. But then I open my newspaper, I see an ad from the Communist Party through. Through their front, the iww. Join the Communist Party or join the iww. Join this union or that union, many of which were actual communist fronts. If I join this organization, they will protect me from the racist bigots and so on and so forth. The idea was to breed friction between southern Negroes and Southern whites or the naacp, either one. Whether you're taking the socialist route by way of the NAACP or whether you're taking a more hardline communist route through some of these communist front groups. The idea was to get you at least out of the mindset of taking on this kind of free market means to becoming successful. So that was the point of the kind of agitation, of propaganda, and I'm building to King. So when we look at, for example, Robin G. Kelly's. I think it's Robin DG Kelly or. Or something like that, he considers himself a Marxist feminist black man. He wrote a book called Hammer and Hoe, and Hammer and Hoe documents communist activity, specifically in the south in places like Montgomery, Alabama, Atlanta, places like that. And he documents communist activity in the south dating as far back as the 1930s. And so by the time King comes into the picture, he was born around the Great Depression, the era of the Great Depression. And he would come of age. What's interesting about King is that his father, Daddy King, was. He himself frequented some of the events that were put on by some of these communist front groups, including the Southern Negro Youth Congress, which was a communist front group. And he himself was a proponent of the social gospel, which I'm sure we'll get to here in a bit.
- [07:32]
C
As in, you're saying that Dr. King's father was a proponent of the social gospel.
- [07:35]
A
Dr. King's father, in his unpublished memoir, as I'm sure you know, he considers himself a proponent of the social gospel.
- [07:42]
C
Well, the gospel is. I would just ask this question, is the gospel not inherently social?
- [07:47]
A
That's an interesting question. There's always been a social component to the gospel. But the gospel starts first and foremost with reproduction. Repentance.
- [07:54]
C
Yes, I would.
- [07:55]
A
The individual repenting. And so to try to politicize it and to coerce your neighbor to part with their money by way of the tax system, that they might then implement some kind of benevolence, even though your taxpaying neighbor may not agree with you in terms of how benevolence should be distributed, so on and so forth. That is not the gospel at all.
- [08:16]
C
Well, I would think that when the Master told the. When the rich young ruler came to Jesus and asked him, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And Jesus said, what is written in the law? How readest thou? And he goes through the list of the commandments, and he says, these have I kept since my youth. And Jesus gets to the point where it says, love thy neighbor as thyself. And the lawyer asks Jesus, who is my neighbor? Now, that question could have very easily ended up in thin air as a philosophical or theological discussion. But the Lord took that question and he put it on a dangerous curve between Jerusalem and Jericho when he talks about the man that falls among thieves. And a Jewish priest and a Jewish Levite pass by on the other side, and they don't stop to help him. And finally, another man of another race comes down. Right. The Good Samaritan narrative. Now, the question is, when Jesus asked this rich young ruler, who is it that was this man's neighbor when he was in a time of need? He said, he that showed mercy, go and do thou likewise. That is a social application of the Gospel itself. The Gospel is not just repentance. The gospel is repent and believe. And the way that Dr. King and the way that the civil rights leaders used that message was to force the United States of America to grant black Americans the very thing that the Constitution promised.
- [09:23]
A
Well, you're jumping ahead, and we have to recontextualize this. The social gospel that King was preaching was born not out of the Bible, but born out of the work of Walter Rauschenbusch, who in the late 19th century wrote a book called Christianity and the Social Crisis. And he himself was a Marxist, Walter Rauschenbush. In fact, he went to London and he was enamored of what was called the Fabian Society. The Fabian Society, like Marx, agreed in a kind of radical change in the social order of things. However, they disagreed with Marx in that Marx wanted a fast. All of a sudden upspringing of a revolution. Workers of the world. Unite. He basically uttered in the Communist Manifesto. Whereas the Fabian Society, they envisioned a slow, incremental, gradual march through the institutions. They were more patient than the Marx, than the outright communists. And so what Walter Rauschenbusch did is he extracted the gospel from the gospel. He envisioned the social gospel, but he extracted the salvific power that comes only from Christ, from his philosophy or theory. And he believed that the way to bring about salvation was through political action, through political policy, such and so forth. So that's what King was actually coming out of. In fact, he learned about Walter Rauschenbusch. Christianity and Social Crisis was one of his favorite books, as you all know.
- [10:58]
C
But Dr. King. I would say this, though, that Dr. King repeatedly condemned, in a multiplicity of his sermons and in his own writings, the incompatibility. He condemned communism by stating plainly that communism and Christianity are inherently incompatible because communism is too secularistic of a worldview to ever be compatible with Christianity. In fact, Dr. King, in one of his last books, Where Do We Go From Here? Stated out of his own mouth in his last writing that in order for the Negro to truly grow in this country, we must accept that he is neither totally African nor totally Western. He is a true and authentic hybrid, a combination of two cultures. The cultures that he was referencing is the fact that the Christian religion that we were practicing at that time led to the successful integration into the American economic system in a way that hadn't been produced for the decades beforehand. No other. There has been no other. Throughout the entire civil rights movement, not one leader ever produced more on the books legislation for black Americans or for the greater collective minority as a whole in this country than the work of.
- [12:01]
A
Dr. King, which is tied much to our detriment.
- [12:03]
C
Well, in what way?
- [12:05]
A
That political solutions aren't going to fix anything. If anything, they make matters worse.
- [12:10]
C
Okay, how so?
- [12:11]
A
Well, let me circle back first. I'll build to your question. But this idea that King. We're not going to skip past this part that King said that Christianity and communism are incompatible. This isn't an idea that originated with him. In fact, he actually plagiarized the work of one Robert J. McCracken, who in a 1951 book wrote. It was actually a book called Questions People Ask. He wrote this in 1951. And King would lift, almost verbatim in some instances, language when it comes to the question of how Christians should view communism. He took these words, didn't cite his source, and uttered them as though they were his own. And so when you look at some of his sermons that you mentioned, when you look at even some of the things that were written in his books, which wasn't written by him, they were written by Stanley Levison, who was his ghostwriter, who was his editor. King would write some manuscripts. Yes, that's to be sure. But Stanley Levison would take over the project. He would beef it up. And what's interesting about Stanley Levison is Stanley Levison was an atheist, he was a secularist, he was ethnically Jewish. And that's not any red meat. That's just to say that he wasn't black. Right. And he was following suit to the 1930s call that came down from Earl Browder, who was the then leader of the Communist Party, where they specifically had this plan to infiltrate the church. Right. Because what the communists found is that one of their biggest hurdles of disseminating their ideology into the west and into America in particular, is the fact that you have this Christian faith, you have a church going, people who are genuinely hostile to the spread of communism. So how do we jump this hurdle? Earl Browder believed that you can't, you can't be hostile to these people, you can't be hostile to their faith. What you must do instead is infiltrate. And so what the communists then did in the 1930s is that they infiltrated churches and seminaries, both Protestant and Catholic. Bella Dodd wrote about this in her book School of Darkness. Fulton Sheen actually wrote about this as well. The communists were actively infiltrating the church. And so the reason that's important to bring that up is because this is the ilk from which Stanley Levison came before. Hold on, before he, before he actually worked with King, he worked with a publication, a Christian publication called the Churchman. So what is an atheist doing trying to working with this so called Christian magazine, this Christian journal? Essentially what he's doing is he's trying to, in a sense, infiltrate, just like many communists were at the time, especially during the Cold War, infiltrate the church so as to subvert or to blur the lines between Christianity and Communism. This was the editor, this was the, for all intents and purposes, PR person, the ghostwriter, the speech writer for Martin Luther King, a so called Negro minister.
- [15:24]
C
Well, there were multiple. First of all, let's go back. There were multiple instances and multiple allegations of not just Martin Luther King, but multiple black graduates of high institutions and high universities that had been accused of plagiarism upon multiple investigations. And while this is not an excuse for Dr. King King, I have never seen any objective evidence Produced that Stanley Levison wrote the book Where Do We Go From Here? Which was published while Dr. King was on vacation in Jamaica. In fact, what is well documented is that he spent a week in Jamaica by himself, isolated, writing the book of his own volition. So I can't. I have no objective evidence that proves that Levison wrote that book, which is the book that I just quoted from. And what is again, more interesting is the core of my argument is the gospel of Jesus Christ is. Is deeper than repent. We have to agree at some point. First of all, we have to start. Communism's attempt to infiltrate Christianity does nothing to destroy the legacy that Dr. King produced by producing legislation such as the Civil Rights act of 64, the Voting Rights act of 65, and the Equal Housing act of 68. All of these laws serve to mitigate and destroy the economic disparity that was largely created by segregation. I don't know that that's.
- [16:39]
A
They serve to expand the power of the federal government at the expense of genuine liberty for the individual. That's what they serve to do. I didn't mean to cut you off. No, please, go ahead.
- [16:49]
C
No, no, no, please go ahead. Respond to that. I don't. I don't mind. How did the. How was the Civil Rights act of 64, Voter Rights act of 65, and the Equal Housing act of 68 and overreach of government power?
- [17:00]
A
Well, the voting rights or the Civil Rights act of 1964 infringe. Infringed upon one's individual right to freedom of association.
- [17:11]
C
How so?
- [17:12]
A
And so far that if I'm a business owner and I put in my own blood, sweat and tears and I took out a loan maybe to start my own business, I should have the right to discriminate against whom I wish to discriminate. I should have the right to serve whom I wish to serve. I should have the right to hire whom I wish to hire. And the decision as to whether I should stay in business or not should be left not to the government, but to the free market.
- [17:35]
C
So you should be able to discriminate against who you hire based on the color of their skin?
- [17:39]
A
Yes, absolutely. Here's the thing. We have to. We have to be adults. We have to be. We have to be adult. We have to be adult enough to have this conversation.
- [17:47]
C
So you run into the government as a way. As a black. Hold on. I have to ask this as a Black man in 2025, you are saying that the Civil Rights act of 64 was an overreach of constitutional Authority, because you should be allowed as a business owner to discriminate against someone based purely on the color of their skin.
- [18:03]
A
You should be allowed 100%. And here's why, Austin. If there is a owner of a certain establishment, let's say a barbecue restaurant, who don't like Negroes for no other reason than the fact that their skin color is black, I would rather know that he doesn't like Negroes for the fact that their skin color is black rather than going into his establishment. And he is having to serve me because he's compelled to do so by the government and end up getting my food spat on or end up getting something, you know, poisoned or whatever. Whatever the case may be. I would rather know who the bigot is, who the person who's discriminating against me is versus them, hiding behind this legislation that's supposed to make all things equal. But what it does in effect is it. Is. It destabilizes it demoralizes society. It breeds. It breeds resentment in the whole game.
- [18:52]
C
How does it. How does it degrade society to do justly, to love mercy, and to do what's right? How does. How does that. How does it. How does it degrade society to do unto others as you would them do unto you? How does that degrade society? How does actually applying the gospel degrade society?
- [19:06]
A
What you're doing is you're playing fast and loose with the Scriptures. No, the fat. Yes. The Scriptures are for the remnant. The Scriptures are for those who've decided to repent and to put their trust and faith in Christ. We can't coerce people into obeying something that they don't believe in or that they don't agree with. Yes, we have. We have. We have basic rights as it pertains to the protection of property, as it pertains to the protection of life, so on and so forth. But to again take the Great Samaritan analogy and say, this is why we must pass legislation that coerces a taxpayer to be as benevolent as you want them to be. Whenever the. Whenever Jesus was preaching and teaching and everybody were following him, when you're just hold on, an hour was getting late, what did his disciples say? The hours getting late. Send them into the market that they might be fed, and so on and so forth, Jesus looked at him and said, you feed them. The objective to be benevolent is for the church. It's for the Christian. It's for the person who actually put their faith in Christ and have the means and is using their wherewithal. I think you're to do justly. So again, I think you're cutting off.
- [20:15]
C
A piece of that scripture, though, Chad, because if I'm not mistaken, that's the same exact parable where Jesus, when Jesus tells them to feed them, they say, lord, we have but only a few loaves. And the Lord multiplied the loaves and fed the thousands of men and women beside the kids.
- [20:26]
A
The government didn't do that.
- [20:27]
C
Well, Jesus Christ is.
- [20:29]
A
The IRS didn't do it.
- [20:30]
C
It doesn't matter. But the beauty of it is when your racism or your bigotry by deciding to not hire someone based on the color of their skin, when that impacts interstate commerce, the law can get involved. And that's exactly what the great Charles Hamilton Houston did. He laid the frame, he laid the groundwork from a court perspective that led to the federal government being forced to compel you to give people equal protection under the law. Because we proved this time and time again in American history that separate but equal is never equal. This is exactly. This is why the Dred Scott v. Sansburg decision was so important. This is exactly why Brown vs Board of Education was such a vital piece of legislation. Black Americans in this country had never received equivalent access or equivalent treatment to economic resources. And in fact, this is not even something that's just inherently king in. When in American history did black Americans receive equal opportunity and equal economic resources in this country?
- [21:22]
A
Who is the distributor of equal opportunity and equal. Like all the things, you can't answer.
- [21:26]
C
That question with a question is when did black Americans. If the question is when did black Americans ever receive equivalent economic resources or even equivalent access to say receive.
- [21:37]
A
To say receive, that implies that there's somebody who is distributing that which you Federal government. So the federal government is responsible for giving you an equal opportunity.
- [21:47]
C
They were responsible for the Homestead Acts, which gave away more than 233 million acres of land in the west and the Midwest.
- [21:52]
A
So that assumes.
- [21:54]
C
No, no, no. This isn't a quotation. This is a direct quotation. It's. It is a direct. It's a king quotation. But he's referencing the Homestead Acts, which did, which is what I stated, gave away 230 million acres of land in the west and the Midwest to white European peasant farmers, yet not, not one to this.
- [22:10]
A
Black people had access to that as well.
- [22:12]
C
How. How many got it?
- [22:14]
A
You'll see in my documentary. No, we actually have to wait for the documentary. We actually make the. Hey, I'm going to do some plugging here.
- [22:21]
C
I love it.
- [22:22]
A
I came here on my own dime.
- [22:23]
C
So we both did.
- [22:24]
B
I respect it.
- [22:25]
A
I respect it. So here's the fact you're quoting King.
- [22:30]
C
A historical source as well. But.
- [22:32]
A
Okay, so what you're saying, too, it implies the somehow moral goodness of the Homestead act to begin with. I'm not one who believes that we can fix everything with a government act. So to say that, oh, well, you know, blacks had, you know, whites had access to Social Security and blacks didn't during its inception or during its original rollout. Therefore, it's unjust, it's unequal. We need to balance it, and we need to give everybody access to Social Security. We need to give everybody access to this or that. For me, I don't agree with that presumption at all, because I don't believe in an ever expanding federal government which is meant to sovietize our system in such a way that genuine liberty is ever being infringed upon. That's what's actually happening in our country. And King was a pretty big part of that. Insofar that King took us, and I quote, I say this all the time. He took us from a trying race to a crying race. What King did is he taught us how to beg and plead. He taught us how to. He basically told us, take your hand off the proverbial plow, pick up your picket signs, because the picket sign will bring you liberation in America. That's what King did. Because again, you can look at the numbers, you can look at the data. Blacks were on an upward trajectory from the 1800s till around the 1940s and 50s.
- [23:55]
C
Yeah, and then black men started leaving the house en masse and they started abandoning their wives and kids. And Dr. King spoke to the same issue, and even Daniel Patrick Moynihan spoke to the same issue. The black community was at its economically strongest while being at its poorest from 1940 through 1966. Specifically, when Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote his Moynihan Report, which was a letter to Lyndon Baines Johnson, he said that one of the greatest problems that is impacting the black community is the root cause of it was a horrendous economic injustice visited upon black people by slavery. That's not Martin Luther King, by the way. That's Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was a deputy secretary under Lyndon Johnson. Richard Nixon, who was also a Republican president, picked up Moynihan's idea of a guaranteed annual income to mitigate and combat the economic injustices that were still being visited upon African Americans. That has nothing to do with Martin Luther King. He was the inspiration for the framework. But is that inherently communist to ensure that equal opportunity is given to everyone? I'm not asking for equal outcome, but I'm talking about equal opportunity here specifically.
- [24:51]
A
I mean, it doesn't matter. Like semantics, we can use semantics so we're blue in the face. The reality of it is if your definition of equal opportunity means a radical redistribution of wealth, means a universal basic income, then yes, that's absolutely, that's Sovietism, that's, that's communism, that's Marxism under a different name. It's wealth redistribution. And not only that, it's antithetical to the Western tradition and Western civilization because Western civilization at its core is meant to be a merit based society where. Where if a man does not work, he does not eat. Where again. And so the reality of it, if you make it, the reality of it is to the extent that we get the so called expert class and the bureaucracy involved, pretending that people are inanimate objects who society must be ordered and structured for because they're too inept to take care of themselves, we're asking for trouble, we're asking for an ensuing doom. And so what did Booker T. Washington do? He said yes, because let's recontextualize history just real quick. We had a civil war, the War between the States, really, The War of Northern Aggression.
- [26:06]
C
Northern Aggression. You're calling the Civil War the War of Northern Aggression?
- [26:09]
A
Absolutely. So we had the War of Northern Aggression that took place in this country, okay. We had, immediately after something called Reconstruction. We had the carpetbaggers and the scallywags who were basically making life in the south miserable. This is what was actually happening. And the reality of it is you had, in spite of all that, you had this upward trajectory that was taking place in many different ways. But also you had this friction that was brewing through agitation and propaganda. Because that's always been the Marxist way. Agitation and propaganda. Right.
- [26:51]
C
Without the atheist underpinning foundation, by the way, which doesn't have any belief in objective morality.
- [26:56]
A
The idea is to breed friction. That's what they were trying to do. This is what they were. And so whenever Booker T. Washington would come along, what they were trying to do is they were trying to figure out a way to mitigate all of the friction, all of the turmoil, all of the animosity. Because you have to understand, during the Civil War you had the loss of fathers and brothers and husbands and so on and so forth because black folks got tired of being so naturally. So naturally there's a lot of friction. There. And there's a lot of nuance to this, a lot of complexity to this. But there's, but, but there's friction. What, how must you navigate this friction? In order to bring about some degree of peace in society, somebody gonna have to be happy. And so I researched this. Manning Johnson even talked about this in the speech that I mentioned earlier. It's called his farewell address. Anyone can look it up on YouTube and says he and I agree that you had something called interracial commissions that began to spring up across the South. These weren't commissioned by the government or these were responsible Negro and white leaders and communities coming together, especially in the aftermath of Separate but Equal, trying to figure out, okay, how can we best navigate this thing? And when Booker T. Washington delivered a speech in Atlanta, he said, famously, cast down your bucket where you are rather than going to the government, or rather than engaging in protest and uprising and all the things. No, cast down your bucket where you are. But if God, God gave you a mind, he gave you limbs, he gave you the means to be resourceful, to form families, to do all the things, cast down your bucket where you are as a result of the things that Booker T. Washington was talking about. Twisted. And others who are part of that contingent. You saw this upward trajectory. You saw actual fruit being yielded from the kinds of things that Booker T. Washington was doing. And so when we look at that, that has tangible results, that has tangible effects and impacts. This is progress by reformation. Reformation is slower, it's harder work. But there's a character building component when one is being reformative in that way. Revolution, you can have all the character in the world. Revolution is completely different. Revolution requires no character. It exploits people's vices and people's impatience and all the things. And you might get some kind of legislative or political achievement out of your revolution, but it's unsustainable. It will soon implode because it relies on legislation more so than the character of the people. And so when you look at the history of black Americans, again, when you look at the influence of people like Booker T. Washington up into the 1940s, 50s, early 60s, and then you see the impact of the rise of the civil rights movement, because the civil rights movement, it actually precedes King. But it was able to get to a climactic point in the wake of king. From the 1960s on into today, what we see as a result of the civil rights movement is a smug disposition among many blacks, this kind of race paranoia, seeing racism where there is no racism, this kind of again, the smug disposition piece where people, black folks in particular, can be openly racist. They could just say racist things, just outrageous things that they wouldn't tolerate. From white folks, you see this kind of sense of entitlement. There was a Cato Institute study done in 2019 which asked different people of different ethnic groups which they favor socialism or capitalism. Over 60% of blacks who were, who were sampled said that they prefer socialism to capitalism.
- [30:40]
C
You have to ask yourself, and they.
- [30:42]
A
Are the only ethnic, blacks are the only ethnic group in this country who has a favorable view of socialism than they do of capitalism.
- [30:48]
C
You have to ask yourself.
- [30:49]
A
And that has to do with the kind of agitation, the kind of disruption that you see on the part of King in the civil rights movement.
- [30:57]
C
So let me ask you this. We're both Christians here at this table, I believe. So simple question. If you did say earlier, you said earlier that it is all right to discriminate against someone coming into your business based on the color of their skin, correct?
- [31:12]
A
Yes.
- [31:13]
C
So if in the Book of Acts it's written that out of one blood God made all nations of men and nations in the Greek means ethos to dwell upon the face of the earth, how in the world can you justify such an abhorrent and bigoted stance when according to the very book that you claim to believe in, just as I do, it says that we are all made of the same blood?
- [31:29]
A
Well, here's the thing. I'm not advocating for racial bigotry or racial discrimination.
- [31:34]
C
I'm saying by definition, you just did. If you just say that you will exclude someone from your business if you think that they should have that right based purely on the color of their skin, you have now become inherently anti Christian and anti and honest objective interpretation of the scriptures themselves.
- [31:49]
A
No, you're straw manning what I'm saying.
- [31:50]
C
No, I'm taking what you're saying at face value and holding you accountable for.
- [31:53]
A
Okay, so yes, you're straw manning what I'm saying. I myself, I own a business, as I said earlier in my introduction. I don't discriminate against people on the basis of their race. I might discriminate against a certain individual based on a certain factor that I might see at a given time, but I don't have this kind of broad stroke view that I don't serve these kind of people or what have you. I have very explicit views about the kind of person I hire. It's not worth getting into those things right now. But the reality is, I reserve that right. I should have that Right to exercise my freedom of Association. Absolutely, 100%. So what I am not saying is that I love it when a white business owner discriminates against blacks. I just love it. It just makes me feel all comfy and cozy on the inside. That's not what I'm saying. Because I am a Christian. I do believe that we are to treat others how we want to be treated. The golden rule. I believe that. But at the same time, I don't believe that I should coerce somebody to do something that I want them to do because I have, because I'm a Christian. They might not be a Christian, they might be some other faith or what have you. But I don't believe that I should force somebody who may or may not believe what I believe to do something. Because to the extent that you do that, it breeds resentment. It breeds all the things that I talked about earlier. So those are two completely different things.
- [33:19]
C
Someone cannot believe that you're a Christian, just as someone cannot believe you're in gravity. But the beauty about truth is this. If someone doesn't believe in gravity, sure as I just picked up the pen and drop it, they're going to run into the objective reality of the truth regardless. So it doesn't matter if you're a Christian and they're not, you are called as a Christian who by that, that means that our religion, our belief that Jesus is exactly who he claimed to be, God incarnate in flesh, should supersede whatever anyone else to say about it. Which means we should always treat others the way we want to be treated, always open our doors to those in need and those that we can serve. Didn't the master say that he who is greatest among you shall be your servant? So how again for you to even be able to make the statement that the law should not be able to compel someone to do that which is right in spite of that which is convenient for them, is inherently anti Christian and again anti biblical at its core. Which is exactly the reason that Martin Luther King got more legislation passed for black Americans than anyone else in this country. He used an inherently Christian framework to push the greatest legislation in package for black Americans in the history of this nation. Malcolm didn't do it. MAGA didn't do it. A Philip Randolph didn't do it. FDR didn't do it. Nobody did it besides Martin Luther King before his movement came in. Specifically from that time frame, from the Montgomery bus boycott through his death, no one else produced more on the bus legislation for black Americans. But you call the man a communist or a communist sympathizer with while at the very same time upholding the ideology of the very people he was fighting against.
- [34:46]
A
The reality of it is once again you keep assuming that these legislative milestones are somehow inherently great when a rally, when in fact they're not. They're not. I mean via.
- [35:00]
C
What method of demonstration can we use?
- [35:01]
A
Via. Via by a whole slew of metrics, including, I mean if you look at the so called wealth gap and you look at all of these different disparities at various as it pertains to blacks, you see the upper trajectory prior to the 50s and then you see the downward trajectory in terms. And then too it's like the core of it all is the fact that there is this kind of statist mindset that a lot of us have and you're demonstrating it right now with all due respect that the default is always government solutions, policy positions. The government's going to fix everything. Representation in Washington D.C. that's going to fix all of the issues that L as a society, l as a culture.
- [35:45]
B
Shout out to today's sponsor Quince. As the weather cools, I'm swapping in the pieces that actually gets the job done that are warm, durable and built to last. Quince delivers every time with wardrobe staples. They'll carry you through the season. They have fall staples that you'll actually want to wear like the 100 Mongolian cashmere for just $60. They also got classic fit denim and real leather and wool outerwear that look shar and holds up. By partnering directly with ethical factories and top artisans. Quince cuts out the middleman to deliver premium quality at half the cost of similar brands. They've really become a go to across the board. You guys know how I love linen and how I've talked about it on previous episodes. I picked up some linen pants and they feel incredible. The quality is definitely noticeable compared to other brands. Layer up this fall with pieces that feel as good as they look. Go to quince.comdsh for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. They're also available in Canada to too.
- [36:50]
A
Again, you look at all of the politicians that came out of this mindset out of this notion that if we can just get the right guy in Washington D.C. if we can get the right senator, the right mayor, if they, if they look like me is one of the things that they like to say, though that would never be me.
- [37:06]
C
Because you're talking to somebody that's as conservative as they come. It would Never be me.
- [37:09]
A
That's why I said the things that they like to say. But the reality of it is what has, what has, what has yielded from that, what is yielded from that mindset, that the more people we enfranchise, the more people, you know, that's showing up to vote and so on and so forth. And by the way, the poll tax affected whites. It didn't only affect blacks, but that's neither here nor there.
- [37:28]
C
It affected the poor whites. Absolutely. The same forces that impact black Americans as a whole always impact poor whites in this country. That is a true statement.
- [37:37]
A
Well, I'm not one who believes that we should take it off a race and put it on class because that's playing right into the Marxian hand. But the fact of the matter is again, this notion that politics and policies fixes everything, I reject that on its face. I tend to agree with Thomas Sowell on this particular matter in that there's no such thing as solutions, as a prudence of politics. There's only trade offs. And the trade offs have not, Austin, they have not worked to the benefit of black people in this country when it comes to self respect, when it comes to dignity, when it comes to the crime rates, when it comes to a whole bevy of things. Before the civil rights movement and all the acts that came out of it, four out of five black children were growing up in a two parent household.
- [38:26]
C
Yes.
- [38:27]
A
Today 70 plus percent of black children are growing up in a single mother household.
- [38:31]
C
Why is that?
- [38:32]
A
And so it has to do with the mindset shift. No, it has to do with what I said earlier. So the reality of it is you have black liberals and I'll stop cutting you off, I do apologize.
- [38:41]
C
No, no, no, no.
- [38:42]
A
But black liberals like to blame systemic racism. Systemic racism. That is a kind of holdover from the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow. That's what black liberals, and liberals in general blame it on. Black conservatives blame it on LBJ and the Great Society and the war on Poverty. And I'll have these niggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years. Yes, that's what black conservatives vote for. Or say rather, in terms of what is the issue in black America. Yes, I tend to agree more with the black conservatives on this particular matter, but all of them just completely disregard and ignore the role that King played in this mindset shift that took place. And it wasn't just King. It was that whole contingent, that whole bullet, that whole talented 10th W.E.B. du Bois contingent. And as you know, W.E.B. du Bois died a communist and when writing about W.E.B. du bois after his death, King actually lauded his communism as something that people shouldn't be afraid of. And I know you know this. Yes. And so the reality of it is.
- [39:52]
C
Exactly where you're quoting from.
- [39:53]
A
But again, so when you look at Alain Locke, when you look at the. The. The writers and the artists and the thinkers and the activists that comes out of this contingent which Daddy King fought so hard to be among, and his marrying of Alberta King and trying to get into the upper echelon of the Atlanta black community, when you look at all that, one of the things that they were constantly trying to propagandize and peddle was this idea of the new Negro. And I know you know this. And the whole concept behind the new Negro is predicated on this lie that the old Negro is docile, he's subservient, he's yas massa. That's what the old. That's what the old Negro is.
- [40:41]
C
A lot of them were, which is why Dr. King and his.
- [40:43]
A
And so what they were doing was they were making a caricature out of the kind of genuine progress, the reformative progress that was set forth by the likes of Booker T. Washington, George Washington.
- [40:56]
C
Carver and others, the slow, methodical progress that Dr. King called out those same liberals, which is to say, just wait on time. Time will work the situation out. The fact of the matter is, what you're deliberately ignoring is the fact. Now, it'd be one thing if we. Again, if we actually had genuinely separate but equal policies in this country or any. Any timeline in which separate policies were being equalized. They were not. They were not equal.
- [41:16]
A
They were being equalized.
- [41:17]
C
They were not equal.
- [41:18]
A
In places like Massachusetts, the Negro schools were getting 70% of the budget, whereas the white schools were getting.
- [41:24]
C
What's interesting is this. It is irrefutably true and demonstrated even to this day, that in predominantly white neighborhoods, homes are valued at, on average, 33% higher, at a minimum, 33% higher than homes in black neighborhoods. If that is not inherently racist, I don't know what is. And when racism. Again, as I said earlier, when racism.
- [41:44]
A
Can impact the economic structure, that's a very big leap. But go ahead.
- [41:48]
C
It's not a leap. Again, this is all demonstrable. This is all objectively true. Again, we can quote Dr. King directly. We can quote many of his contemporaries. Andrew Young was with him. I spoke with Andrew Young personally during that time. He spoke about when they would send black civil rights workers into these houses not wearing anything that they. No picket Signs in hand. This time, these people that may have been associated with the movement, associated with King, they would walk in. We have nothing available. We have no homes available. They send in one of their white counterparts. Well, yes, we have 10 or 13 homes available. And what do you have? How can we help you? When your racist policies or bigoted ideas can impact the economic structure of a state or a nation, the law has a place to step in. And so Dr. King was right. We did need, and we still need, a redistribution of wealth. But that's not inherently communism, because it didn't cost the nation one penny to integrate a lunch counter. It didn't cost the nation a penny to integrate, to give us the right to enter these businesses. But why is it that we are. The black community to this day was never given any degree of a reparative form of payment for the injustice visited upon slavery, upon slaves. And let's be clear. Black Americans in this country generated over $230 billion in the south because of slavery. So where's our cut of that $230 billion that we helped give the United States of America? With an economic base, by the way, it seems to me that when you're in this country and you contribute to it, you should be able to get back what you put in. If the Bible says a man that doesn't work, doesn't eat, the Bible also says you should compensate somebody for the work that they've done. And as a collective, it could easily be argued that black people have never received any degree of legitimate compensation for the $230 billion we contributed to the South's economy.
- [43:27]
A
It's interesting to me, Austin, that here you are basically saying that as a Christian, you believe that this should be the policy's position, and that should be the policy position.
- [43:38]
C
No, I'm saying. I'm saying that would be a just position. It would be just to not work someone, to not have someone do work for free, kidnap them from their homeland and then not pay them anything when meanwhile you have Japanese Americans that got 80,000 doll from the federal government for being interned in internment camps. Jews to this day still receive the reparations justly, by the way, justly for the horrendous Holocaust and going all the way back, even to the times of the Pharaoh, God always made sure that the children of Israel got some degree of reparations, even to the point of giving them manna from heaven.
- [44:09]
A
Yeah, it seems like you're picking and choosing which scriptures you want to apply, so long as it suits your narrative.
- [44:17]
C
So long as it's the truth, I'll say it.
- [44:19]
A
No, so long as it suits your narrative.
- [44:20]
C
Well, my narrative is the objective truth. That's all I'm here to tell.
- [44:23]
A
It's not the objective truth.
- [44:24]
C
Well, I haven't been proven wrong yet.
- [44:27]
A
In your mind, you haven't?
- [44:28]
C
No. In the real world, you have to understand Dr. King's legacy, the historical record. Chad speaks for myself. If I'm not applying the gospel correctly, then explain how we were able to stand and face fire hoses and police dogs and not fight back. What that did was expose the lack of moral defense for the things that the white man was doing to us, expose the weakness of the kind of bigoted mindset that enabled white people to be aggressive with us in the first place.
- [44:56]
A
Okay, so let's recontextualize even that. The use of dogs and hoses was not something that was. And I don't hear you making this claim, but since you brought it up, the use of dogs and hoses was not something that was specifically targeted to Negroes in this country. The reality of it is you can see dogs and hoses that are being used on all unlawful gatherings dating as far back as the 1920s and 30s.
- [45:20]
C
That has nothing to do.
- [45:21]
A
Well, let me. Let me make this point, though. So the fact is the communists, Marxists.
- [45:30]
C
Soviet, by the way, are we really saying that. Hold on, we have to go back.
- [45:33]
A
Are we.
- [45:34]
C
Are we really saying. Hold on, we have to go back. Are we really saying that it's all right, but hold on, Are we saying that it's all right to unleash dogs and fire hoses on peaceful protesters regardless of color?
- [45:42]
A
Peaceful protesters. Okay, so you're using leftist language, but yet you swore up and down that you were Mr. Conservative earlier. Let me. Let me finish my point.
- [45:49]
C
If they're not. If someone's not being aggressive, that's not leftist. That's truth telling. Again, objective video.
- [45:54]
A
We have video evidence they're being unlawful. They were being unlawful.
- [45:57]
C
They were breaking an unjust law. An unjust law is no law at all.
- [45:59]
A
Okay, so you're quoting King again. But listen, the reality of it is.
- [46:02]
C
Quote, the truth if you happen to tell it. Why not?
- [46:04]
A
Okay, if King is truth, and he's not, then that's fine. But the reality of it is the use of dogs, hoses, and these other crowd disbursement measures were used for quite a while in this country for the better part of the 20th century, which precedes King. These were methods that were used for entirely White, and in some cases, predominantly white labor unions and other such organizations to the extent that they would unlawfully protest. And they called it nonviolence, but that was part of their tactic, that was part of their agenda. Because what they were relying upon is the use of the media to frame it as, oh, these are people who are just peacefully gathering, not realizing that what they were actually doing was gaslighting the public.
- [46:47]
C
So was the March on Washington unlawful when the president gaslighting.
- [46:50]
A
They were gaslighting.
- [46:51]
C
Was the March of Washington unlawful when the president, United States and others met with the civil. Was that unlawful? The most. The greatest. The single greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of this country. Was that unlawful?
- [47:00]
A
I want to make my point. So without answering the question, I want to make my point. Building to your question, because the thing is, like, we can easily take things out of context. No, you said that.
- [47:09]
C
You said that the peaceful protesters.
- [47:12]
A
Austin, I'm building to your point, but I'm contextualizing it. So if you'll allow me. The reality of it is, again, it's unlawful insofar that, yes, we have a First Amendment right to the freedom of speech. That's on the books. I see that. But we are also a country of law and order, which means that we have to have some kind of structure and stability in the country. And there is a peaceful and a lawful way to protest and to demonstrate, which requires pulling permits and things of this nature. Because you still have to account for noise, you have to account for traffic. You have to account for a whole bevy of different things. This is why. This is why. Hold on. Because. Because.
- [47:51]
C
Because King pull permits when you're fighting against a racist system that won't even.
- [47:55]
A
Give you damn land if I'll. If you'll allow me. So King and his. And his contingent, they would conveniently pull permits and these racist, hostile parts of the south when they. When they. When. When it was politically feasible for them to do so, but they would not pull it in certain other circumstances so they can get the photogenic kind of moment that would be plastered on the front pages of newspapers and so on and so forth. That was part of this tactic, their tactic. That was part of their structure. They understood that to the extent that people are marching and parading and protesting in the streets without having pulled their permits, step one would be for the law enforcement to arrest them or to find them or what have you. To the extent that the jail would fill up, that was when they would implement crowd disbursement tactics to, you know, as it pertains to dogs and hoses and things of this nature.
- [48:53]
C
So unleash fire hoses on women and children and college students. That's. That's justifiable to you?
- [48:58]
A
So again, again, because yes or no, we are a country of law and order, but you have to say yes. I mean, but the thing.
- [49:05]
C
So it's all right. So y' all heard that on the record. We have a yes from Channel Jackson that it is all right. It was all right and justifiable to have Bull Connor tell them send the dogs forth and unleash fire hoses on peaceful protesters, which a large percentage of them work, were college students, around 18 to 23 women and kids.
- [49:21]
A
So. And sometimes kids as young as 6, according to James Bevel, who said that they specifically went after kids because kids were susceptible. This is what James Bevel said. But the reality of it is.
- [49:33]
C
And that makes it right to you.
- [49:34]
A
So the reality of it is, King was asked by a reporter, you know, don't you. What do you think about the fact. Don't you have any kind of moral pushback about the fact that you are, you know, going after children? You're sending children into these, into these situations where you're not pulling permits, you're not doing this, you're not doing that, you're. You're basically being an agitator. To where King's response was, sometimes you have to do these things to bring the evil out. That was just a fancy way of saying that we're going to gaslight the public until we get what we want.
- [50:09]
C
Is it gaslight the public, or is it draw attention to the fact that those of our white brothers and sisters that were afflicted with the disease of racism would do something as evil and heinous as the whole.
- [50:19]
A
So you're saying, so what is racism? A white business owner not giving you a cup of coffee or a hamburger. That's racism based.
- [50:25]
C
If it's based on the color of my skin.
- [50:26]
A
So that's worth taking your six year old and, and putting them on the streets and not knowing that they're not pulling. In fact, a lot of the parents.
- [50:34]
C
If I have a chance, a lot.
- [50:35]
A
Of the parents didn't want their kids participating in this nonsense.
- [50:38]
C
If I have a chance at all, if I have a chance to combat an injustice, whatever the risk might be, I'd be willing to take it.
- [50:45]
A
That's a waste of time.
- [50:46]
C
No, it's not.
- [50:47]
A
It is a waste of time.
- [50:47]
C
Well, the Civil Rights act of 64, the Voting Rights act of 65. The desegregation, the desegregation of the buses in 61 would also. All of that, all of objective history would disagree with everything you just said. Because if it was a waste of time, how did all of those laws get passed? Somebody had to have sense enough to put balls to the wall and say, let's get this done.
- [51:05]
A
Because what you're doing is you're taking out of consideration the fact that the government had a vested interest in seeing the success of these social justice. Yes, they did. Not only as it pertains to the civil rights movement, but as it pertains to second wave feminism, the gay liberation movement. On and on and I can. On and I can go. Because the reality of it is the government is power hungry. It wants to ever expand its power. And in a constitutional republic where you can't just, just move unilaterally, it helps to have the public opinion on your side. And so when you have all of these baby boomers who believe that they're part of some great revolution because somebody is saying something into a microphone, of course they're going to be supportive of this legislation. And the government gets to say the people wanted it. And so yes, the fact is Marxist communists, socialists and so on, they don't study the soft sciences for no reason, just for kicks and giggles. They don't study the soft sciences and, and human behavior and group behavior and all the things just to pass the time. No, they want to understand how to move society like cattle to the trajectory that they wish to take it. And they do it through social movements. The government's complicit. People like Stanley Levison and King, they are complicit in this, making this idea that King was a communist, making government control look sexy, look awesome, look like it's something that's a, that's trendy.
- [52:24]
C
We should all get behind to ensure that, that no one can.
- [52:27]
A
But it's a waste of time. It's a waste of time insofar that you'd rather take your children and subject them to a protest when you should be using that time to build businesses to.
- [52:40]
C
If you can't get the permits for the businesses because you live in a racist area where Eugene, where, where, where Governor Wall, where Governor Wallace or Bull Connor is able to. Is able to use their power, their white power, by the way, to keep you out of the business power structure. It would seem to me that you would have to. Somebody would have to take the steps.
- [52:57]
A
Who is AG Gaston? Who's Ag Gaston? You should know this Name. You're in Atlanta.
- [53:03]
C
Fill me in, huh? AG Gaston. What does he have to do? What I'm talking about?
- [53:07]
A
Okay, so A.G. gaston is. I said Atlanta. He was actually. He was a prominent black business owner. And Birmingham, I believe it was not Atlanta. There were. I just said. I just corrected myself before you said that. But anyway, so the reality of it is there were a number of prominent business owners in Atlanta and Birmingham and Montgomery. So where does this notion that they didn't get their permits to start their businesses come from? Where does that come from?
- [53:37]
C
Those are anecdotes. The collective. Are you going to argue with me that the collective south and even large sections of the collective north did not have racist policies in practice that prohibited blacks from full participation in all forms of economic activity? Are you gonna actually make that statement on camera?
- [53:52]
A
Blacks, again, just a yes or no.
- [53:54]
C
Chad, are you on the same. That there was not enough prevalent racism and racist policies and position holders that effectively kept black Americans out of the vast majority in the north and in the south, but in, particularly in the south, out of economic activity. That only requires a yes or no answer.
- [54:08]
A
Blacks were starting businesses. They were successful with their businesses. You had something called the Negro Business League. League where Philip Payton Jr. I believe his name was, was able to come out of the Negro Business League and buy a building in Harlem, move black folks into that building, and very quickly Harlem became black because of the work of people like Philip Payton Jr. That was in 1906. And so the reality of it is black people were making inroads, they were doing well, they were starting businesses, whether it was home building. I invite you to read My Larger Education by Booker T. Washington, which documents this. I invite you to read the Pittsburgh Courier, specifically the writings of George Schuyler, who was a northerner and who had this kind of hostile view of the south until he visited the south. And he traveled all of these black communities that were prominent in the south, including in places like North Carolina, South Carolina and others. He wrote about it extensively. And he himself documented the agitated work of the communists that were seeking to undo the inroads and the gains that blacks were actually making. And so to say that, well, because it wasn't happening collectively. Therefore, the Marxian policies that King were advocating for were necessary. Nonsense.
- [55:30]
C
King is not advocating for. You keep saying that. King was advocating for Marxian policy when he repeatedly condemned communism and Karl Marx directly when he stated plainly out of his own mouth on msnbc. King is. King is quoted NBC in an interview there. And in his own no he was.
- [55:49]
A
Not standing behind the pulpit.
- [55:50]
C
No, he was not. This is an interview from king in the 1960s, late 60s, a couple of years before he's killed.
- [55:55]
A
It was a color.
- [55:56]
C
This was not colorized. MSNBC asked him, and we can look this up if we can pull up King's interview where he openly condemns communism. That's right, on YouTube. It was released in the 1960s. And you're gonna hear King, out of his own mouth, say that communism is not compatible with his movement. So if you're going to call King a liar, we can do that. But you also said that he lied about being a Christian, which we can also refute that as well. But once the people see this clip, I think that just becomes easily refutable. King was not a Marxist by any speech. Was this on 60 Minutes. It's a King interview. Matter of fact, I think I have that. He literally condemns communism out of his own mind.
- [56:37]
A
Again, I invite people because, yes, you're right, he does condemn communism, not only in a couple of speeches and sermons, as well as a couple of the books, but the reality of it is if you go back and you read Robert J. McCracken's 1951 book called Questions People Ask, I'm saying this on the record because I strongly encourage people to go, okay, of course he's cutting me off the back that. But I strongly encourage people to go and read that book, read Specifically Robert J. McCracken's chapter on communism, and then go back and listen to everything King said about communism, his rejection thereof. You'll see once again, he's basically lifting what McCracken said. This, to me, smacks of disingenuousness, because if you are legitimately anti communist, why not use your own words to say it it? Why try to lift and pass somebody else's words as your own? In order to say I'm anti Communist or I renounce communism. People have to understand, according to those who were closest to King specifically, it was either Jack Hodel or James Bevel, I forget which one, who flat out said King was a Hegelian. And what that actually means is that King was very cunning and very sinister. And how he wanted to push society to embracing socialism through this kind of Fabian, Marxist way. And by Hegelian, what I mean simply by that is as it pertains to the Christian faith. King took the thesis of what the. Of what actually saith the Lord, what the Bible actually says, and the antithesis of what is Communism. And he provided what was called the synthesis, trying to Merge communism in the scriptures in this kind of subversive way so as to bewitch churchgoers into embracing this kind of socialistic view of the world. You know this as well as I do. When he wrote his letter to his then girlfriend Coretta Scott, where he talked about a radical, where he talked about wealth redistribution and all the things, nationalization of industry straight out of the Communist Manifesto. He said, this is the gospel that I will preach to the world. He didn't talk about the gospel of Jesus Christ. He didn't say anything from the scriptures. He said, he said that nationalization of industry, redistribution of wealth, this is the gospel that I will preach to the world. He would go on to do that until the day that he died in 1968.
- [59:06]
C
That's an outright lie. That's an outright lie.
- [59:08]
A
What's interesting is. I see that's an outright.
- [59:10]
C
I'm sorry, we have to respond to that. If that's the case, then I want all of you to go watch this. I want you to go look at Paul's letter to American Christians, which is a sermon from Dr. King where he yet again blatantly disavows communism and in fact calls America to repent, which is inherently religious and anti communist. Because again, communism founded by Karl Marx as a die hard atheist.
- [59:27]
A
It wasn't founded by Karl Marx, but go ahead.
- [59:29]
C
Das Kapital is the foundational work of communism. So let me correct myself. It's labeled as the foundational work of communism. And Karl Marx is an atheist, is he not?
- [59:37]
A
He is.
- [59:37]
C
Right? And I don't know any way for someone of a religious worldview to reconcile themselves to communism. And this is exactly what Dr. King did not do. He condemned communism repeatedly and in his.
- [59:47]
A
Own writings as a deceptive tactic. King was a deceiver. He was. He was an ultimate Trojan horse.
- [59:52]
C
If King was a deceiver.
- [59:53]
A
King was the biggest Trojan horse of the 20th century.
- [59:56]
C
How was he a Trojan horse for in the. From the Christian perspective?
- [59:59]
A
Again, I feel like I'm repeating myself here. There's a history here. There's a history here that precedes King as it pertains to the communist agenda.
- [60:08]
C
You talk about proceeding. I asked you plainly about Martin Luther King Jr. Himself.
- [60:12]
A
Martin Luther King, Jr. King. Martin Luther King is junior.
- [60:16]
C
Stop talking about his dad.
- [60:17]
A
I want to answer your question. I want to answer your question. Answer your question. I'm going to give you the talk. I'm going to give you the.
- [60:20]
C
Not the talking points. I want the truth.
- [60:22]
A
I'm going to Give you the bullet points and you can do with it what you will. King's father used to frequent.
- [60:28]
C
I don't care about his daddy. I care about him.
- [60:30]
A
Let me. Let me answer your question. Let it breathe a little bit.
- [60:34]
C
We're breathing.
- [60:35]
A
Okay, let. Give me time to answer your question. I want to flesh it out. Let's slow this down a little bit. I want to answer your question.
- [60:41]
C
I can only tolerate Trump's weave. What directly.
- [60:43]
A
Did Dr. Cheney answer your question? I want to answer your question. Just patience.
- [60:47]
C
Not his dad.
- [60:47]
A
Have some patience.
- [60:48]
C
I've got a lot of it.
- [60:49]
A
Okay. Show it. So when you look at the fact that the Southern Negro Youth Congress, which was a communist front group that would put on events in Atlanta and throughout the south that, you know, organizations, events that Daddy King frequented along with Rosa Parks and Ralph Abernathy and others, King was very much a part of this milieu that had at its core not the genuine Christian gospel, but the social gospel. King graduated from Booker T. Washington High School at the age of 15. He went on to Morehouse. He would then go on to Crozier Theological Seminary, which was overrun by these kind of Marxian professors. He would learn about the Hegelian dialectic and would continue his education at Boston University. He kind of. He learned how to basically mask his genuine communist sensibilities through the deceptive means of the social gospel and the Hegelian dialectic. He was a great orator. He had a front row seat to his father, who preached at Ebenezer Church there in Atlanta. According to those who were closest to him, he was an extraordinary mimic, if not a pastor. King would have been a great actor. He would have been a Sidney Poitier kind of caliber actor. He said that he didn't even want to go into ministry. He wanted to go into either law or medicine. But he ended up becoming a pastor. He was talked into it. And so the reality of it is King, according to his very own writings, I think this is either volume one or volume two of the King papers, said that he shocked his Sunday school class.
- [62:20]
C
When I denied the bodily resurrection of Christ.
- [62:22]
A
Yeah. When he denied the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, he also didn't believe. He also didn't believe in the literal existence of hell. He didn't believe in the second coming. He didn't believe in the virgin birth. He didn't believe in the basic fundamental tense of the Christian faith.
- [62:35]
C
How old was he when he had these beliefs?
- [62:37]
A
He didn't believe in the basic tenets of the Christian faith. At what age he wrote about this in his college papers.
- [62:41]
C
So he was in college here, right?
- [62:43]
A
He wrote about this in his college papers.
- [62:44]
C
Keep that in mind, Sean.
- [62:45]
A
And so shortly after having graduated from Boston, he took a commission to go work at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Alabama. And. And very quickly, he would get lumped into the Montgomery bus boycott. He would take as an advisor not only Bayard Rustin, who used to work with the Communist.
- [63:05]
C
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
- [63:06]
A
Before you do that, I'm gonna bring your. I'm gonna. I'm making the points. I want you to repeat the points when I finish, and then we're gonna have a real conversation here. So the reality of it is Bayard Rustin would get lumped in. He was a very skilled communist agitator and activist. He worked with the Young Communist League. He would go to India and do things with the communist fronts there in India. He's the one who. Well, allegedly, he's the one who brought the whole nonviolent thing to King. I don't believe that. I think that he was already on this whole nonviolent tip because that was already part of what the Communists were doing since the 1930s. Not only that, he would also be, you know, lump in Stanley Levison along with others. Stanley Levison had the idea to start the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. That was Stanley Levison's idea. Stanley Levison then would commission James Jackson, who was already working with a communist front group called the Southern Christian Leadership Conference or called the Southern Negro Youth League. He commissioned James Jackson to fill the staff of the SCLC with other communist or Marxian or communist sympathizing ministers. And so when King would later say that there's no communist a part of his organization, he was flat out lying. So that goes back to your earlier question of was King a Trojan horse or how was he Trojan horse? He was a Trojan horse insofar that his handlers, all those who he surrounded himself, those who were in his inner circle, had either worked with the Communist Party to some degree or some capacity, were subversively part of these kind of church organizations in order to, in a sense, sway churchgoers into adopting this kind of Marxian ideology. That was King. King was the face of it. And not only that, Samuel Levison had connections with all sorts of publications and journalists across the country. His face would be on the.
- [65:07]
C
Keep talking about Levinson. You keep going about. You keep going around. I asked you a simple question. What did King say directly that was anti Christian or a Trojan horse from a Christian perspective? And secondly, and I Must make this point.
- [65:18]
A
Will you look at his Easter sermon? You can look it up.
- [65:21]
C
The FBI. The FBI. If all of what he's saying is true, then the FBI would not have released a declassified memo in 1976 that said they found absolutely no ties between King and his associates and communism. The FBI, directed by J. Edgar Hoover, who hated King and called him the most hated. Excuse me, the most dangerous Negro in America. J. Edgar Hoover, the very man that hated him, releases a finding in 1976 that says that neither King nor any of his contemporaries are in fact do in fact have ties to the Communist party. So who's lying? The FBI or Martin Luther King? You gonna believe the racist man that was sleeping with that sleeping with another man? Or are you gonna believe the actual historical record of what King said and what he did?
- [65:58]
A
What gives you the impression that J. Edgar Hoover was racist?
- [66:03]
C
Jesus Christ. Am I sitting across the table from a black man? Well, let's start with the fact that he despised, openly stated he despised Dr.
- [66:11]
A
King stated that he felt that he was needing subversive. King was a communist sympathizer. King was a generate.
- [66:17]
C
If he was a sympathizer then J. Hoover would have released that in his writings. Why did he allow the FBI in 1976?
- [66:23]
A
Because he was. He was after all. He was after all an agent of the government which again, wait a minute. Wishes to expand itself.
- [66:30]
C
So first he's a communist, now he's an agent of the government. You can't flip flop like this. J. Edgar Hoover. No, J. Edgar Hoover stated that King was not a communist in a classified. In a declassified memo that came out to the FBI in 1976. So was King a communist or was he not if the very FBI director who had better access to wiretap Dr. King's hotel rooms and cover all of what King was doing. If he says he's not, but you're saying that he is. I hate to say this, but I think I'd actually side with Jacob Hoover in this instance. It sounds to me like you're the one that is pushing a BS narrative about Martin Luther King when the actual FBI director that hated his guts said he wasn't. What makes you more trustworthy?
- [67:07]
A
Interview again quoting King's very own writings. I have all the volumes of King's papers. I have the correspondence between he and Stanley Levison. Not all of it because not all of it's released. All this information where. And again the interviews where he's talking. I've covered this at length on my own. Socials.
- [67:26]
C
He hasn't refuted what I said about Jacob Hoover, by the way, at all.
- [67:30]
A
I've talked about this at length on my own socials and everything that King was definitely pushing a communist.
- [67:37]
C
Was J. Edgar Hoover lying when he said King had no ties to Communism? Yes or no?
- [67:41]
A
Have you read the.
- [67:41]
C
Have you read, was J. Edgar Hoover lying? I'm going to ask this question to you. I get a straight answer from you. Was J. Edgar Hoover lying when he said that King was not did or his contemporaries did not have any direct ties to Communism? Was Hoover lying? Have you read was Jed Hoover lying?
- [67:59]
A
Have you read the recently released King papers?
- [68:01]
C
Was J. Edgar Hoover lying when he released a memo to the FBI that stated that King was not did not have any ties to Communism?
- [68:08]
A
Have you read the recently released King papers?
- [68:10]
C
So we're going to answer a question with a question which lets me know that what I'm asking is correct because that would force you with me.
- [68:15]
A
Have you read the pushing released narrative?
- [68:17]
C
That would force you to admit.
- [68:18]
A
Would you rather reflect King papers?
- [68:20]
C
That would force you to admit that has nothing to do with what I'm asking. Yes, it does nothing to do what I'm asking.
- [68:24]
A
Yes it does. Have you read the release?
- [68:25]
C
Have you, can you answer that question directly?
- [68:27]
A
Have you read the recently.
- [68:28]
C
No, I have not.
- [68:29]
A
Okay, so if you did, then you will know that there was a direct line of communication between the SCLC and the Soviet Union. You would know that.
- [68:35]
C
So the SCLC is not what I that is not what I asked the King's organization specifically. I asked you specifically.
- [68:43]
A
Was King's organization the King that he was the President.
- [68:46]
C
And why, if this is true, why did the FBI not call him a communist then?
- [68:50]
A
The very reason why the you had in the 80s Reagan signed a bill making King a national holiday. The same reason that we have a 40 foot statue of him in Washington D.C. well that's the list of the same reason.
- [69:02]
C
If the government was found guilty of killing him in the 90s, the US government and you can look this up, the US government lost a civil suit to the King family in the 90s for being a conspirator to kill Dr. King. So the reason he got a holiday was because the federal government assisted in the taking of his life as well as in the illegal wiretapping of his hotel rooms and his private residences. So I think that that's the least they could do is give the man a holiday after they had him set up to get killed.
- [69:22]
A
Lord have mercy.
- [69:23]
C
So I know the truth It's a real dangerous.
- [69:26]
A
So the fact of the matter is the reason why a government agent would have an interest to say, nope, he was in a communist. Nothing to see. Here is the same reason once again that that same government would build a national holiday around him after sending him.
- [69:43]
C
A letter asking him to kill himself.
- [69:44]
A
They didn't send him a letter asking him to kill himself.
- [69:46]
C
Yes, they did. J. Edgar Hoover had the letter sent. This was. This is declassified. First of all, you can look this up right now. The FBI sent Dr. King a let the late 60s that said if you do not let her Said if you let him finish.
- [70:00]
A
Go ahead.
- [70:00]
C
If you said you know what to do, that you have a certain number of days in which to do it. The. The number of days has been selected for a reason. And if you don't, we will expose you for what you are to the world. They were talking about Kings infidelities. The tapes were sent to msnbc. They were sent to multiple news outlets. No one did a cover story on it.
- [70:19]
B
I got this pulled up. Let's pull it up on the screen.
- [70:21]
C
Yeah, absolutely.
- [70:22]
B
So I said, did the FBI send a letter to MLK saying to kill himself? It says in late 1964, shortly after King won the prize, threatening.
- [70:29]
C
Anonymous letter.
- [70:30]
B
Anonymous letter, cassette tape.
- [70:32]
C
And Chad just said they didn't send him this, by the way. But here's the proof.
- [70:34]
A
Okay? Any like this is gonna be.
- [70:36]
B
This was sent by FBI Assistant Director William Sullivan.
- [70:40]
A
And I said, william Sullivan. So. Okay, so let's. Let's do this real quick.
- [70:44]
C
Wait, was this authentic or not?
- [70:45]
A
Hold on. Let. Like, can I say something?
- [70:47]
C
Yeah. Well, it's authentic.
- [70:48]
A
So this is going to be unedited, right?
- [70:50]
B
Yeah.
- [70:51]
A
Okay, good. So you said that they sent a letter telling him to kill himself. And I said, no, they didn't. Right. And then he just pulled up chat GPT.
- [71:00]
C
I said they sent him a letter threatening to expose him if he did not kill himself within a certain number.
- [71:04]
A
Did he or did he not say they sent him a letter telling him to kill himself?
- [71:06]
B
I believe you started with that, but then you clarified.
- [71:09]
A
Okay, so the reality is, no, there's no evidence of a letter telling King to kill himself.
- [71:14]
C
It's right there.
- [71:15]
A
No, you're making an implication on what.
- [71:17]
C
No, it's not an implication.
- [71:18]
A
Yes, you are. You're making an implication on what the letter was.
- [71:21]
C
If they say you know what to do. And in the, in the letter or tapes of King having sex with women that were not his wife and they wanted to Use that as a way to blackmail the man. That is very. The doctrine of implication is real. There's only one way that that leads.
- [71:33]
B
It does say implied in this. So he is right.
- [71:35]
C
Exactly right. I know that.
- [71:37]
A
So let's, let's, let's make a truce from here on out. Out. Right. I'm not going to cut you off or interrupt you. You're not going to cut me off or interrupt me?
- [71:44]
C
I'll try.
- [71:45]
A
Okay, so here's the reality of it is. The reality of it is that the civil rights movement dates as far back as the late 19th century. By the time you get to the 1930s under FDR, it would morph into something called the National Negro Congress. This was led by a Philip Randolph. He was the president of the National Negro Congress. What's interesting about the National Congress is that it came out of a commission that FDR built in cahoots with Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union. So you had the communists and you had the feds who had an interest in the civil rights movement in America. Right. When it was found out that the communists were active from an authoritative standpoint with the National Negro Congress, it became a huge scandal. So a Philip Brandolph, who was a socialist, a self admitted socialist, left the National Negro Congress. It is in fact the National Negro Congress who started what I mentioned earlier, which was called the Southern Negro Youth Congress, who put on events that Daddy King would frequent by the time you get to the 60s, late 50s, especially with the success of the Montgomery Bus boycott, even though that's hard to say whether it was a quote unquote success because it was actually a Supreme Court decision that, that ruled the separate but equal was that concluded. That concluded the Montgomery Bus Boy. It wasn't anything that King was doing, but it's neither here nor there.
- [73:15]
C
Walking together for 381 days and causing an economic strain.
- [73:18]
A
It's not doing anything but okay, so the reality of it is that by the time so it was National Negro Congress, it would become the civil rights movement Under King. King, the feds had a vested interest. And you can read a book by Risa Golubov. She's a law professor, I think she's actually the dean of the University of Virginia. She wrote a book called the Lost Promise of Civil Rights where she actually documents the government's interest in using the civil rights movement to expand its own power. So that's what the civil rights movement was. The debate that was being had internally was who should lead the movement. Should it be King? Should it be a Philip Randolph. John F. Kennedy wanted Randolph to be the leader of the movement because he, as far as he could tell, Randolph was clean. Not only that, the Kennedy family has for a long time worked really closely with unions. And it just so happened that a. Philip Randolph was the leader of the union, the Brotherhood for Sleeping Carporters. And so Kennedy believed that Randolph should lead the movement. Stanley Levinson, the Soviet Union, the communist contingent, believed that King should move it because they had tried and failed time and again to make an inroad into the black community. They tried it with Paul Robeson, who was an entertainer, and that only went so far. They tried it with a. Philip Randolph, who was a labor activist. That went but so far. But with King, ah, now we have something. We have a minister who has a captive audience, especially in the south, because most blacks were churchgoers. And if we can make King larger than life, he could. And King was a phenomenal orator. I'm not going to take that from him. Great, extraordinary orator. And so they had something with King. They finally struck gold. Mind you, the communists were trying to penetrate the west since the 19th century, and they finally at long last had their guy. And so they thought that King should be the leader of the movement. There was this kind of internal debate over who should be the leader when it comes to William Sullivan, who was an assistant in the FBI. He actually wanted the civil rights movement to exist. He just disagreed with this notion that King should lead the movement. They thought that King was a liability because King was having extramarital affairs. He was involved in orgies and all kinds of things that if the public found out about, would bode badly for the civil rights movement, which again, the feds needed to expand their own power. And so the letter that was sent to King by William Sullivan wasn't a letter telling him he should kill himself. The or else was that if you don't hang it up, we're going to release these tapes to the press and it will be. That's what I said earlier, and it will be an embarrassment to King. So they were basically. Sullivan was basically taking a gamble. It was kind of a kamikaze kind of thing because he. He understood that. That they too will be exposed and all of this, the feds will be exposed. But the reality of it is, if you don't actually hang it up, we're going to expose you.
- [76:30]
C
It wasn't about hanging it up, and you know it wasn't. The lie you're telling is insane because we.
- [76:34]
A
Let me finish. I'll Give you plenty of time to answer. Just let me finish this point. So the reality of it is they knew full well that or what they were trying to convince King to do was to hang it up or we're going to release it to the press. The press who was sympathetic to the movement wouldn't touch the tapes or anything of that nature. So it was actually a foreign publication that would run some of these stories. But American journalists by and large wouldn't even touch. Wasn't or we're going to kill you or it wasn't trying to tell him to commit suicide. It was rather to step down from leadership of the movement. Because the internal debate they were having once again was who should lead the movement. That's what it was about. The reason why I said he didn't receive a letter telling him to kill himself because there's no explicit language in that letter that says you need to kill yourself. They were trying to intimidate him into stepping down from leadership of the movement. The doctor proved.
- [77:28]
C
Because they were trying to get him to kill himself.
- [77:30]
A
Chad. And you know they were trying to get him to. To step down from the movement in order to save himself the embarrassment because they wanted the movement to exist under different leadership.
- [77:39]
C
Save himself the embarrassment. This is how we know you're lying. The FBI. And before they sent that letter, you'll find if you go look at the declassified documents that the FBI sent seven tapes to his wife's house as a warning message. So if they wanted to save King the trouble of embarrassing himself, they didn't give a shit about embarrassing his marriage. Right. They didn't care about that.
- [77:57]
A
And the. In the civil rights. So they didn't read.
- [78:00]
C
They wanted to save him by screwing up his marriage with his wife. Obviously we know Dr. King sleeping with women that ain't your wife is wrong. But that ain't the point. The, the FBI sending warning tapes to his wife. And then you're trying to say that they weren't trying to tell him to off himself. It was. They. They weren't directly saying it. There's no language. No, that's what I'm talking about. The doctrine of implication. They were implying they gave. And you can go read the actual text of the letter itself. It says this number of days has been specified for a reason. If it's not met, we will expose you for the fraudulent Antichrist individual that you.
- [78:28]
A
So they, they lay out the reason. Then they, they accidentally. They actually call out what the reason is.
- [78:32]
C
They gave him a specific number of days to get Rid of himself? Yes, absolutely.
- [78:36]
A
Or else we'll expose you.
- [78:37]
C
Yes. And they. And the exposure and the expose day was they sent the tapes to the news. They. The news.
- [78:42]
A
I just said, what good does it do to expose somebody who's dead because he killed himself? Well, what good does that?
- [78:48]
C
You're not. You're. You're not paying attention. I just said they gave him time to off himself. If he didn't, they would release the tapes to expose him, to force anyway. That was their idea. It's either you. Either you push your own button or we're gonna release these tapes and by the time in the backlash you're getting, you're gonna want to do it anyway. That's the whole point. And you know that. That's why the implied language of the FBI is so important here. And that's why I encourage all of you, if you watch this episode, look up the letter that the FBI sent to King for yourselves and you tell me whether or not what they're implying. You tell me for yourself. Else, don't listen to either one of us right now. Because this idea that the FBI in any capacity was actually genuinely concerned about the civil rights movement surviving is bullshit, and you know it.
- [79:30]
A
Okay? So the fact of the matter is you're. You're basing this notion that the implication was to kill himself on just the hunch you have. You sound a lot like Candace Owens to me. Me?
- [79:44]
C
Not the hunch, the objective evidence, the reality. Shout out to Candace Owens, by the way, good. Great work, Candace. Keep it up.
- [79:50]
A
Whereas what I'm doing is I'm making deductive reasoning based on other documents that came out of what we've seen as it pertains to King and the surveillance thereof, where you have internal memos between William Sullivan and other FBI agents where they're actually talking about, we need to get this person at the head of the movement instead of King. Or they were using language such as, and we'll actually cover this in the documentary that the Negroes are being misled by this movement. We believe that this guy would be better off or a better fit to lead the movement. It wasn't a desire to sink the movement. It was rather a desire to redirect the movement with somebody that they thought would be more fit to lead it. They didn't believe that King would be fit to lead it because of all of the extramarital affairs and things he was doing behind closed doors. And so again, the reason affairs been.
- [80:43]
C
Confirmed, not no affair has been officially confirmed. Other outside of witness Testimony. The tapes that the FBI has on King are not scheduled to be released until 2027.
- [80:54]
A
So there's a book written by his best friend.
- [80:57]
B
Sorry to cut you off, by the way.
- [80:58]
A
No, no, you're fine. There's a book written by his best friend, Ralph Abernathy, where he confirms the fact that King was sleeping around. That book is called Tearing down the Walls or something like that. I think Tearing down the Walls and the Walls Came to the Wall does.
- [81:13]
B
Say most historians agree that MLK has had extramarital affairs.
- [81:17]
A
You look at the work of Taylor Branch and other official King historians.
- [81:20]
C
Yeah, I mean, Andy Young has spoken about this publicly. But again, from an official standpoint, those tapes are not scheduled to be released until 2027. So it's just. Technically speaking, it's just what they know.
- [81:31]
A
So, Austin, the point that I'm making here is that when I say that the implication was step down from the movement or we're going to make your affairs and everything public, I'm basing that on the fact that the feds, according to the internal memos from FBI agents, was that we want the movement to exist. We just just don't think that King should be at the head of it. So this notion, because, to use your word, you said that they wanted the civil rights movement to exist is bullshit?
- [82:05]
C
No, I'm saying the fact that your argument that they were genuinely concerned with the success of the civil rights movement, that is bullshit.
- [82:11]
A
No, no, they wanted the civil rights movement to succeed again, not only in the 60s, but dating as far back as FDR's days and during Reconstruction, because what it would do is it would expand federal authority. That's the point that I'm making. And so that the civil rights movement, feminism, gay liberation movement, the hippie movement, all of these things, these social justice movements were meant, were being utilized in many ways by the government to expand its own power through public opinion. Because you first have to win in the court of public opinion before you can win in the court of law. As far as they could see it in a monarchy or in a dictatorship, where a king or a dictator can move unilaterally, you don't necessarily need the public opinion as much as you do in a democracy or a constitutional republic. And so, as a result of this, our government was complicit in kind of fanning the flames of social justice movements in order to expand its own power. That's the point that I'm making. So, yes, the feds absolutely wanted the civil rights movement to succeed because it would bolster them as a. It would expand their power.
- [83:23]
C
But that still doesn't. You know that still.
- [83:25]
A
So the feds were complicit in that. Yes, they did want the civil rights movement to see. They just didn't believe that King should be ahead of it. And for me, I don't have a dog in the race because I don't believe. I don't believe that the civil rights move. I don't believe in the civil rights movement at all. I come from the Booker T. Washington school of thought fault. I believe in conventional means to success. And not only that. To the extent that we have a constitution, the Constitution and the Supreme Court, depending on whether that Supreme Court was super liberal or conservative. You did see states who attempted to try to pass some kind of, to use your word, racist policy or what have you, and those laws and those restrictions and so on and so forth being basically being done away with by the actions of the Supreme Court and decisions that were made, I think 1917. I wrote it down here earlier. You had Buchanan v. Worley. That was 1917. And you had a few other Supreme Court cases where you did have, at the state and local level, this attempt to mandate segregation, which I believe is completely unconstitutional. Please understand. I believe that government forced segregation at the state level is completely unconstitutional. I'm in alignment with Bob Woodson, though. And how do you fight that? Do you fight it through desegregation or do you fight it through forced integration? There's a distinctive difference between those two. Bob Woodson left the civil rights movement because he saw that. And there's a picture that I have Bob Woodson standing right next to Bayard Rustin, who was one of King's advisors and speechwriters, the reality of it is that to the extent that you render it unlawful and unconstitutional for the state to dictate what door negro go out of or comes in or what have you, versus leaving it up to the individual business owner to make their own decisions as to who they will associate with or disassociate with, you're running afoul of the Constitution. And so Bob Woodson believed or said, and I agree, that desegregation was his goal. That is not allowing states to dictate how you run your private business. So what we did with forced integration in the civil rights movement is we essentially traded one tyrant for another. The tyrant of the state. How is the tyrant of the state. How is that enforcing segregation being replaced with the tyrant of the feds enforcing integration? And so again, both are infringing upon the individual's right to freedom of association.
- [86:20]
C
If it's. If it's well documented. However, once again, going back to the very start of this discussion, if it is well documented that there has never been a point in American history, history were separate, was ever equal, then it becomes constitutionally necessary. If we're. Hold on. If we're going to be given equal protection under the law, then, damn it, it becomes necessary for the federal government to ensure equivalent access to some of these institutions, mainly public accommodations. The only reason, the only reason that the civil rights movement was successful is because it was literally founded upon the. The principle being put in practice, that all men are created equal. If that's in our founding document, then why in the world should businesses and organizations not be compelled to treat all men as such? If all men are created equal, why should I have the right to stop somebody from coming into my business based purely on the color of their skin? If all men are created equal, why should I have the right to stop a woman from voting or stop anyone from doing anything that it is they want to do as long as they're not breaking the law? Because the second that you do that, what you are doing is undermining the supreme law of the land in the Constitution. And you know that as well as I do.
- [87:20]
A
Okay, so you said a lot, and I'll try my best to remember everything that you said. So the reality of it is this notion that all men are created equal. Yes, we're created equal by God in terms of dignity, in terms of value, so on and so forth. But one of the things that God doesn't do is make us robots that just do everything we're supposed to do all the time. No, we have autonomy. We have decisions to make. The decision to be born again, to repent and be born again, is a decision that you have to make. We all have to give an account for the lives that we live individually.
- [88:04]
C
And we shouldn't care about the collective good then. So we should do the opposite of what Jesus tells us to do.
- [88:07]
A
One of the things that I think is fascinating is when it came to our founding fathers and the construction of our Constitution, they were really faced with a very interesting task of government building, building, of nation building. And one of the things that they were contending with as students of history is a lot of questions, philosophical questions. I mean, if you read the Brutus Papers, if you read the, the Federalist Papers, the anti Federalist papers, or writings of people like Alexander Hamilton, yes, Who celebrated in our day, but also the readings or the writings of people like Robert Yates and Patrick Henry and others who were making some very interesting points that I happen to agree with about the size of government, the function of government, so on and so forth. It became a very contentious thing, as you well know. And what Robert Yates and Patrick Henry and Luther Martin and others were trying to warn against was we can't, we can't come off the back of having won this war for independence only to build our own behemoth federal government in the United States. We have to respect individual liberty. We have to. And I understand the contradictions of that given the fact that slavery existed and all that, that notwithstanding three fifths of a person. But the, the reality of it is you have to respect sovereignty of the individual, of the local townships of the states. We are supposed to be a United States, lowercase U, capital S. That, that's what we are supposed to be. Before we had the Constitution, we had the confederation of the States and there was this, this, this, this friction that was going on between the Founding Fathers such to where as you know, Patrick Henry didn't even show up to the Constitutional Convention. He famously said, I smell a rat. Because he envisioned the, or he foresaw the north reneging on a lot of the compromises, the so called compromises that they were making in the Constitution. And so you do understand the inherent.
- [90:19]
C
Hypocrisy though of the Founding Fathers.
- [90:21]
A
You understand that the reality of it is they were dealing with what they had in terms of, of the history of the world, the writings of in the Scriptures as well as the writings of people like Socrates and Plato, as.
- [90:36]
C
Well as dealing with what they had. There's nowhere in the Scriptures that says that a Black man is 3/5 of a person. Chad.
- [90:41]
A
They were, they were looking at some of the thoughts that, the thinking that came out of the Enlightenment and so on. And so they were, they were continuing with all this. And not not only that, they were also looking at the history of the early settlers in the, in the United States, specifically in Jamestown and Plymouth. With where in Jamestown in particular, I'm building up to a point here, in Jamestown in particular, they, they implemented a communal system from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. They would store up all the grain and the storehouses. And the idea was you come and get it as you needed. And this system proved to be an abysmal failure. Within the space of four years people were eating shoelaces and rats and, and I think half the population died until John Smith, the Famous John Smith scrapped that system and implemented a system of private property. And so there's a lot of history that goes into the concocting of our Constitution which is to make for a more perfect union.
- [91:35]
C
Hell of a lot of hypocrisy in there too. I love the Constitution, but a lot of hypocrisy because these are the same brothers that said that we, you and I, were only seen as 3/5 of person in these people's eyes. We can't laud these men on one point, but then not understand that while they're flawed, we must pursue the full fulfillment of the Constitution in practice. We can't do that.
- [91:55]
A
So.
- [91:55]
C
So the question going back to what I was saying earlier and why this is again so significant is if all men are created equal. I remember you said this with your interview with Officer Tatum, that Title 2 and Title 7 of the Civil Rights act were unconstitutional. If all men are created equal, even if it must be mandated by law or force, you should have equivalent access to anywhere that anyone else has equivalent access to.
- [92:15]
A
Okay, so just to get back on to the point that I was making, making that when it comes to the Declaration of Independence and the notion that we hold these truths to be self evidence that all men are created equal.
- [92:26]
C
Yes.
- [92:30]
A
How do you implement that? How do you enforce that? Do you do it through redistributive means? And this is a rhetorical question. Do you do it through. This is a question, in fact, that the Founding Fathers were trying to contend with. The reality of it is what they had in mind, specifically Thomas Jefferson and others, was the pursuit of property and private ownership, the ability to be, you know, to have rights within yourself and the freedom of association, so on and so forth. What King and his, and not just King, the whole liberal contingent would do later on is that they would reinterpret that. To say that my equality is contingent on what the government gives me through redistributive and equitable policies and monies and so on and so forth.
- [93:27]
C
There would have been nothing to redistribute had things been given out fairly to begin with. That's the part you're negating. You're negating the fact that slavery was one of the greatest produced, one of the single greatest economic imbalances between races in the history of this country.
- [93:38]
A
Slavery exists and, and far precedes the history of this country.
- [93:44]
C
I'm aware it precedes the history. I'm talking about how slavery within the confines of the United States directly impacted black Americans. If I Just told you, and we know, and this is on the record that we produced over $230 billion for the Southern economy, yet didn't get one penny of it. That is an economic injustice that has been created that the federal government must now recompense itself.
- [94:02]
A
What's your proof that they didn't get one penny of it?
- [94:05]
C
Have black people in this country received a reparation. Okay, a reparations bill?
- [94:09]
A
Have we received the fact that, that.
- [94:11]
C
Have we been given the $250,000? Have the, have the collective of black Americans in the United States been given either land or cash and land or some form of a reparations package to the same degree that the Japanese Americans that were interned in internment camps got, or that the Jews have gotten from the pain, from the pain they suffered in the Holocaust and the other instances where they were being unjustly oppressed. Has that ever happened on a national level? Just a yes or no.
- [94:33]
A
So here's the fact that. Fact. The, the reality is that, you know.
- [94:37]
C
Reality is we haven't gotten.
- [94:38]
A
I'm not, I'm not going to again. So, so it's interesting earlier how you're talking about your Christian bona fides, but yet. And still you, you believe that vengeance is yours, that you must. Yeah. You must be made right. And, and the fact that slaves existed and there's the billions of dollars and we haven't gotten paid anything. We need to come and get our check. To use Kings world words, the reality of it is like is your God forgiving or isn't he?
- [95:05]
C
God is very forgiving.
- [95:06]
A
But so why are you trying to reach back into the past and get something that you think belongs to you?
- [95:11]
C
Because the economic impact of the past still has an impact in the present.
- [95:14]
A
Okay, so what, 230 billion.
- [95:15]
C
Here's why. Because if, because the $230 billion that black slaves contributed to the South's economy is one of the primary reasons that the United States is as strong as it is economically today, all these years later. That's why. So when the past, when the past economic injustice has a current present impact on the economic standing, particularly of a given race, it would seem logical to me because the effect is so long lasting that you can do something to make those repairs. And again, this is coming from someone. Let me make this point. This is coming from somebody that is as conservative as they come. But the one reason that I'm very pro reparations is because it does not matter what we do with the money. Black people in this country endured a Stigmafication of our own skin color that has not been endured by any other race that has ever been here. So based on that, I mean, you can say, lord have mercy. I mean, if the truth offends you that badly, then you might need to switch Bibles. But the point is that that has happened. It's demonstrably provable that what I've said has happened. And it is demonstratively provable and verifiable that no overall reparations package has ever been handed to black people in the way that has been handed out to other groups across time. And you know that this is the truth.
- [96:23]
A
So you, you sound like you just, you know, came here right after reading Nicole Hannah Jones 1619 Project or maybe even X Kendi's. You know, the last thing I read.
- [96:34]
C
Was the book of Proverbs. Actually, I read that this morning.
- [96:36]
A
Racist or, or what have you. But the reality of it is like you're, you're, you're speaking like your presumption is, is out of this redistributive mindset.
- [96:45]
C
No, it comes from. My presumption comes from Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Richard Nixon, who proposed the UBI which was founded on King's framework. Daniel Patrick Moynihan is actually the chief influence that I'm coming here with because he advocates stated that it is the duty of the federal government to issue as much economic corrective imbalance as needed to justly make up for the horrors of the economically that were visited upon black people who were in slavery. That's not me, that's not Martin, That's Moynihan.
- [97:12]
A
The issue with.
- [97:13]
C
So do you disagree with Moynihan or is he also a communist?
- [97:15]
A
I just, I disagree with the solutions of Moynihan, but I don't agree. But I do agree with some of his findings in terms of the out of wedlock birth and things of this nature.
- [97:25]
C
You agree with part one of the Moynihan report, just not part two.
- [97:28]
A
Just because I agree with somebody's identification of a problem doesn't necessarily mean I'm always going to agree with their solution to fix the problem.
- [97:35]
C
Well, he identified a slew of problems. The pathology of the tangle of pathology they talked about in part three of his report actually went back to the foundation, foundation of his work, which was based on E. Franklin Flazer, who you well know, who also spoke to the economic ridiculousness that was visited upon us via slavery. So you have E. Franklin Flazer, who's a black man, by the way, laying this framework down a white man in Moynihan comes up, picks up where he left off and says that the best thing that the government can do is offer an economic correction for black people because the economic injustice that was visited upon us by slavery. But you don't want to agree with that, Porter Moynihan, because it would force you to admit, admit that your worldview is based on a faulty assumption and it's based on a pseudo Christianity, which is what you've been preaching this entire two hours I've been sitting here. There's no. This is my last point. There is no way you can say with a straight face that the Gospel is not both social and theological. That's why I use the example of the Good Samaritan. Because if someone is injured, if someone is down, you help them. When you see an injustice being done, you correct them.
- [98:31]
A
You don't coerce the government by way of taxpayer to help them. You help them. Yeah, I agree with that.
- [98:36]
C
Render unto CC that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's. And I don't know, I don't know if any. I don't know anywhere in the world. I don't know anywhere in the scripture where God condemns somebody for doing that which is right. I've never seen it on a national level or on an individual level. And I highly doubt that the carpenter that you claim to worship as I do would have a problem with me advocating for an economic correction to be given to my people, especially after they were raped and beaten in pillage for 250 years, just like the descendants of Jesus himself.
- [99:01]
A
Okay, Ibram X Kendi. So the reality of it is King James Bible.
- [99:06]
C
Actually it's a much better book.
- [99:08]
A
So here's the thing. I feel like you're talking in circles. With all due respect, I could have.
- [99:14]
C
Said the same thing 40 minutes ago. I just let you talk.
- [99:17]
A
I feel like you're talking in circles. With all due respect. And what you're doing is no different. I mean, there's nothing new under the sun. What you're doing is no different than any politician. And I know you have aspirations for running for president one day, so it's fitting. But what you're doing is no different.
- [99:32]
C
I'm a person involved in politics. I'm not a typical politician. That's a combination of two words, poly, which is Greek for many, and ticks. And those are blood sucking insects. I came to weed them out, not be one of them.
- [99:42]
A
Well, that's interesting because you sound like the quintessential politician insofar that you believe that the way to fix a problem that's inherently cultural is to throw money at it. That's what you're inherently cultural.
- [99:53]
C
It's a sin problem. I'm here to combat a sin.
- [99:56]
A
Absolutely. Yeah, touche.
- [99:58]
C
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. And I'm here only to correct.
- [100:01]
A
And then he was King again.
- [100:02]
C
Well, I mean, you know the man, you said it yourself, he's a great orator. I like to think I'm close to him, but not quite there. So when he's great, you stay with the great.
- [100:09]
A
Most of his speeches were written not by him, but by his communist handler.
- [100:14]
C
That's an absolute lie. I have his own, I've seen his own writings in my own eyes. I've gotten my hands on quite a few of them. And they were not the idea that Levison.
- [100:21]
A
And here's a book recommendation for you. Go, go read a book called Dangerous Friendship which documents the friendship, the partnership between King and Stan Levison. Not written by a conservative, not written by somebody who hates King. In fact, it's written by somebody who's an admirer of King in Stan Levison. Go read that book. And if you're watching this, I recommend you go read that book as well. And you'll get insight into the construction of King's speeches.
- [100:51]
C
You'll get insight into a couple of the introductions and a couple of the frameworks of some of King's speech speeches. But to actually get a full view of him himself, I would suggest that you all go read his last book, Where Do We Go From Here? Which was published in November of 1967, before he was assassinated.
- [101:05]
A
Also also largely handled and edited by Stanley Ellison.
- [101:11]
C
So there's no objective evidence to prove that either.
- [101:14]
A
So the, the fact of the matter is, you know, again, this, I do agree with you, I concede that it's inherently a sinful problem. So thank you for that correction. But the point that I'm making is that there's practical and conventional means to dealing with the issues and the pathologies of a given people that politics can't fix, that throwing money at the problem cannot fix. And in fact the notion that the people have in a given community that this policy is going to handle my problems, this so called leader, this activist who's lobbying the government on my behalf is going to take care of my problems. What that then does is that deincentivizes the responsibilities that are incumbent on each individual within that given community to do what is Necessary within themselves to make a way for themselves. I'm hoping that makes sense. Again, the reason why I said earlier that the work of King moved blacks from a trying race to a crying race. Race that wasn't to be funny. That wasn't to do a gotcha or slogan. I said that because I genuinely mean it. Again, how do you account for the upward trajectory, the upward mobility that you saw under the behest of the leadership of people like Booker T. Washington at the turn of the 20th century to all of a sudden this downward trajectory? I mean, people can say that it's racism and riots and all the things.
- [102:43]
C
No, the downward trajectory had nothing to do with King. The downward trajectory. We already stated this.
- [102:46]
A
It had to do with the mindset.
- [102:47]
C
It had to do with black males leaving the home from 1940 through 1965. That has nothing to do with King. That has nothing to do. Moynihan himself could not confirm directly what caused black men to begin leaving the house from 1940 through 1964. Dr. King couldn't confirm it. No one did. But when Moynihan released his report, Dr. King Calls Moynihan and says, I agree with you in private, but I can't support you in public because the civil rights leaders called Moynihan a racist for that. So there. That has nothing to do with Martin Luther King. That has specifically to do with, for whatever reason, black men in the United States abandoning black families. The government never kicked them out. Government simply replaced them with welfare when they left. That was the downfall. That was the flaw of the social justice programs of the Lyndon Johnson administration.
- [103:30]
B
Chad, I'll let you respond to that. We got 10 minutes. Just a heads up. Respond to that and we'll do closing statements.
- [103:35]
A
Okay? Okay. So again, this notion that exclusively has to do with black men leaving the home, even. Even if that were true, because I do understand that that's the point that Moynihan makes. That doesn't just happen just suddenly one day. It happens again after the shifting of a mindset. The reality of it is in the taking the hand, the proverbial hand, out the plow and picking up the picket sign. What a young militant is doing, as we saw in the 1960s and 70s, 70s, as echoed by the late Nikki Giovanni, who, in an interview with James Baldwin, said that our generation is different. We decided to become protesters as opposed to carrying on the businesses that our fathers and that our grandfathers made. She was saying something key that was happening with these baby boomers as they were coming of age. Not only in the so called black community, but also in other communities, communities as well. There was a mindset shift that was taking place that did result in the fathers leaving the house, that did result in a whole bevy and a whole slew of other things that contributed to the disparities that we, that we now see. It's easy to blame it on racism and the legacy of slavery and all the things. But if that were true, how, how come we saw these upward, this upward mobility, this upward trajectory that took place after slavery from the, from the late 19th century into the early part or the middle part of the 20th century. And so why is it that the, the effects of slavery skipped a generation or they didn't skip the generation? Just to finish my point, the mindset shift is a very real thing. Whenever Joseph H. Jackson, which is somebody I highly recommend people listen, look into and I don't know if you're aware of who he is or not. He was the president of the National Baptist Convention Convention and also told Martin.
- [105:26]
C
Luther King to get the hell out of the North. Yeah.
- [105:28]
A
Which the National Baptist Convention, it boasted, I think four or five million Negro churchgoers. Joseph H. Jackson was from the kind of Booker T. Washington school of thought.
- [105:39]
C
He sided with Mayor Daly and saying the Kings had no business in the North.
- [105:43]
A
And Martin Luther King wanted to remove Jackson from his leadership, from his post at the National Baptist Convention. He and Stanley Levison came up with a plan where they would, would put up Gardner C. Taylor. King would send out letters to various pastors saying next year is our year to remove Jackson from his post as a leader of the National Baptist Convention. They attempted to do it. The King and Gardner C. Taylor contingent tried to rush the stage demanding a roll call and the kerfuffle. Reverend A.G. wright out of Detroit fell off the stage, cracked his head and died. And as a result of this, this King and his little misfits were kicked out of the, the National Baptist Convention. When you look at Joseph H. Jackson's preaching and teaching, he was preaching the authentic gospel with no Marxian ulterior motive. Unlike King, there is no Marxian motive in anything. Not only that, the gospel, one of the things that Jackson would say is that it's up to men to be men. It's up to men to be men. Again, this is reverberating not only from, from, from, from Booker T. Washington, but from the Scriptures. It's up to men to be men. Stop comparing yourself to others again. That it's a sin to compare yourself to others in the way that you're saying, oh, look at these people. They got their reparation. Look at them people. We deserve it too.
- [106:58]
C
It's never a sin to tell the truth.
- [106:59]
A
And so the fact of the matter is you have it within yourself to be a person of integrity, a man of honor, irrespective of what somebody else is or isn't getting that. I mean, and so the reality of it is, when you look at Jackson's stance and position on what the responsibility of the man is compared to the interview that I thought you were referring to earlier, and I was wrong, but the interview that he did with NBC from behind the pulpit at Ebenezer Baptist Church there in Atlanta, where he said that men can't be men because of the conditions and because of housing and because of this and because of that. What King is doing in that interview is indicative of the mindset shift that was happening at the time. He's tying your manhood to what the government is or isn't willing to give you.
- [107:46]
C
He's tying your manhood.
- [107:47]
A
And so the reality of it is.
- [107:48]
C
And that's what he was doing, that.
- [107:50]
A
What King's rhetoric, what he was doing with his rhetoric with the civil rights movement and all that was instilling a sense of bitterness and a woe is me kind of mentality into black folks, into black culture. And so, in so doing, he's moving black Americans from a trying race under the leadership of people like Booker T. Washington to a crying race under the leadership of King Abernathy and his whole Marxian contingent.
- [108:18]
C
So, yes, absolutely, you've never proved he was a Marxist.
- [108:21]
A
When you look once again at the Cato Institute study conducted in 2019, where more blacks have a favorable view of socialism than the free market system. That is the legacy of the civil rights agenda, which is now the civil rights industry. That's what that's a legacy of. So we can and moan all we want about the legacy of slavery. Oh, we deserve reparations. All this nonsense. To the extent that you do that, you sound pathetic.
- [108:45]
C
The unfortunate sound like a pathetic loser. The unsourced.
- [108:48]
A
The reality is, I don't have like I used to listen. I used to be homeless. I used to live out of my car. I know what it's like to be down on your luck and having not two pennies to rub together. I know what that's like. And it's through conventional means that I was able to make something of myself. Where I now run a plumbing company, where I now run a film company. I Didn't do it by going through some government program. I didn't do it by leaning into this. No, I did it by being a man. That's what's responsible. That's what's required of us. In keeping with Booker T. Washington, in keeping with Joseph H. Jackson. I could be a protester today because I felt sorry for myself and the government owes me something. Something. No, the conditions that led to my homelessness was done by yours truly. And yes, I may have been dealt a bad hand in this area or that area of my life, but at the end of the day, it's up to the victim to get himself up to take advantage of his opportunities, whatever opportunities those are. And yes, those opportunities existed even during Jim Crow. So. So we can't do what the left does, what the Nicole Hannah Jones does and. And the Ibram X. Kendis and others, and beg and moan and write and do all the things to say that the government owes us something. Because to the extent that we do that, all we're doing, Austin, is we're feeding into this kind of woe is me mentality that doesn't breed genuine liberty. That doesn't breed genuine equality. All it breeds is more resentment. All it breeds is more issues and disorder and degeneration and all the things I want to see that turn around, I want to see that begin to shift by people taking personal responsibility. Yes, I believe that we should have a freedom of association, but that's because, again, I should have the right to business, to run my business, conduct my business the way that I want to. And to the extent that somebody wants to discriminate against me, I'd rather know who those people are so I can avoid their business rather than having my food or whatever tampered with because somebody is coerced to do so by the government. I thank you for again calling this debate together. And I'm sorry it got heated at moments, but I do respect you. I see the things that you're doing. I agree with you on a whole lot. But when it comes to this issue of King, we can't continue as black people, in particular, that King is so great. We owe him all this honor and respect, and we owe him our firstborn because of all the things he did. Because to the extent that we do that and buy into this kind of mentality, this Marxian mentality that King set for forth, we're never, ever, ever going to progress. We're always going to continue to regress. And even though things might look like they're heading in the right direction. The reality is that thing is always sure to implode because it's not held together by genuine progress. That's held together by a lot of symbols and theatrics. That doesn't really do anything to get to the heart of the issue. So that's my point.
- [111:38]
B
Your final response, Austin?
- [111:39]
C
My final response is very simple. I came here to do one thing and I've done it on it. They refuted the nonsensical idea that Martin Luther King Jr. Is a Marxist. That man said that we must remember that we have the bread of life within the confines of the church and that one day somebody's coming by, some old person's coming by, some young person is coming by to find the bread of life and we have to make sure that we keep it fresh. If Dr. King was not a true Christian and if he was genuinely a Marxist, then we would not have made the statement that we must remind the world that there is still a fountain that has been filled with blood drawn from a man. You don't get more higher Christophany. You don't get higher Christology than a statement like that. Because Immanuel being interpreted as God with us. Dr. King stated that he had a dream. And that dream was one where the children that he had and the brothers and sisters that he had would not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. That is a meritocracy at its finest. But you don't get to a meritocracy until you remove the underpin economic evil vested of racism, militarism and segregation. Without if you don't remove those, you can't have the equivalent opportunity to see who really is great, who really is average, who really is below average. There's no way that you can produce that. And I'm not saying, and I don't ever want it confused, equal opportunity cannot and will not ever produce equal outcome. Michael Jordan going to always be Michael Jordan. LeBron will always be LeBron. The fact is the opportunity must exist. And Dr. King saying that it didn't cost the nation one penny to integrate lunch counters was true. Dr. King saying that it didn'T cost the nation one penny to guarantee the right to vote was true. The fact is that the United States federal government is guilty still to this day of having supported white European peasant farmers with the passage of the Homestead Acts, which gave away more than 240 million acres of land in the west and the Midwest, while at the very same time they gave black Americans Nothing. Who contributed $285 billion to the Southern economy, which led to the United States having one of the highest GDPs at that time. And you have stood here and this was. This was a great debate and a great discussion, but you said that King wasn't a Christian in his college papers. I say that I agree with that. I think he did deny the resurrection. He denied the divinity of Christ Jesus. He denied all of those things. But in the middle of the Montgomery bus boycott, he met the Lord. And he speaks about this experience plainly. He says, I received a threatening phone call where someone said, nigga, if you ain't out of this town in three days, we're gonna blow your brains out and blow up your house. And he talked about how he heard these things before, but this night, it got to him, and he turned over and he prayed a prayer. He said, lord, I'm talking trying to do what's right. And he said, I had grown up in the church, but religion that night became actually real to me, and I finally got to know God for myself. So Dr. King, by no stretch of the imagination, was a Marxist. He built off the work of Charles Hamilton, Houston, and the decision of the Brown vs Board of Education to simply do what he said he was going to do, which is try his best to say to America, all we want from you is what you said you'd give us on paper. If we lived in China or Russia, we could understand the denial of certain basic First Amendment privileges. But what Dr. King tried to bring to fruition in practice was the principle first established by our founding fathers, who said that all men are created equal. I sat here and listened to another black man tell me that it's all right for a business owner to discriminate against somebody based purely on the color of their skin. That is a sort of racist, bigoted evil that Dr. King fought against. And for as long as I live and as for as long as the Lord allows me to get involved in politics. And eventually, yeah, in 15 years, I told Tank Ugar on Jubilee I was going to run for president. 15 years. I want to state it on this podcast right here. I'm not a politician. I'm a person involved in politics as a chad. Well, I love what you have to say. In some bits and pieces, your stance on King is wrong. And in 14 years, I'll prove to you just how wrong you were.
- [115:08]
A
Can I respond just really quickly? It won't be long. So you said that King found God during the Montgomery bus boycott. That's actually not true. Again, that was written in Stride for Freedom, which again was heavily.
- [115:22]
C
The why Jesus Called a manifold sermon was written in Stripe was written by who?
- [115:25]
A
Which is heavily edited by Stanley Levison and the Rally.
- [115:28]
C
Stan Levinson edited King's sermon. That's a lie.
- [115:32]
A
What you talk about the sermon he.
- [115:33]
C
Gave in November of 1967. You can't say that it's an outright historical.
- [115:36]
A
Let me try to be brief again. I named the book title so people can go and read.
- [115:40]
C
I named a sermon title. He named a book title. We're not going to misstate that I quoted a sermon from Dr. King directly why Jesus called him in a full of 1940.
- [115:48]
A
Yeah, okay, so let me just finish my point because I know we gotta wrap up. So the story that you just told about him making a cup of coffee and all this stuff, and then that's the night he found God. That is included in Stride for Freedom. So just for the record, that was written in 1958. Later on, during the Nobel Peace Prize documentary, King would say that he believes that God is found in all the world religions. That's actually. That's not something a Christian would say because that violates the very first commandment that I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt. You shall have no other God before me. And so that. That's in 1964, I believe. When he said that, that's after 1958, if we're getting our timeline correctly. Again, when you look at the philandering again, the. The fact of the matter is we know that pastors, those who profess to be teachers, will be judged more harshly. We can name thing after thing after thing that King said and did. That actually proves that he wasn't living a regenerate life sold out to Christ.
- [116:47]
C
By your logic, neither was King David or Abraham or Noah. Noah was a drunk.
- [116:51]
A
King David was repentant and he wrote about it in the Psalms. There's nothing that we have on record.
- [116:56]
C
If Samson slept with prostitutes. Noah was accused of drunkenness.
- [116:59]
A
The last point I'll make, I promise, is that we don't.
- [117:02]
C
Peter denied him three times.
- [117:03]
A
The last point I'll make, I promise. We don't have any record of King being repentant.
- [117:08]
C
Yes, we do. Of Paul's letter to American Christians. America, you must be born again. That's a direct King quotation from his Paul's letter to American Christians.
- [117:16]
A
But read the. Read the. Read the whole sermon in its context. You'll see that he's advocating for social justice, which is rooted in Marxism to say so.
- [117:25]
C
The gospel is social according to, say.
- [117:27]
A
In isolated form that he told America they must be born again, thereby being disingenuous and trying to tie that into, like, born again by way of Christ. My dear friend Austin, if he's writing.
- [117:37]
C
As if he's Paul, that's exactly what it was doing.
- [117:38]
A
No, no, go read.
- [117:39]
C
Go watch the whole song.
- [117:40]
B
It's been a pleasure, guys. Thanks for both your time. We'll link your documentary, we'll link your socials. Guys. Comment below what you liked, what you didn't like, who you thought won. Thank you for your time, guys. Peace. I hope you guys are enjoying the show. Please don't forget to like and subscribe.
- [117:52]
A
It helps the show a lot with the algorithm. Thank you.