This April 4th will mark fifty years since Martin Luther King was murdered in Memphis. Brace yourself for a stampede of public figures all claiming to be King’s greatest admirer.
I will not pretend to be one of them. Unlike a lot of conservatives I wouldn’t be caught dead trying to co-opt MLK and his undeserved aura of moral superiority.
Not that King didn’t have a lot of nice things to say. I can support the sentiment behind his “I Have a Dream” speech despite the fact that it was co-written by King’s Communist Party handler. I firmly believe that we should judge people by the content of their character not the color of their skin.
But King did not. He simply mouthed those vapid words because he was trying to persuade a majority-white nation to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an unconstitutional monstrosity that turned out to be even worse than its critics had predicted. King’s tactical appeal to colorblindness was destined to be tossed aside the moment he achieved his short-term policy goals.
As the recognized advocate for America’s only substantial racial minority, MLK vowed to resolve the race issue once and for all in return for a few small concessions: our property rights, our right to free association, our free speech rights, and our right not to be subjected to involuntary servitude.
It would have been a terrible deal even if each side had held up its end of the bargain. But that’s not what happened.
Less than one year after King delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech Congress gave him what he wanted: a sweeping nondiscrimination law that invaded the private sphere and unleashed the federal government’s massive authority to police even our thoughts and intentions. It was supposed to be government-mandated race neutrality which was something most Americans could get behind because of their inherent sense of fair play. Personally, I find the race neutrality part appealing but resent the government mandated part, especially as it applies to private entities.
The bill was passed by a congressional supermajority and signed into law by the old racist Lyndon Johnson who was afforded the opportunity to portray himself as the black man’s best friend which he most certainly was not.
That was the bait. Then came the switch.
Said King: “Few people reflect that for two centuries the Negro was enslaved and robbed of any wages–potential accrued wealth which would have been the legacy of his descendants. All of America’s wealth today could not adequately compensate its Negroes for his centuries of exploitation and humiliation.”
Translation: It’s payback time. According to King, everything America has is stolen wealth. White people should feel lucky that they’re being allowed to get away with merely being discriminated against for generations to come. They deserve much worse.
For the remaining three and a half years of King’s life he worked tirelessly toward Marxist revanchism. He supported racial discrimination (in his own favor), further eroded our constitutional rights with the Voting Rights Act and Fair Housing Act, and fought for an even more robust welfare state than even Lyndon Johnson had proposed.
In the same Haley interview King endorsed racial preferences in housing and hiring, as well as a $50 billion spending package exclusively for blacks—about $400 billion in today’s inflated currency. Funny how he didn’t mention any of that until after he got the Civil Rights Act.
King’s support for racial preferences stands in stark violation of the law he championed that same year. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 clearly states that employers may not discriminate on the basis of race. It does not say that employers may discriminate against whites (or Asians!) as long as they’re trying to redress historical grievances. More importantly: If the bill had contained that kind of language it never would have passed.
But alas, employers have been favoring black over white ever since. Martin Luther King did not oppose that kind of discrimination because he never actually opposed racial discrimination per se. He just didn’t like being on the wrong end of it—and who does?
The idea that King opposed racial discrimination is just one of several myths that won’t die. Let’s unpack a few others.
MLK was not non-violent. We’ve been taught this lie because he refused to fight with the policemen and redneck vigilantes who roughed him up. But he supported the ultra-violent Planned Parenthood and physically beat at least one of his many adulterous relations so we know he had no problem picking fights with women and children. That didn’t make him Gandhi it just made him a coward.
He also winked at urban rioting. It’s no wonder his followers honored his legacy by burning down more than one hundred American cities in the days that followed his assassination.
Nor was King a patriotic American trying to make his country live up to its founding ideals. He was actually only one degree removed from the Soviet Union and he almost certainly knew it. Imagine all the worst accusations that have been lodged against Donald Trump about his supposed collusion with the Russians to “steal our democracy”—then imagine that they’re actually true. That was Martin Luther King.
MLK was just starting to become a household name during the 1956 Montgomery Bus Boycott when he met a Communist Party apparatchik named Stanley Levison. According to King biographer David Garrow, Levison was King’s closest white friend.
Levison conveniently “quit” the Communist Party in 1957. He was still very much a small “c” communist though conveniently unburdened by the party membership card he had carried for ten years. In all likelihood his departure was a sham.
Levison was always the man behind the curtain. Even Garrow and other sources friendly to King admit that Levison got King his first book deal, reviewed the book line by line, wrote whole drafts of King’s speeches, did King’s taxes, and wrote his fundraising letters.
And yet I suspect that Garrow’s description of the relationship between these two men soft-pedals the truth: Levison did everything for King except speak with that booming black preacher’s voice. For that, the CPUSA needed an honest-to-goodness black man and a purported Christian.
There’s a word in the intelligence community for guys like Stanley Levison. They’re called “handlers.”
Stanley Levison joined the CPUSA in 1946 just when the wartime alliance between the US and the Soviet Union was crumbling. (See John Barron’s Operation Solo: Our Man Inside the Kremlin. ) Unlike party members who joined in the 1930’s, he cannot claim that he was attracted to the Communist Party only because of its fervent opposition to Hitler’s Germany. He was, like every other CPUSA member at the time, a fanatical defender of Stalin and Soviet Communism. If he hadn’t been he would have been quickly shown the door.
Even before Levison was introduced to King the FBI had already identified him as a party treasurer. Levison’s duties might explain why he was so closely involved in the “civil rights movement’s” finances. Where all that money came from is anybody’s guess but it’s not outlandish to consider the Kremlin as one possible source.
What we do know is that the CPUSA always did the Soviet Union’s bidding. Professor Harvey Klehr et al. argue convincingly in their excellent book The Soviet World of American Communism that the CPUSA was a willing instrument of Soviet policymakers. Their assertion is based on extensive review of Soviet archives opened to scholars in the early 1990s.
They write: “[A]t every period of the CPUSA’s history, the American communists looked to their Soviet counterparts for advice on how to conduct their own party business. But there was more to it than that: these documents show that the CPUSA was never an independent political organization. There were moments when it was less strictly controlled by Moscow than at others, but there was never a time when CPUSA made its decisions autonomously, without being obliged to answer to or—more precisely—without wishing to answer to Soviet authority.”
It should come as no surprise then that Levison was observed in 1962 by FBI counterintelligence meeting with the undercover KGB man Viktor Lesiovsky, who was then working ostensibly as an assistant to UN Secretary-General U Thant. This was after Levison “quit” CPUSA.
The Soviet Union was the puppet master pulling Levison’s strings through the CPUSA. Stanley Levison in turn was pulling MLK’s strings. A single tissue-thin layer separated King from Moscow and both sides knew it.
Once one understands this basic fact, so much else becomes clear—King’s insistence on an even more aggressive war on poverty at the expense of military spending, for example. Geez, why might the Soviets be interested in that? Consider his constant racial agitation. Might a divided America be a weaker foe? The Soviets certainly thought so.
Martin Luther King was dishonest, cowardly, and downright seditious. He was no hero and the world would be a better place if he had never existed.