WHY CONSERVATIVES MUST LET GO OF THE ROPE IN THE TUG OF WAR OVER MLK’S LEGACY

How true is the modern conservative to the genuine ideals of conservatism? Ask the average conservative what they believe, and you'll most certainly receive a litany of slogans related to today’s hot-button policy topics, which are typically gleaned from popular republican politicians, celebrities and influencers, as opposed to answers that really get at the core of what the conservative believes philosophically, theologically, how they believe a citizenry should be governed, what economic system is best, which customs, traditions and laws are worth conserving; all things that are truly foundational to how one engages the policy topics of a given time, or what heroes are worth of respect and admiration. It is true that many nominal conservatives are simply unfamiliar with the core tenets of conservatism. For them, political engagement is more akin to sports fandom or a beauty pageant insofar that one's aspirations for ‘winning’ is tied up in the talent, charisma and eloquence of the players they like in the political arena. The problem with that is that some of the players are corruptible, some gullible and others just plain deceptive; If a given conservative is more of a fan than a truly principled man or woman who recognize and exemplify core conservative values, then he or she is doomed to be gradually peeled away from true conservatism at the behest of the players. When it comes to analyzing the players (I.E. your favorite conservative leader or influencer), one must determine how committed the player is to conservative principles even in the face of Social Engineers who envision a globalist, Marxist utopia. Social Engineers have long been at work in the institutions of advertising, news media, academia, entertainment, social movements, and even in many churches; using the tools of incrementalism to influence public opinion - Their goal being to blur the line between positions which are obviously leftist political stances, and what the mainstream of society considers universally moral truths. Thus, youngsters who are brought up as unbiased consumers of the culture, which is produced by social engineers, adopt these “values'' as their own. In the 21st century, whatever circumstances causes a given individual to end up a Republican tend to have less of an emphasis than this kind of inundative messaging, under which we are all recipients, that reinforce and insist on a leftist, and in many cases Marxist, social ethos. Because there is a lack of confidence in what we believe at the root (or at least a misunderstanding of what we think we’re supposed to believe as conservatives), it is undoubtedly difficult for many of us to withstand the influence of spoon fed ideas, and the purveyors of those ideas, who are diametrically opposed to the values we are supposed to stand on. It is unfortunate all the more when the conservative leaders we trust lack the wisdom and fortitude needed to refrain from joining in the chorus of this inundation. Such is the case of conservative leaders who laud and celebrate Martin Luther King, who was not a conservative, but a Marxist.

Part and parcel of the social engineer’s tactics is the act of mythologizing their own heroes, and framing those heroes in such a universal way to appeal to the whole of society, only for that hero to underhandedly advance the social cause from a seemingly neutral or moderate posture. This strategy is articulated well in Walter Lippmann’s 1922 book, “PUBLIC OPINION”, where he writes, “when a new policy is to be launched, there is a preliminary bid for a collectivization of feeling... In the first phase, the leader vocalizes the prevalent opinion of the mass. He identifies himself with the familiar attitudes of his audience, sometimes by telling a good story, sometimes by brandishing his patriotism, often by pinching a grievance. Finding that he is trustworthy, the multitude milling hither and thither may turn in towards him. He will then be expected to set forth a plan of campaign. But he will not find that plan in the slogans which convey the feelings of the mass... all that is essential is that the program shall be verbally and emotionally connected at the start with what has become vocal in the multitude. Trusted men in a familiar role, subscribing to the accepted symbols, can go a very long way.”

I believe that now is the time to recognize that the beloved Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who we all have been made to believe is a hero (an assertion seconded by our favorite conservative pundits), both actively and posthumously contributed significantly to the advancement of Marxism in the American ethos. His heroism has been used to usher in many an anti-merit, socialist-esque legislation over the last 60 years, and has pathed the way to a shifted mindset for the worse amongst many black Americans in the latter portion of the 20th century - moving the perception of us from being a trying race to a crying race, a perception with which Booker T. Washington, who coined the phrase “cast down your bucket where you are”, would be greatly displeased. Deifying King was so masterfully done, that Liberal and Conservative leaders alike are still to this day engaged in a proverbial “tug-o-war” over his legacy. My challenge to those conservatives is to let go of the rope. This requires, once again, defying the agenda and influence of social engineering, and getting back to the basics of their conservative values in which King was diametrically opposed.

As many intellectuals correctly point out, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was not widely embraced in his day. In the 1950s and early 60s, The National Baptist Convention (NBC), which boasted roughly 8 million black church-goers across the country, was an important entity with a great deal of influence in many black circles of business, academia, education and politics. It is for this reason that the then young Martin King desired to wrestle away leadership within the NBC from the old guard fundamentalist pastors, thereby shifting its praxis and approach to a kind of Marxien assertiveness with a religious tinge. King’s failed attempts to oust Dr. J.H. Jackson from his post as the NBC’s president was indicative of how culturally entwined most southern blacks were with Booker T. Washington’s uplift programme, which was embodied in the teachings of Jackson and many other black pastors at the time. One of the examples of Jackson’s effectiveness in the utilization of conservative principles in the face of discrimination was when he ordered the NBC to purchase hundreds of acres of land in the south; they called it the “Freedom Farm”. It was a place where black sharecroppers, who had previously been cheated, could work rent free for as long as it took to raise enough money to purchase their own farm land. With these kinds of practical measures, in addition to Jackson’s influence in the deconstruction of many Jim Crow laws, it begs the question why most mainstream conservative pundits today have never even heard of Dr. Joseph H. Jackson. This is probably the biggest example of how they have forsaken their own values, and those among us who exemplify those values, choosing instead to adopt and adhere to the “heroes” concocted for us through social engineering. Throughout the 20th century, The pro-capitalism, church-oriented dynamics of southern black culture was at odds with secular progressivism; the worldview which undergirded the journalistic efforts of most mainstream news publications. So when King, who “accepted the liberal interpretation [of theology] with relative ease” (his words), became the president of the MIA, the small startup organization which led the successful Montgomery bus boycott, the media - who almost never labored to promote religion - leapt at the opportunity to laud him as a superior religious leader whom they could get behind. 1957 brought King a stampede of positive mainstream media publicity, thus introducing him to circles of white secular and religious liberals alike, though he was still not very popular among American blacks at this time. The favorable news coverage made King appear larger than life. Now that King was the appointed leader, how could this larger than life perception be maintained for a guy who - as King family friend, William E. Gardner wrote in King’s Crozer evaluation review - possessed “an attitude of aloofness, disdain and possible snobbishness which… refuses to adapt itself to the demands of ministering effectively to the average Negro congregation.”? Not wanting his new-found popularity to be short-lived, King moved quickly to add persons to his inner circle with known ties to the Communist Party, including Bayard Rustin, Stanley Levison and others; men who were especially trained and skilled at using calculated (and oftentimes deceptive) rhetoric in their missions. They put these skills into practice as King’s speech writers and strategists, including the famed “I have a dream speech”, all in an effort to keep up his media-framed image as a “son of the south” on the one hand, and on the other hand “the new negro” who “introduced intellectual dynamism to the montgomery Negroes” as written by the New York Times in 1957. The article went on to describe King as an “aspiring Negro who reached the scholastic heights up North, and traded Biblical bombast for sermons fusing Christianity, Hegelianism and Gandhism”. It is worth noting that Much of King's publicity was coordinated by Stanley Levison, who was a treasurer for a communist front group in New York.

Many scholars rightly note that there was a kind of regression that has taken place in black America after the 1960s. Before King was popularized (from the late 19th century until the mid 20th century) Booker T. Washington, the Tuskegee machine, the Negro business league, and many black southern pastors encouraged blacks to see themselves as conquerors, business owners, farmers, fathers, mothers, producers, etc. which resulted in the building of great neighborhoods and towns, effective schools, strong families, thriving businesses, independence and self respect, even amid segregation laws. On the other hand, Communist front groups, the NAACP, progressive intellectuals and leftist black leaders encouraged blacks to see themselves as oppressed, unwanted, despised, lacking, envied and feared; the point being to make them just angry and uncomfortable enough to spark a revolution. They insisted on the need for blacks to be more assertive in taking segregation laws head on, even though such laws were already gradually and increasingly dissolving in the courts on the basis of both their lack of constitutionality and their burden on the economy. It was this latter group which made a larger impression on the worldview and activism of Martin King. Morton S. Enslin - a Marxist Crozer professor and critic of the bible who, in a 1945 address, called for “a new biblical orthodoxy” - said of King to the then school of theology dean at Boston University that he “will go far in his profession.” Enslin continued “The comparatively small number of progressive and thoroughly trained negro leaders is still so small that it is more than an even chance that one as adequately trained as King will find ample opportunity for useful service. He is entirely free from those somewhat annoying qualities which some men of his race acquire when they find themselves in the distinctly higher percent of their group.” In this same letter, Enslin noted that King - who was a student at Crozer at the time the letter was written - was the president of the student government. He wrote “[King] is president of the Student Government and has conducted himself well in this position. The fact that our student body, which is largely Southern, elected a colored man is in itself no mean recommendation.” What exactly was Enslin’s agenda or goal for black southerners? And why was MLK the man to carry it out? Enslin’s prediction proved to manifest in a multifold way, both in the media-led fame King enjoyed while he was alive, and in the posthumous legacy with which his name is deified in politics, journalism, academia and culture. But the net result that the ‘60s “King shift” has had on black America has been by-in-large regressive. When blacks learned subtly to identify as victims, they turned their attention, their congregational patronage and their votes to leaders who continue to paint a false reality of racial oppression on the one hand and advocate for racial liberation on the other. Not to mention the fact that the legislation he pushed gave the federal government the unconstitutional power to dictate the hiring and serving preferences of small business owners, when the emphasis should have been placed instead on barring the states from the unconstitutional act of forcing segregation on small business owners. For the small business owner, all the civil rights act of 1964 did was exchange one tyrant for an even worse one.

The common and repeated tactic of communists around the world, as laid out in the communist manifesto, is to create and/or latch on to established entities, movements and political parties, which they use as a deceptive means to their nefarious end. The idea being to conflate their interests with those of the given group, and to gradually shift that group into being a loyal, oblivious surrogate for their marxist aim, which is revolution. This is exactly what took place with the rise of Martin King, who - as his papers reveal and his biographer admits - was actually sympathetic to the Marxist economic worldview. The fact that he delivered what seemed to be a patriotic speech during the 1963 March on Washington cannot be objectively construed as evidence of his ‘American loyalty’, mainly because some of it was plagiarized from Archibald Carey Jr. who gave a similar speech at a Republican convention several years prior and also because the speech was mostly written disingenuously by Clarence B. Jones, Levison and Rustin as a strategic measure to make King appear as a patriotic baptist minister in the eyes of the American public who, for the most part, were anti communist. This, in-keeping with Walter Lippmann's words which were laid out earlier in this piece. Having sufficient support from young black church-goers and liberal white church-goers alike, as well as the support of the mainstream media and college students across the country, placed King in a crucial position. The dramatization which was underway with King’s “Poor People’s Campaign” shortly before he passed, along with his organizing efforts with various unions and labor organizations was proving to be more and more in line with the communist agenda, and many believed that a revolution was afoot. His death was thought of by many as martyrdom, and solidified him as the patron saint of moral legislation in the west; the regression of black America (alluded to earlier in this text) is such now that all things “black” are perpetually depended on - through the use of MLK-esque tactics - to shift elections and policies toward leftism to this very day.

Martin Luther King Jr. was a pretty-colored trojan horse used by Marxian strategists to supplant the fundamental tradition of black America with a liberal theology and a culture of statism and dependency which is totally at odds with core conservative values. While there are numerous conservative scholars who recognize this fact, they maintain that King was “a good man,” invoking him in their books and speeches as if he is the moral standard in race relations. To do this is to hang on to the fact that at least the trojan horse was painted beautifully.

We as conservatives must come to terms with the fact that the last century is chock-full of strategically concocted and spun movements, events and people; all used to erode the values that made America great at the ground level. For starters, I recommend watching the 1966 documentary, Anarchy USA, to gain insight on a large piece of that history. Beyond that, I challenge conservatives to get back to the basics of what it is they believe, and dare to reject the insinuations, legislation and “heroes” presented to them when those things are at odds with their values.

- Chad O. Jackson

For more information, watch

https://www.theepochtimes.com/uncle-tom-ii-documentary_4922460.html

https://youtu.be/X2wk6svKExk