Chad O. Jackson vs Austin Off Script – Martin Luther King DEBATE | DSH #1734

The Communist 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. 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 Levinson 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 Brawlton's the purposes PR person, the ghost writer,

the speech writer, form Martin Luther King, a subholy minister.

Okay guys, Chad O'Jackson and Austin Julio brought in here today, we're going to be talking about

MLK, nice little friendly conversation. Chad's first debate actually. Yeah, it's for the bravery

first. Very first debate. It's not an easy thing to put yourself in the spotlight like this, you know?

No, it's not. It never is. But let's do some quick intros and then talking points from there,

who wants to start off. Yeah, so I'm Chad O'Jackson. I am a filmmaker at a 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 at first time in Nevada. And welcome to Vegas. Yeah.

And I'm Austin Julio Brawlton. 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 time I was eight 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 one of surrounding the core of the

civil rights movement that the black community particularly needs to have. There've been a lot

of things that about King over recent years that I think two intellectuals have the capability to

discuss. Yeah. I love that. So you found him through his documentaries. Yeah.

The 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 expel him on that.

Certainly. 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 Commerce 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 a muck raker 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 a political

consciousness of the American Negro. So over the course of the 1920s, we saw all these race riots

bring 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, you know, from the 1800s into the 1920s, you see relative

success or, or let me say an upward trajectory as it pertains to black Americans. This is documented

by the late Walter P. Williams. This is documented by Thomas Hull 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 there about, 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 G. Washington, who's at Cas 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 minors, the local Negro, you know, schoolteacher, 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,

and I see an ad from the Communist Party 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 and and Southern whites,

or the NAACP, either one, whether you're you're taking the socialist route by way the NAACP,

or whether you're taking a more hard line communist route, by through, you know, 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 a 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 D. G. Kelly, or something like that, he considered himself a Marxist, feminist,

black man, he wrote a book called Hammer and Ho, and Hammer and Ho 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 in 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. As in you're saying that Dr. King's father was the proponent of his father,

and his unpublished memoirs, I'm sure you know, he considered himself a proponent of the

social gospel. Well, the gospel is, I would just ask this question, is the gospel not inherently social?

That's an interesting question. There's always been a social component to the gospel, but the gospel

starts first and foremost with repentance. Yes, I would, I would 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 tax-paying

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. Well, I would think that when the master told me, when the rich

young ruler came to Jesus and asked him, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And

they, Jesus said, what is written in the law? How read is thou? And he goes through the list of

commandments. And he says these about kept sense of my youth. And Jesus, you know, he gets to the point

where he 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 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 marriage comes bound. 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 at a

time of need, he said, he didn't that showed mercy. Go and do that 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. Well, you're jumping ahead and we have to recontextualize this. The

social gospel that King was preaching was born out of the Bible, but born out of the work of

Walter Roshenbush, who in the late 19th century wrote a book called Christianity in the social crisis.

And he himself was a Marxist, Walter Roshenbush. 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 went at a fast,

all of a sudden, uh, springing 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 Roshenbush did is he extracted the gospel

from the, he envisioned the social gospel, but he extracted the salvific power that comes only

from Christ from his philosophy or theory. Yes. 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 Roshenbush. The Christianity and

social crisis was one of his favorite books, as you all know. Yes. 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 world view 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 book's legislation for Black Americans,

or for the greater collective minority as a whole in this country than the work of Dr. King,

which is tied back to the... What's your argument? Well, in what way? That political

solutions aren't going to fix anything. If anything, they make matters worse. Okay, how so?

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 is 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. 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 they were his own. When you look at some of the 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 ghost writer, 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. 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. 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. Because what they found, what the Communists found is that

one of their biggest hurdles of disseminating their ideology into the West and into American

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. 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 books

School of Darkness. Fulton Sheen actually wrote about this as well. 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

publication, a Christian publication called The Churchman. What is an atheist doing?

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 ghost writer, the speech writer, for Martin Luther King, a so-called Negro minister.

Well, they were multiple, first of all, let's go back. There were multiple instances,

multiple allegations of not just Martin Luther King, but multiple Black graduates of high

institutions and high universities that had been accused of plagiarism and upon multiple

investigations. While this is not an excuse for Dr. King, I have never seen any objective evidence

produced that Stanley Levison wrote the book, where do we go from here, which was published where 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 delicious. 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 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. No, they don't know the best. 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. No, please go ahead. I responded to that.

I don't mind. I don't mind. How did the how was the Civil Rights Act of 64, Voting Rights Act of 65,

and the Equal Housing Act of 68, and overreach of government power? Well, the Voting Rights,

or the Civil Rights Act of 1964, infringed upon one's individual right to freedom of association.

Also, 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. Until I 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. So you should be

able to discriminate against who you hire based on the color of this skin? Yes, absolutely.

Here's the thing. We have to be adults. We have to be adult. We have to be adult enough to have this

conversation. So you run into the government. As a way, hold on. I have to ask this. As a black man

in 2025, you are saying that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 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 this skin. 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, poison or whatever, whatever the case may be. I would

rather know who the big it 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 destabilizes it, it moralizes the society, it breeds resentment. How does it degrade

society to do justly, to love mercy and to do what's right? How does it degrade society

to do unto others as you wouldn't do unto you? How does that degrade society? How does actually

you're doing the gospel, the great society? What you're doing is you're playing fast and loose

with the scriptures. No. Yes, the scriptures are for the remnant, the scriptures are for those who

have decided to repent and to put their trust in 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 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

in the hour and hour was getting late, what did his disciples say? The hour's getting late

cinnamon to 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, is for the Christian, is 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 a piece of their scripture,

though, Chad, because if I'm not mistaken, that's the same exact parable where Jesus tells them

to feed and they say, Lord, we have but only a few lobes and the Lord multiplied the lobes and fed

the thousands of men and women beside the kids. The government didn't do that. Well, Jesus Christ

is the greatest of the IRS didn't do it. But the beauty of it is when your racism or your bigotry

by deciding to not hire someone based on the color of the skin when that impacts interest

state 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 of the law because we

proved this time and time again in American history that's separate but equal is never equal.

This is exactly why the dress got versus where decision was so important. This is exactly why

Brown versus 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 canian. When when did American history

did black Americans receive equal opportunity and equal economic resources in this country?

Who is the distributor of equal opportunity and equal like ever all the things you can't answer

that question with a question? Yeah, I can't. The 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 to say receive that implies that there's somebody who is distributing that

which you were receiving. So the federal government is responsible for giving you an equal

opportunity. They were responsible for the home state ex which gave away more than 233 million

acres of land in the west and the midwest. So that is true. So the whole morning king. You're

no, this isn't a quotation. This is a direct. It is a direct. It's a direct. It's a king quotation

but he's referencing the home state ex 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 day. Black people had access to that as well. How? How many got it? You'll see in my documentary.

No, we actually have a way for the doctor. We actually make the way. I'm going to just

plug in here. I love it. I came here. I'm on time. So here's the fact you're quoting king.

A historical source as well but okay. So you're what you're saying too. It implies the somehow

moral goodness of the home state 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, like, 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 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.

And so far 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 upper trajectory from the 1800s

till around the 1940s and 50s. And then black men started leaving the house in mass and they

started banning 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 his economically strongest while being

at his poorest from 1940 through 1966 specifically. When Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote his Moynihan

report, which was a letter to Lyndon Bayon 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 the deputy secretary under Lyndon Johnson. Richard Nixon, who was also

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 the to everyone?

Equal, I'm not saying I'm not asking for equal outcome, but I'm talking about equal opportunity

here specifically. I mean, it doesn't matter like semantics. We can use semantics to

or blew 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 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 if a man does

not work, he does not eat. Where again, and so the reality of it is to the extent

that we get this so-called expert class in the bureaucracy involved,

pretending that people are inanimate objects whose society must be ordered and structured for,

because they're too in net 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. The Northern Aggression? You're calling the civil war

the war of Northern Aggression. Absolutely. So we had the war of Northern Aggression

that took place in this country. We had immediately after something called Reconstruction.

We had the carpetbaggers and the scallywags who were basically making life and 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 upper trajectory that was taken 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?

Without the atheist underpending foundation, by the way, which doesn't have any belief in

objective morality. The idea is to breed friction. That's what they were trying to do.

So when 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. 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 friction.

How must you navigate this friction in order to bring about some degree of peace in society?

Somebody can have peace. And so I researched this. Manning Johnson even talked about this

and the speech that I mentioned earlier. It's called a 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 K. Washington delivered his 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 on all the things. No, cast down your bucket where you are.

But if 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 K. Washington was talking about, 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 K. 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. You can have revolution. You can have all the character in the future. 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 K. 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 proceeds king, but it was able to get to a climactic

point and a 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, 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 19, I'm sorry, 2019, which has 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. You have to ask yourself. And there you

are. The only ethnic, Blacks are the only ethnic group in this country who has a favorable view

of socialism, the native of capitalism. You have to ask yourself how to do with the kind of

agitation, the kind of, of this eruption that you see on the part of king in the civil rights movement.

So let me ask you this. We do, we're both Christians here at this table, I believe. So

simple question. If you, 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 this scheme, correct? Yes. 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 ethnos 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. Well, here's the thing. I'm not,

I'm not advocating for racial bigotry or racial discrimination. I'm saying, my 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 this scheme, you have now become

inherently anti-Christian and anti, an anti an honest objective interpretation of the scriptures

themselves. No, you're strawmaining what I'm saying. No, I'm taking what you're saying at face

value and holding you accountable for it. Okay. So yes, you're strawmaining what I'm saying.

I myself 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. 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, so as I just picked up the pin and dropper,

they're going to run into the objective reality of the truth regardless. So it doesn't matter if

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 and flesh

should supersede whatever anyone else has to say about it, which means we should always treat

others the way we'd want to be treated. Always open our doors to those indeed 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 what 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.

They used, he used an inherently Christian framework to push the greatest legislation in

in package for black Americans in the history of this nation. Malcolm didn't do it,

mega 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

Busboy cut 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, while at the very same time upholding

the ideology of the very people he was fighting against. The reality of it is, once again, you keep

assuming that these legislative milestones are somehow inherently great when a rally,

and when in fact they're not, they're not, I mean, via what method of demonstration can we use?

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 as it presents the blacks,

you see the upper trajectory part of 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 status

mindset that a lot of us have, and that you're demonstrating it right now with all to respect,

that the default is always government solutions, policy positions, the government's going to fix

everything. Representation in Washington DC, that's going to fix all of the issues that

else of society, else of culture. 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 that'll carry you through the season. They have

false 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 out of wear that looks sharp and holds up.

By partnering directly with ethical factories and top artisans, Quince cuts out the middleman,

still a little too-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.com slash DSH for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. They're also

available in Canada too.

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 look like me is one of the things that they like to say,

that would never be me because you're talking to somebody that's as conservative as they come,

that would never be me. That's why I said the things that they like to say.

But the reality of it is, what has yielded from that? What has yielded from that mindset,

that the more people we in franchise and more people that's showing up to vote and so on and

so forth, and by the way, the poll tax affected whites didn't only affect blacks, but that's not

either here or there. And affected 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.

Well, I'm not one who believes that we should take it off of 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

Ol on this particular matter in that there's no such thing as solutions as a principle politics.

There's only trade-offs. And the trade-offs have not, often, 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. Today, 70 plus percent of black children are growing up in a single

mother household. Why is that? And so it has to do with the mindset shift. It has to do what I

want to show. And so the reality of it is you have black liberals and I'll stop cutting off. I

do apologize. No, I don't know. But black liberals like to blame systemic racism,

systemic racism that is a kind of holdover from the legacy of slavery in 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. That's what black conservatives vote for or say rather in terms of what is the

issue in black America. 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 boule,

that whole, you know, talented 10th W.E.B. DeBoys contingent. And as you know, W.E.B. DeBoys

died a communist. And when writing about W.E.B. DeBoys after his death, King actually

lauded his communism as something that people shouldn't be afraid of. And I know you know this.

Yes. So the reality of it is exactly where you're quoting from. But again, so when you look at

Elaine Locke, when you look at 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 in 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 pedal was this idea of the new Negro. And I know you know this. And the whole concept behind

the new Negro is, is predicated on this lie that the old Negro is docile. He's subservient. He's

yes, Massa. That's what the old, that's what the old Negro is. A lot of them were, which is why

that's so. And so what they were doing was they were making a caricature out of the kind of

genuine progress. There were formative progress that was set forth by the like by the likes of

Booker T. Washington, George Washington, Carver, and a slow methodical progress that Dr. King called

out those same liberal, which is, 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'll 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, they were not, they were not, they were not equal. They were

big. They were not equal. That's like Massachusetts. The Negro schools were getting 70 percent of

the budget. Where's the white schools were getting? But what's interesting? I don't know, 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 30% higher

than homes in black neighborhoods. If that is not inherently racist, I don't know what it is. And

when racism again, as I said earlier, when racism can impact the economic structure. That's a very

big leap. It's not a leap. This is, 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,

no picket signs in hand this time. These people that might 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? What 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. That's not a

fairly common reason 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 slaves. And let's be clear,

black Americans in this country generated over $230 billion in the South because of slavery.

So, whereas I cut out $230 billion that we help 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

has done work done neat, the Bible also says you should compensate somebody for the work they've

done. And as a collective, it could easily be argued that black people have never received

the any degree of legitimate compensation for the $230 billion we contributed to the South

economy. It's interesting to me, Austin, that here you are basically saying that as a Christian,

you believe that this should be the policy position and that should be the policy position.

No, I'm saying that would be a just position. It would be just 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 from the federal government for being in turn in

internment camps, Jews to this day still received the reparations justly, by the way, justly.

For the horrendous Holocaust and going all the way back even to the times of the

federal, God always made sure that the children of Israel got some degree reparations, even to

the point of giving them manner from heaven. It seems like you're picking and choosing which

scriptures you want to apply so long as it suits your narrative. So long as it's the truth,

I'll say no, so long as it suits your narrative. Well, my narrative is the objective truth. That's

all I'm here to do. It's not the objective truth. Well, I haven't been proven wrong yet.

In your mind, yeah, no, in the real world, you have to understand Dr. King's legacy. The

historical record chat speaks for myself. If I'm not applying the gospel correctly, then explain how

we were able to stand in face for the 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. Now,

it exposed the weakness of the kind of bigoted mindset that enabled white people to be aggressive

with us in the first place. 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. That has nothing to do with what you say.

Let me make this point though. So the fact is the communist Marxists, so the

if by the way, are we really saying that hold on? We have to go back. Are we really saying, hold on,

we have to go back. Are we 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? Peaceful

protesters. Okay, so you're using leftist language, but yet you swore up and down that you

were Mr. Conservative earlier. Let me finish my point here. If someone's not being

aggressive, that's not leftist. That's truth telling again. Objective video. We have video evidence.

They're being unlawful. They're being unlawful because it would break in unjust law and unjust laws

no law at all. Okay, so you're quoting King again, but listen, the reality of it is,

the truth if he happened to tell it, why not? 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 non-violence, 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. So was the march on Washington unlawful when the president was

gaslighting, they were gaslighting the public. Was the march on Washington unlawful when the

president of the United States and others met with, was that unlawful? The greater, the single

greatest demonstration of freedom in the history of this country, was that unlawful? I want to make

my point. So without answering the question. I want to make my point. I'm building to your,

because the thing is like we can easily take things out of context. No, you said that you said

that the peaceful protesters will be unlawful. I'm building, 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 and so far 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 in 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. Pull permits is why this is why,

hold on, because, because King, pull permits when you're fighting against a racist system that

won't even 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 it was politically feasible for them to do so, but they would not pull it in certain other

circumstances so they can get the, the, the, the, the, 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 define 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. So unless fire hoses on women and children and college students, that's,

that's justifiable to you. So again, again, because yes or no, that, we are a country of law

in order. But you have to say yes. Yes. I mean, but that's so it's all right. So y'all heard that on

the record. We have a yes from shadow Jackson that it is all right. It was all right and justifiable

to have both Connor tell them send the dogs for it and unleash fire hoses on peaceful protesters,

which a large percentage of them work with college students around 18 to 23 women and kids.

So and sometimes kids as young as six, 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, and that makes it right to you. So the reality of it is, King was asked by a reporter.

You know, don't you, what, 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 gas like the public until we get what we want. Is it gas like the public or is it draw

attention to the fact that the, those of us, 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. 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, if it's based on the color of my, so, so, so, so that's, that's worth taking your

six-year-old and, and putting them on the streets and not pulling knowing that they're not pulling

them. In fact, a lot of the parents, if I have a lot of the parents, if I have, they don't want

their kids participating in this nonsense. 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. That's always the time.

No, it's not. It is. Well, the civil rights act of 64, the voter rights act of 65, the desegregation

on the bus is, the desegregation of the bus in 61 would also, all of that, all of the objective

history would disagree with everything you just said. Because if it were the waste of time,

how did all of those laws get passed? Somebody had to have a sense enough to put, put balls to

the wall and say, let's get this done. Because you're, you're, what you're doing is you're taking

out a consideration, the fact that the government had invested interest in seeing the success

of these social justice movements. 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 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 the constitutional republic where you can't just move you in a

laterally, 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 that people wanted it. And so yes, they're, like, the fact is Marx's

common sense socialists and so on. They don't study the self-sciences for no reason, just for kicks

and giggles. They don't study the self-sciences 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 Stany Levison and King, they are complicit. And this

making, making, making was a communist, making a government control look sexy, look awesome,

look like it's something that's trendy that we should all get behind. To ensure that no one can

just make a change. But it's a waste of time. It's a waste of time. And so far, that you'd rather take

your children and subject them to a protest when you should be using that time to build businesses.

If you can't get the permits for the businesses because you live in a racist area,

where you, where we're going to walk, we're going to Wallace or

bold corners 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. Who is A.G. Gaston? Who's A.G. Gaston? You should know this name. You're in

that Atlanta. Fill me in. Huh? A.G. Gaston. What does he have to do with what I'm talking about?

Okay. So A.G. Gaston is, well, I said Atlanta, he was actually, he was a prominent black

business owner and Birmingham, I believe it was. There were, I just said, I just correct myself

before you said that. 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, what does this notion that they

didn't get their permits to start their businesses come from? Where does that come from? 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 going to actually make

that statement on camera? Blacks again. Just a yes or no, Chad. Are you going to say 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. Blacks were starting businesses.

They were successful with their businesses. You had something called a Negro Business League

where, yeah, Philip Peyton 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 Peyton 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 Skyler, who was a northerner, and who had this kind

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. You keep saying the King was

advocating for Marxian policy when he repeatedly condemned communism and Karl Marx directly,

when he stated plainly out his own mouth, on MSNBC King is saying NBC in an interview there,

and in his own, and in his own way, and his own, no, he was not behind the pool, but so it was not.

This is an interview from King in the 1960s, late 60s, a couple of years before he's killed.

MSNBC asked, 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 going to hear King out of his own mouth say that communism,

it's 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, I mean, that just becomes easy to refutable.

King was not a Marxist. He was a total of a speech racist.

This was the 1960s.

You need to look up. It's a King interview, a matter of fact, I think I have it.

But I'm going to say King condemns, he literally condemns communism out of his own mouth.

Again, if I invite people, because yes, you're right, he does condemn communism,

not only in a couple of speeches and sermons, as well as, you know, 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,

of course, he's going to be awesome at that. But I strongly encourage people to go and read that book,

read his, 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? Why try to lift and pass somebody else's words as your own,

in order to say I'm anti-communist or I run out of communism?

People have to understand, according to those who were closest to King,

specifically, it was either Jack Hodell or James Beblaw, I forget which one, who flat out said,

you know, 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 actually say at the Lord, what the Bible actually says,

and the anti-thesis of what it's communism. And he provided what was called the synthesis,

trying to merge communism and the scriptures in this kind of subversive way. So as to

bewitch churchgoers and to 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 region, 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. And he would go on to

do that until the day that he died in 1968. That's an outright lie. That's an outright lie.

What's interesting is I see that's an outright lie. 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 had again blatantly

disavow his communism and in fact calls America to repent, which is inherently religious and

anti-communist, because again communism founded by Karl Marx is a diehard atheist. It wasn't

founded by Karl Marx, but go ahead.

Doss Kapital is the foundational work of communism. So let me correct myself. It's labeled as the

foundation of work of communism and Karl Marx is an atheist. Is he not? He is. Right. And I don't

know any, and I don't know any way for someone of a religious worldview to reconcile themselves

with communism. And this is exactly what got the king did not do. He condemned communism

repeatedly and in his own writings. As a deceptic. King was a deceiver. He was, he was the ultimate

trojan. King was a deceiver. King was the biggest trojan horse of the 20th century. How was

he a trojan horse for in the Christian perspective? 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. You talk about proceeding. I asked you plainly about Martin Luther King Jr. himself.

Martin Luther King Jr. is father. Martin Luther King is your, uh, stop talking about his dad. I'm

going to ask you your question. I'm going to answer your question. I'm going to give you the,

I'm going to give you the, not the talking points. I want the truth, not the talking

bullet points. And you can do it. That what you will. King's father used to frequent, uh,

I don't care about his daddy. I cannot him. Let me, let me answer your question.

You've got to let it breathe a little bit. We're breathing. Okay. Let, give me time to answer

your question. I want to flush it out. Let's load this down a little bit. I want to answer your

question. I can only tolerate Trump's weave. What directly do I want to answer your question?

I want to answer your question. Just patience. Not his dad. Have some patience. I've got a lot of it.

Okay. Let's 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 and 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 night at the age of 15. He went on to Morehouse. He would then go on to

Crossover 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 Portier 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 taught them to it. And so the reality of it is,

King, according to his very own writing, I think this is either volume one or volume two of the

King papers, said that he shocked his Sunday school class. When I denied the bodily resurrection of

Christ, yeah, when he denied the bodily resurrection, he was 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. How was he when he had these beliefs? He didn't believe in the basic tenets

of the Christian faith. He wrote about this in his college papers. So he was in college.

He wrote about this in his college papers. And so shortly after having graduated from Boston,

he took a commission to go work at a desk traveling about this church in Alabama.

And very quickly, he would get lumped into the Montgomery bus boycott. He would take as an advisor,

not only Byrd Rustin who used to work with the communist. I'm making the points. I want you

to repeat the points when I finish. And then we're going to have a real conversation here.

So the rally of it is Byrd Rustin would get lumped in. He was a very skilled communist

agitator and activist. He worked with a young communist league. He would go to India and do

things with the communist front there in India. He's a 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 lumped in, staying in Levison, along with others.

Stain and Levison had the idea to start the Southern Christian leadership conference. That was

Stain and Levison's idea. Stain and Levison then would commission James Jackson, who's already

working with a communist front group called the Southern Christian Leadership Conference,

or not 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 apart from his organization, he would

slap out line. So that goes back to your earlier question of, you know, was King a Trojan horse

or how was he a Trojan horse? He was a Trojan horse in so far 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 subversibly 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, Stain and Levison had connections with all sorts of

publications and journalists across the country. His face would be on the time. You keep talking

about, you keep going about, you keep going around because I asked you a simple question.

My point, 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 where you look at his Easter sermon.

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, baptized at the communist party? So who's lying? The FBI are marked with

the King. You're going to believe a racist man that was sleeping with that sleeping with another man

or you're going to believe the actual historical record of what King said and what he did. What

gives you the impression that J. Edgar Hoover was racist? 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. King, stated that he felt that he was the one. That's because King was aversive. King was a

communist sympathizer. No, if he was a sympathizer, then J. Edgar Hoover would have released that in

his writings. Why did he allow the FBI in 1976? Because he was after all, he was after all an

agent of the government, which again, which is to expand. So either he 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 class of 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 wiretapped 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 actually side with J. Edgar

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 than the J. Edgar Hoover? 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 of this information where, and again, the interview is where

he's talking. I've covered this at length on my own social. He hasn't refuted what I said about

J. Edgar Hoover, by the way. At all. I've talked about this at length on my own socials and everything.

That King was definitely pushing a communist. Was J. Edgar Hoover lying when he said King

Hammer ties the commoners and yes or no? Have you read the, have you read? Was J. Edgar,

was J. Edgar Hoover lying? I'm going to ask this question to you. I'll get a straight answer

from you. Was J. Edgar Hoover lying when he said that King was not, or his contemporaries did not

have any direct ties to communism? Was Hoover lying? Have you read, was J. Edgar Hoover lying?

Have you read the recently released, uh, King's papers? 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? Have you

read the recently released King papers? 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 to admit that would force

you to admit that would force you to admit that has nothing to do with what a man does. Yes, it does.

Nothing to do with a man. Yes, it does. Have you read the release? Have you, have you, have you

read that question directly? Have you read the recently? No, I have not. 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. So the SCLC is not what I, that is not what I asked. The SCLC was King's

organization. The SCLC was King's organization, the King that he was the president of.

Then why, if this is true, why did the FBI not, uh, call them a communist then?

The, the very reason why the, you had in the 80s, uh, Reagan signed a bill making King a

national holiday. The same reason that we have a 40-foot statue of him in Washington DC,

the same reason that the government was found guilty of killing him in the 90s, the government,

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 conspiracy 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 get the man a holiday after they had him set up to get killed. Lord have mercy. So

I know the truth. It's a real dangerous thing. So the fact of the matter is the reason why a

government agent would have an interest, they know 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 a letter asking him to kill himself. They didn't send him a letter asking him

to kill himself. Yes, they did. You're overhead. The letter said this was this is declassified.

You can look this up right now. The FBI sent Dr. King a letter in the late 60s that said if you do

not, let her say it. If you know, yeah, let her finish. Go ahead. If you let her say it, you know

what to do. You have a certain number of days in which to do it. 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 King's infidelities. The tapes were sent to MSNBC. They were sent to multiple

news outlets. No one did a cover story on it. I got this pulled up. Let's pull it up on the screen.

Yeah, absolutely. So I said, uh, did the FBI send a letter to MLK saying to kill himself.

It says in late 1964, shortly after King won the prize, FBI mailed him a threatening anonymous letter

running anonymous letter cassette tape and all the data. They didn't send him this by the way,

but here's the proof. Okay, anyway, like this is going to be this was sent by FBI direct assistant

director William Sullivan. Oh, and I said William Sullivan. So, okay, so let's let's do this real

quick. Wait, was this alternate or not? Hold on, let, like, can I say something? Yeah,

so this is going to be unedited, right? Yeah. 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.

I said they sent him a letter threatening to expose him if he did not kill himself within a certain

number of days. Did he or did he not say they sent him a letter telling him to kill himself?

I believe you started with that, but then you clarified. Okay. So the reality is there's no evidence

of a letter telling King to kill himself. It's right there. No, you're making an implication.

Oh, no, it's not an implication. Yes, you are. You're making an implication on what the letter

was telling me to do. They say you know what to do. And in the in the letter or tapes of King

having sex with women, they 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.

And say implied in this. So he is right. Exactly. Right. I know that. So let's let's let's make a

truth from here on out, right? I'm not going to cut you off for interrupt you. You're not going to

cut me off or interrupt me. I'll try. Okay. So here's a 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 to 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 a president of the National Negro Congress. What's interesting about

the National Negro Congress is that it came out of a commission that FDR built and could

hoots with Joseph Stalin and 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 Randolph, 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, the late 50s, especially with the success

of the Montgomery Best Boycott, even though that's hard to say whether it was a quote-unquote success

because it was actually a Supreme Court decision that concluded the Montgomery Best Boycott,

wasn't anything that King was doing by the side of the hearing right there. Walking together

with 381 days and causing an economic strain, it's not doing anything. So the reality of it is

that by the time, so it was National Negro Congress, it will become the civil rights movement

under 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 carpenters. So Kennedy believed that Randolph should lead the movement,

staying in love with the Soviet Union. The communist contingent believed that King should move it

because they had tried and fell time and again to make an in-road into the Black community. They

tried it with Paul Rokeson, 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, 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, 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 comments 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

Escher-Marital Affairs, he was involved in orgies, and all kinds of things that at the public found

out about it, it would bow 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 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 understood

that they too will be exposed, and all of this, the feds will be exposed. But the rally of it is,

if you don't actually hang it up, we're going to expose you to the press. It wasn't about

bringing it up, and you know it wasn't. The lie you're telling is insane, because we will finish.

I'll give you plenty of time to answer, just let me finish this point. So the rally 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 it. It wasn't

or we're going to kill you, or you know 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, because they were trying to get him to kill himself, Chad,

and you know they were trying to get him to step down from the movement in order to save

himself the embarrassment, because they wanted the movement to exist under different leadership.

Save himself the embarrassment. This is how we know you're lying. 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.

And the end of the civil rights. They wanted to save him by screwing up his marriage with his wife.

Obviously, we know Dr. King sleep with women and his wife is wrong, but they ain't to point.

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 anti-crust individual

that you they lay out the reason then they they accidentally call out what the reason is.

They gave him a specific number of days to get rid of himself. Yes, absolutely. I don't know.

I said this while or else we'll expose you. Yes, and they and the expose and they expose

they was they sent the tapes to the news. They the news. I just said. What good does it do to expose

somebody who's dead because he killed himself? Well, what good does that do? 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 going to release these tapes and by the time in the back last year

get you going to want to do it anyway. That's the whole point and you know that. That's why the the

implied language of the FBI is so important here. That's why it occurs 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

not what they're implying. You tell me for yourselves. Don't listen to either one of us right now

because this idea that the FBI and any capacity was actually genuinely concerned about the civil

rights movement surviving is bullshit and you know it. Okay. So the fact of the matter is

you're you're basing this notion that the implication was to kill himself on just a hunch you have.

You sound a lot like Candace Owens to me. Not the hunch. The objective evidence. The reality.

Shout out to Candace Owens by the way. Great work Candace. Keep it up. Whereas what I'm doing is I'm

making deductive reasoning based on other documents that came out of what we see 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 they were using language such as and we'll actually cover this in

the documentary that you know the Negroes are being misled by this movement we believe that this

guy would be better off or 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 the extramarital

affairs and things he was doing behind closed doors and so again the reason for has been confirmed.

Not if not no affairs been officially confirmed other outside of my witness testimony the tapes

that FBI has on King are not scheduled to be released until 2027. So there's a book written by

his best sorry to cut you off by the way. 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 wall or something like that. I think tearing down the wall. In the walls came

Tauta. Yes. Tauta does say most historians agree that MLK has had extramarital affairs.

You can look at the work of Taylor Branch and other official King has done. Yeah I mean Andy

Young has spoken about this publicly but again from an official official standpoint those tapes

are not scheduled to be released until 2027. So it's just technically speaking it's just what they know.

So Austin the point that I'm making here is that like when I say that the implication was

you know 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 don't think that King should be at the head of it.

So this notion because you to use your word you said that they wanted the civil rights movement

to exist as bullshit. No I was saying the fact that your argument that they were genuinely

concerned with the success of the civil rights movement that is bullshit. No no they wanted

the civil rights movement to succeed again not only in the 60s but dating as far back as you know

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 we 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 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 civil rights of social justice movements in order to

expand its own power that's that's the point that I'm making so yes the feds absolutely wanted

the civil rights movement to succeed because it would it would it would boaster them as a as a it

would expand their power but that's so doesn't you know that's still so the feds were complicit in

that yes they did want the civil rights movement to see they just they just didn't believe that

king should be ahead of it and 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 I come from the Booker T Washington School of Thought I believe in conventional means to success

I believe 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 of to use your word racist

policy or have you and those those laws and those restrictions and so on and so forth being

basically being done away with by by the actions of the supreme court and decisions that were made

I think 1917 I wrote it down here earlier you had you can envy warly 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 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 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 you know that I have Bob Woodson standing right next to

Byrd Rustin who was one of King's advisors and speech writers the reality of it is that

to the extent that you render it unlawful and unconstitutional for the state to dictate what

door nigger will 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 you're you're running a foul of the constitution and so Bob Woodson believes 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 forcing segregation being replaced with the tyrant of the feds enforcing integration

and so again both are infringing upon individuals right to freedom of association if it's well

documented however once again going back to the very start of this discussion if it is well documented

that there's never been appointed American history where separate was ever equal then it becomes

constitutionally necessary if we're get hold on if we're going to be given equal protection

under the law then damage 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 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 this can 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 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 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 people were were created equal by God in terms of dignity in

terms of value so 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 to and we shouldn't care

about the collective good then so we should do the opposite of what Jesus tells us to do one of the

things that I think is 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

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 Eates

and Patrick Henry and others who were making some very interesting points that I that I happen

to agree with about the size of government the function of government so on and so forth it

was it became a very contentious thing as you all know and what Robert Eates and Patrick Henry

and Luther Martin and others were trying to warn against was 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 not with that 25th 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 have the constitution we have the confederation of the states and there

was 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 right he famously said I

smell a rat because he envisioned the or he foresaw the North re-negging on a lot of the

compromises the so-called compromises they were making in the constitution and so

you do understand the inherent hypocrisy though of the phony fathers you you understand that the

reality of it is they were dealing with what they had in terms of the history of the world the

writings of in the scriptures as well as the writings of people like Socrates and Plato as well as

dealing with what they had there's no way in the scriptures it says that a black man is three

fifths of a person's head 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 United States

specifically in Jamestown and Plymouth 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 uh 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 uh within the space of four years people were eating shoelaces and rats and

and I think had the population died until uh 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 hell of a lot of hypocrisy

in there too a lot I love the constitution but there really is but a lot of hypocrisy because

this is this these are the same brothers that said that we you and I were only seen as three

fifths of person in these people's eyes we can't law law these men on one point but then not

understand that while they're flawed we must pursue the full fulfillment of the of the constitution

in practice we can't do that so 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

envy with obstetricate and the title two and title seven the civil rights act more 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 okay so just to get back to the point

that I was making that when it comes to the declaration of independence and the notion that we hold

these truths of self-evidence that all men are created equal yes how do you implement that how do

you enforce that do you do it through redistributive means and this is a 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

um the reality of it is what they were the what they had in mind specifically Thomas Jefferson

and others was the pursuit of property and the in private ownership the the the ability to be

you know to have rights within yourself and the freedom of association so on and so forth um

what king and his and 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 and

monies and so on they 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 economic and produced one of the single greatest economic imbalances between races in

the history of this country and then in fact this exists and and and far precedes the I'm aware

that I'm not I'm aware of precision 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 dollars 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 proof that they didn't get one penny of it have black people in this country

received the reparations okay a reparations bill have we received a fact that that have we

been given between the thousand dollars have have 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 in turn to the term of camps got or that the

Jews have gotten from the paint from the paint they suffered in the Holocaust and the other instances

where they were being unjustly oppressed has that ever happened on a national level so yes or no

so here's the fact the the reality is that you know the reality is we haven't got I'm not I'm not

going to again so so it's interesting earlier how you're talking about your Christian Bonifides

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 King's words words the reality of it is like

is your god for giving or isn't he god is very forgiving but okay so so so why are you trying to

reach back into the past and get something that you think belongs to you because the economic

impact of the past still has an impact in the present okay so what the 230 bill here's why because

if because the 230 billion dollars 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 is 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 to make those repairs and again

this is coming from 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 the state a

stigmatization of our own skin color that has not been endured by any other race that has

ever been here so basically so based on that I mean you can say Lord and Merced I mean if the truth

offend you that better than you might need to switch bibles but the point is that that has happened

it's demonstraably proven what I've said has happened and it is demonstraably proven 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 so so you you sound like you just

you know came here right after reading Nicole Hannah Jones 1619 project or maybe even ex-Kindes

you know the last thing I read was the proverbs actually I read that this racist or what have you

no the reality of it is like you're you're speaking like your presumption is out of this redistributive

mindset no it comes from my 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 advocated 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 want slavery that's not me that's

not Martin that's Moynihan the issue with so do you disagree with Moynihan or is he also a communist

I just I disagree with the solutions of Moynihan but I don't agree but I but I do agree with

some of his findings in terms of the out of well log birth and things of this nature you agree

apart one of the Moynihan report just not part two just because I agree with some bodies identification

of a problem doesn't necessarily mean I'm always going to agree with their solution to fix the problem

well he identified as little problems the pathology of the the the tangular pathology they

talked about in part three of his report actually went back to the foundation of his work which is

based on E Franklin Flasier who you well know who also spoke to the economic ridiculousness that

was visited upon us via slavery so you have E Franklin Flasier 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 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

point of Moynihan because it would force you to admit that your worldview is based on a fault

to the assumption and it's based on a pseudo Christianity which is what you've been preaching this

entire two hours a bit sitting here okay there's no I'm at this 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 you know you correct you don't you don't converse the government

through by way the taxpayer to help them you you help them yeah I agree with that render unto

see which is Caesar's an 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

and pillaged for 250 years just like the descendants of Jesus himself okay even next candy so the

reality of it is again King James Bible actually much better book so here's the thing I feel like

you're talking in circles with all due respect I could have said the same thing 40 minutes ago I

just let you talk 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 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 in ticks and those are

blood-sucking insects I came to weed them out not be one of them well that's interesting because

you sound like the quintessential politician and so far 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 actually cultural is to

sin problem it's it's I'm here to come at a sin absolutely yeah I'm too shy in justice anywhere

as a threat to justice everywhere I'm here only to correct and then he puts a king again well I

mean you know the man you said himself he's a great order yeah I have to think I'm close to him but not

quite there so well when he's great you stay with the great most of his speeches were written

not by him but by his communist handled oh that's enough that's not that's an absolute why

yes I have it I have his own I've seen his own writings of my own eyes I forgot my hands on

quite a few of them and they they were not the idea that levison and here's a book recommendation

for you go go read a book called Dangerous Friendship which documents the the friendship the

partnership between king and staying 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 staying levison go read that book and and if you're watching this I'd recommend you go read that

book as well and you'll you'll get insight into the construction of king's speeches you will get

inside you'll get inside into a couple of the introductions and a couple of the frameworks of

some of king's 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 also also largely handled and edited by staying levison so there's no objective

evidence to prove that either so the the fact of the matter is you know again this I do agree with

you I concede that it's inherently a sin problem so 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 the 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 is that what that then does is that

de-incentivizes the responsibilities that are that are 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 and so again the reason why I said earlier that the work of king

moved blocks from a trying race to a crying race that wasn't to be funny that wasn't to you know

do a gotcha or slogan I said that because I genuinely mean it again how do you account for the

upper trajectory the upper 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 you I mean people can say that it's racism and riots and all the things

no the downward trajectory had nothing to do with King the downward trajectory we already say to

this it had to do with the mindset it had to do it like 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 releases 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 Moynihan

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 down floor that was the floor of the social justice programs

of the Lyndon Johnson administration child I'ma let you respond to that we got 10 minutes just

to heads up yeah respond to that and we'll do closing statements okay okay so again this notion

that is exclusively 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 put in the in the 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 as echoed by the late

Nika Nika Giovanni who in an interview with 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 as well there was a mindset shift that was taking place that did result in the

fathers leaving in 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 skip the generation or they didn't skip the

generation so just to finish my point the mindset shift is a very real thing whenever Joseph H. Jackson

which is somebody I highly recommend people look into and I don't know if you're aware of who he

is or not he was a president of the National Baptist Convention I also told Martin Luther King

to get the hell out of the North here which the National Baptist Convention it boasted I think four

or five million Negro churchgoers Joseph H. Jackson was from that kind of Booker T. Washington

School of Fame he sat it with Mayor Daley and saying the King had no business in the North

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 put up a

Garner C. Taylor King would send out letters to various pastors saying we you know next year's

I year to remove Jackson from his post as a leader of the National Baptist Convention they attempted

to do it the the King and Garner C. Taylor contingent tried to rush the stage demanding a roll call

and the Kroffuffle Reverend A.D. Wright at a Detroit fell at the stage cracked his head and died

and as a result of 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 more not only that not only that 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 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 repression look at

them we deserve it too it's never a sin to the truth 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 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

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 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 he's tying your

manhood and so the reality of it is and that's what he was doing that what kings 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 and to and to black folks and to black culture and so

in so doing he's moving American black Americans from a trying race under the leadership of people

like Booker G. Washington to a crying race under the leadership of King Abernathy and his whole

Marxian contingent so yes absolutely never proved he was a Marxist when you look once again at the

Kato Institute study conducted in 2019 where more blacks have a favorable view of socialism in 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 bitch and mount 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 the unfortunate I don't have I used to be 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 not too 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 and keeping with Booker T. Washington

in keeping with Joseph H. Jackson I could I could be a protester today because I felt sorry for

myself and the government owes me something no the conditions that led me 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 no co-Henna Jones does and the

ebrem x-kendys and others and beg and moan and write and and do all the things to say that the

government owes us something because do the extent that we do that all we're doing Austin is we're

feeding in to this kind of woe is me mentality that doesn't breed genuine liberty that doesn't

breed genuine inequality all that breeds is more resentment all the breeds is more

issues and disorder and the generation 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 don't 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 to 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 my food or whatever tampered with because somebody's

coercive to do so by the government I thank you for again calling this this debate together

and I'm sorry I got heated up 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 pretend we can't

continue as black people in particular that king is so great we owe him all this this honor and

respect and and we owe him our our firstborn because of all the things he did because of the extent

that we do that and buy into this kind of mentality this marks a mentality that king set 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 rally is that that thing is always

sure to implode because it's not held together by genuine progress is held together by a lot of

a lot of symbols and theatrics that doesn't really do anything to get to the heart of the issue so

that's that's my point your final response Austin my final response is very simple I came here to do

one thing and I've done it the 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's 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 and we we would not have made the statement that we

must remind the world that there's still a fountain that's been filled with blood drawn from

Emmanuel's veins you don't get more higher Christophany you don't get higher Christology

in a statement like that because Emmanuel 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 be not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character

that is a meritocracy at his finest but you don't get to a meritocracy until you remove the underpinned

economic evil vestiges 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

confused equal opportunity cannot and will not ever produce equal outcome Michael Jordan

go always be Michael Jordan Lebron go always be Lebron the fact is the opportunity must exist

and dr. King saying that it didn't cost the nation one pinity and a great lunch counters was true

dr. King saying that it didn't cost the nation one pinity 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 ex 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 GDP's at that time and you have stood here and this was this was a great

debate and a great discussion but you said the 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 nigger if you and out of this town in three days we're going to blow your brains

out and blow up your house and he talked about I heard these things before but for this night it got

to him and he turned over and he prayed a prayer he said Lord I'm 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 versus 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 give us on paper if we lived in China or Russia we can understand the

denial of certain basic first amendment privileges but what dr. King tried to bring to fruition

in print and practice was the principal 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 order to discriminate against somebody based purely on the color of this skin

that is a sort of racist bigoted evil the dr. King fought against and for as long as I live

and as far as long as the Lord allows me to get involved in politics and eventually yeah in 15

years I still think you're going on Jubilee I was going to run for prison 15 years I want it stated

on this podcast right here I'm not a politician I'm a person involved in politics as a child while

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 can I respond just really quickly I won't be long

so you said that King found God and the during the Montgomery bus boycott that's actually not true

again that was written and uh stride for freedom which again was heavily the white Jesus called

a manifold sermon was written in stride for was was written by who which is heavily edited by

Stan levison and the reality Stan levison edited King sermon that's a lie what you talk about

the sermon he gave in November 1967 said you can't say that it's an outright historical thing let me

try to be brief again I named the book title so people can go and read yeah I made

the sermon title he named a book title we're not going to mistake that I quoted a sermon from

Dr. King directly to my G Paul the manifold in 1967 yeah okay so let me just find a

front point because I know we gotta wrap up so the 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 and

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's violates

the very first a commandment uh that I'm the lawyer 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 if we're getting our timeline correctly um the again will you look at the flandering

again the the fact of the matter is we know that pastors those who profess to be teachers will be

judge more harshly uh 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 by your logic neither

was King David or Abraham or Noah Noah was a drunk David was a repentant and he wrote about it in

the Psalms there's nothing that we have on record of Samson slip with prostitutes there's not

Noah was accused of drunkenness the last point I'll make I promise is that we don't need to deny

him three times the last point I'll make I promise we don't have any record of King being repentant

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 Christian but read the read the read the whole

uh sermon in its context you'll see that he's advocating for social justice which is reading

the Marxism uh to say so the gospel the social according to say to say in isolated form that he

told America they must be born again thereby being this engineer wasn't trying to tie that into like

born again by way of Christ my dear friend also if he's writing as if he's pulled exactly what it

was going no no no don't read go watch those so I'm gonna work 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 it hopes the show a lot with the

algorithm thank you