Was Martin Luther King Jr. A Communist?
Print Friendly and PDF

The civil rights movement was the Frankenstein monster of American communists, who sought to use race, and still do, in order to destroy America. Not only did Martin Luther King Jr. let Communists bankroll him and write his speeches, but he gladly surrounded himself with them, at the highest reaches of "the movement." Communist Stanley Levison was both King's top speechwriter and one of his financial benefactors. He wrote King's "I Have a Dream" speech, as well as others. Levison inserted into the "I Have a Dream" speech, which was a demand for racial reparations, and in which either Levison or King plagiarized the black Rev. Archibald Carey's speech to the 1952 Republican National Convention, the line,

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

That line went against everything that King stood for"”which could be expressed as 1. race; 2. race; and 3. race"”which is why Levison wrote it. He knew that millions of people were going to hear the speech live on radio and TV, and that King's journalistic shills needed a pull quote to stand for the entire speech for the tens of millions who would only know the speech through journalistic accounts and TV news snippets. So he used something quintessentially American, to make King seem less threatening, less racist, and less anti-American than he actually was.

The MSM have long suppressed the matter of King's relationships with communists, and even some of his critics see him merely as having been a dupe of communists. King was a frequent participant, as was Rosa Parks, at training sessions at the Highlander Folk School, which was founded and run by Myles Horton. Horton was an admitted communist who told comrades that he never joined the Communist Party USA solely so that he could deny that he was a Party member.

Longtime communist Stanley Levison had been a member of the Communist Party USA, but had officially left the Party, apparently in order to have plausible deniability, but remained always a communist. During the early 1960s, King also hired CPUSA member Hunter Pitts "Jack" O'Dell as a high-ranking aide.

In a private conversation at the White House, President Kennedy ordered King to fire O'Dell, due to the latter's Communism, and King said he would, but he lied. The FBI, working under the aegis of Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, soon determined that King had merely moved O'Dell to a different office within the same building. King's communist connections are too lengthy to detail here, but the late Arnold Stang discussed them in the chapter "Life Among the Eskimos" in his 1965 work, It's Very Simple: The True Story of Civil Rights.

In any event, King wasn't vaguely "linked" to communists; he gladly surrounded himself with them. When King was publicly challenged regarding the proliferation of communists (big and little "c") within the civil rights movement, he famously responded,

"There are as many Communists in this freedom movement as there are Eskimos in Florida."

FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover countered that King was,

"the most notorious liar in the country."

Thereafter, Arnold Stang sardonically referred to King as "The King of the Eskimos"!

(Some retellings of the story say that Hoover was responding to King's charge that the FBI was indifferent to civil rights violations, with chroniclers citing the Bureau's success, in 1964, at finding the bodies of murdered civil rights workers James Chaney, Michael Schwerner, and Andrew Goodman, solving that crime, and arresting suspects, and in 1965 of immediately solving the Alabama murder of white civil rights activist Viola Liuzzo.)

On April 4, 1967, King gave a speech, "Beyond Vietnam — A Time to Break Silence," at New York City's notoriously leftwing, Upper West Side Riverside Church, in which he denounced America as "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government," and the killer of women and children.

The speech was such pure, and interminable propaganda on behalf of the North Vietnamese Communists that it would not surprise me in the least, if it had been written in Hanoi, brought to America by courier in a diplomatic pouch, and revised by Stanley Levison.

(Gregory Allen Olson reports that Vincent Harding was the principal author of the speech, with help from Andrew Young, John Maguire, et al., but still I wonder.)

It was supposedly an "anti-war" speech, on behalf of "peace" in Vietnam. Peace? Ha! King sought the peace of the graveyard. He wasn't opposing the war, he was supporting the war aims of the North Vietnamese, and the triumph of Communism, i.e., the triumph of slavery, rapine, and genocide.

Note that the so-called peace movement which King championed hijacked the "V" (for victory) symbol made popular during World War II. Logically, it makes no sense that "V" can stand for "P." But it makes perfect sense if one realizes that the "peace" activists did support victory ... for the Communists.

The notion that America was the world's greatest perpetrator of violence, and a killer of women and children, was a pure projection of the Communists, who sought to subjugate the entire world, and had so far succeeded in enslaving one-third of it. It was the Communists who were routinely murdering women and children in South Vietnam.

King's speech was so traitorous that even many erstwhile liberal allies in the press, and even the White House, denounced him in public and private. (Much of what was then considered "liberal" would today be considered "moderate", or even "conservative.")

The New York Times attacked King for comparing U.S. military tactics to the Nazis'; Life came down even harder, labeling the speech "demagogic slander that sounded like a script for Radio Hanoi." Many in the White House thought King had "thrown in with the commies. "Historian Lloyd C. Gardner quotes Johnson aide Harry McPherson as saying that King was now "the crown prince of the Vietniks." [Landmark Speeches of the Vietnam War, by Gregory Allen Olson, 2010.]

The Washington Post judged that King had "diminished his usefulness to his cause, his country, his people." In the process of blackwashing all of King's wickedness since he was assassinated, and transforming his treason into virtue, this communist speech has been reinterpreted into a morally prophetic stand. In it, King:

  • Perverted Christian notions of universal brotherhood, in order to turn the Communists into our brothers, while putting "enemy" in scare quotes;
  • Argued that the war was costing blacks money that was rightfully theirs;
  • Asserted that the war was being disproportionately fought by black men (a Communist lie);
  • Set a moral equivalence for blacks between firing rifles and throwing hand grenades for one's nation in war, and firing guns and throwing Molotov cocktails against one's government at home;
  • Replaced the reality, in which American boys were fighting the North Vietnamese, in order to keep the South Vietnamese people free, with Communist propaganda, which depicted us as the totalitarian enemy of the entire Vietnamese people, and the North Vietnamese Communists as the true friends of the South Vietnamese ("Now they languish under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow Vietnamese, the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps where minimal social needs are rarely met.");
  • Presented the Communist butcher Ho Chi Minh as the rightful leader of the entire Vietnamese people, and used Communist euphemisms such as "land reform" (state confiscation of all private land, which would either be collectivized or handed over to Communist Party leaders), "independence" (totalitarian, Communist dictatorship), and "recolonization" (America helping the South Vietnamese to live free of Communist tyranny);
  • Demanded that we pay the Communists "reparations";
  • Cited an anonymous American Foreign Service official who had supposedly said in 1957 "that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution";
  • Suggested that America's wealth was based on raping and oppressing Third World countries;
  • Spoke of "giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism"; and
  • Paid lip-service to some vague, non-Communist "revolution" that would offer all of the "good" stuff of Communism, but with none of the bad stuff.

J. Edgar Hoover was absolutely right about King. Unfortunately, most Americans have since been indoctrinated to believe King's lies, instead of Hoover's truth. And yet, some will still deny that King was a communist, as opposed to, say, a dupe of communists, or an ally with them in a mutually profitable relationship.

To them I ask, can one vigorously, mindlessly, promote a belief—as opposed to promoting the right of others to believe it—without oneself being a believer? The only alternative I see left, that could make room for communism in a subordinate position, while promoting black race politics, could be called black supremacy or black racial socialism.

It is from the position of just such an ideological mix of black supremacy and Marxism that James H. Cone, the founder of genocidal Black Liberation Theology (to which the Obamas adhere), argued in Martin and Malcolm and America: A Dream or a Nightmare, that at the end of their respective lives, King and X/Little/Shabazz were converging ideologically. Thus, while one can honestly dispute that King was a communist, the alternative interpretation is at least as bad. "Beyond Vietnam — A Time to Break Silence," the text of Martin Luther King Jr.'s April 4, 1967 Riverside Church Speech.

Print Friendly and PDF