Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - REPLAY | Was MLK a Christian Hero? Shocking Revelations Uncovered | Chad O. Jackson

Episode Date: January 17, 2026

Filmmaker Chad Jackson joins us today as we unpack his upcoming docuseries, "The MLK Project," which challenges the narrative that MLK was the unifying Christian hero we’ve been taught. From his ties to Marxist ideologies and rejection of core Christian doctrines to the manufactured moments that shaped the civil rights era, Chad reveals a side of MLK that will leave you questioning everything. We also explore how these ideologies continue to influence the church today, often to its peril. Buy Allie's book "Toxic Empathy: How Progressives Exploit Christian Compassion": ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.toxicempathy.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ --- Timecodes: (01:30) Introduction (13:06) Outlining Marxist & Communist Ideology (23:54) What is the Social Justice Gospel? (35:38) The History of the Civil Rights Movement (52:33) Seeing Change through Reformation (01:09:30) The True Content of MLK's Character --- Episodes you might like: Ep 581 | What DO White Americans Owe Black People? | Guest: Professor Jason D. Hill https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-581-what-do-white-americans-owe-black-people-guest/id1359249098?i=1000554002441 Ep 985 | Why DEI Always Leads to LGBTQ | Guest: Delano Squires https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-985-was-mlk-jr-really-a-christian-guest-delano-squires/id1359249098?i=1000652534041 Ep 1228 | She Helped AOC Win. Now She’s Exposing Zohran Mamdani & Climate Activism | Lucy Biggers https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-1228-she-helped-aoc-win-now-shes-exposing-zohran/id1359249098?i=1000721225319 --- Buy Allie's book "You're Not Enough (and That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love": ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.alliebethstuckey.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Relatable merchandise: Use promo code ALLIE10 for a discount: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

If you are looking to refinance or maybe you are looking to get into the home that you need or your family wants right now, then you need to call my friends at Fellowship Home Loans. Mike and Brian are the real deal. They are going to bring you excellent service and help you get in the financial position that you need to maybe get some extra margin in your finances. If you need to refinance or to make sure that you get the mortgage that you need for the home that you are looking to purchase. They do their business by the book, not just by the book, but by the book, by biblical principles. Those are the kind of people that you want to trust with such a big decision like this. If you go to fellowshiphomeloans.com, you'll get $500 of credit at closing.

That's fellowship homelones.com slash alley, term supply, see site for details, fellowship home loans, mortgage lending by the book, nationwide mortgage bankers, DBA Fellowship Home Loans, equal housing lender, NMLS, number 819382. What if everything you think you know about the civil rights movement and MLK is a lie? Today we've got Chad Jackson. He is a researcher and a filmmaker. He is creating a docu series about who MLK really was and how his ideology has captured the hearts in mind of many Christians to the church's peril. Here is the trailer for that docu series, Sot 1.

Our leader of our nation. Our leader, Dr. King. Our leader, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Dr. King was our leader. He who controls the narrative of the past, controls the policies of the present, and the conditions of the future. If Dr. King was about judging people

by the content of that character rather than the color of their skin, should we judge King by the content of his character? Dr. King has been a woman. I'm alleged that you have been slow to severe ties with alleged communists. Stanley Lebsie, yeah, he's always in his ear. I mean, he wrote everything that MLK said publicly. Always in his ear.

He rejected the deity of Christ, the resurrection, the virgin birth. He rejected a literal hell. Can we trust someone that appears to be faithful to a movement, but he's not faithful to his family? Buckle up. If you love untold history, you are going to love this episode. Thank you so much for taking the time to join us. We've already been having an amazing conversation off camera. Maybe we can bring it back for the audience to be able to hear. But please tell everyone who you are and what you do. Yeah. So my name is Chad Jackson. I'm an independent filmmaker as well as the owner of a small plumbing company.

Okay. So that's pretty much it. Just a dad and just a down-to-earth guy, quite frankly. And how did you get the platform that you do? What made you want to start talking? about the issues that you talk about. Yeah, so that's a really good question. So in high school, I took film classes. That's actually what I wanted to pursue as a career. But after high school, I met my then-girlfriend, now wife,

and I knew that if I wanted to have a family, then I would have to get a job, a real job. So I pursued the trades and ended up getting a master plumbing license and starting a company. And around the time that I started my company, I was actually very active in Dallas County Republican politics. And I was doing that for a few years. I kind of grew tired of it just because of the fact that I didn't really see it going anywhere.

And then two, my plumbing company was really taking off. We were really getting a lot of business. And around this time, Justin Malone, who is a Dallas-based filmmaker, set out to make his film Uncle Tom. And he reached out to me because he heard about me through the Dallas County Republican Party. Okay. And at the time, I wasn't really active.

And so I reluctantly agreed to sit down with him and be interviewed. And I say reluctantly because I really wasn't sure what they were trying to do, whether they were trying to, like, do a kind of gotcha film about black conservatives or whatever the case may be. But we sat down. He interviewed me. The interview went really well. He was asking a lot of good questions.

We had a really good conversation. And so he took that footage from that interview, flew to L.A., and met with Larry Elder. And Larry loved the interview. He wanted to become an executive producer for what would become Uncle Tom and was able to connect Justin with people like Candace Owens, Allen West, Brandon Tatum, and others.

And that's how we ended up getting Uncle Tom, which was released in 2020. And so after the success of that film, they asked me to come back because I'm an independent researcher as well and do the research and the producing for what would ultimately become Uncle Tom Part 2, which was released in 2022. So that, I think, is how I kind of got the platform that I have. And so with that, I was able to take a lot of the research that I'm doing and go out on my own

and do my own independent thing as far as making docu-series and videos and things of that nature. And you started looking into MLK and the civil rights era when? So I started looking into that in around 2019. Okay. And why? Well, I think for me it was kind of a course correction, quite frankly. Having gone to public school learning about Dr. King every January and every Black History Month, learning that he was this great hero, learning that the Civil Rights Movement was a high point for America,

I really believe that. I believe that King was the kind of, he was the quintessential race unifier, if you will. And as I grew up and began to do my own research, because let me rewind just quite a, quite a bit. So whenever we were doing the research for Uncle Tom Part 2, we were looking into cultural Marxism, ideological subversion, and infiltration. Marxist infiltration into the church. We were looking into these things because we knew that there was something there. These are things that I've been researching since high school. But I always separated King from being a part of that.

Right. I mean, I knew about the Frankfurt School. I knew about Antonio Gramchie. I knew about culture Marxism. I knew about people like Angela Davis, who was mentored by Herbert Macuza, who was of the Frankfurt School. But even though King had proximity to all these people,

I always felt the need to separate him from those things because it's a no-brainer. King is a hero. We all believe he's a hero, regardless of if you're on the left or the right of the political spectrum. But the more that we were challenging ourselves in Uncle Tom Part 2 to really kind of get underneath the layers and see what was going on, it just kept coming back. King, King, King. And we had to follow the thread in a challenge.

truthful way because it wasn't about being a commercial success it was more about getting to the bottom of things really yeah really what we wanted to do with Uncle Tom part two which was different than part one is where part one was more focused on black conservatism 101 part two wanted to take the audience deeper wanted to basically say come along with us as we reveal real American history as it pertains to black Americans and so with King it was just a a big disappointment to find out the things that we ended up finding out about him in terms of the fact that he wasn't a real Christian. He didn't believe in the deity of Christ. He didn't

believe in the virgin birth. He didn't believe that Jesus rose from the dead. He didn't believe in the literal existence of heaven and hell. Didn't believe that Jesus is going to come again. He basically didn't believe in the basic fundamental tenets of the Christian faith. And you found this out through his own words, correct? his own words, right? I mean, there's seven volumes, and there's plenty more from where this come from at the Stanford Library, but, you know, his papers, if you read those papers, you'll find that, you know, by his own admission, he rejected the deity of crisis early as age 12 of 12. He said they shocked his Sunday school class by rejecting the virgin birth

and the resurrection. And he never recanted from that. He never backtracked on that or anything. He always believed that. He wrote that as an adult talking about the fact that when he was 12, he didn't believe those things. And as he was writing as an adult, he was saying, and yet he was almost proud of that, saying, wow, I was a revolutionary against Christianity from a very early age. That's absolutely right. That's absolutely right.

In fact, he didn't even want to become a pastor. He said he wanted to become a lawyer or a doctor or something like that. But he was talked into becoming a pastor by his family. And the thing about King, which is very interesting, is that he had something like a photographic memory. He was very witty, very charismatic, very charming. And then, too, he had a front row seat to his father, who was a pastor growing up. And as somebody who was a great mimic, according to those who were closest to him, he can impersonate anyone and sound just like them. Wow.

He had a front row seat to his pastor's cadence and the pacing of his preaching and his oratory skills. And King picked up on that quite easily. And so he was convinced to go into the ministry and to go to Crozer Theological Seminary, which by the time King went there, already had a lot of Marxist professors, those who were Marxists and those who were just proponents of the so-called social gospel. and King was able to take that teaching in, make it his own, and it would be the launching pad of his career. A lot of people might not know the names and the terms that you listed earlier, the Frankfurt School, Angela Davis, Marcusa. Now, we have talked about those people many times, especially back in 2020, when so many people were like, what is the ideology underneath so much of what is happening?

But not everyone was tuning in then, and not everyone may remember. So can you tell us, like, what is the Frankfurt School and the School of Thought that is Marxism that you're saying deeply affected MLK's ideology? That's a really good question. So the Frankfurt School, to answer your first question, these were professors out of Germany who were, who fled Germany in the 1940s. and they were accepted by administrators at the University of Columbia in New York. There were a lot of pro-Marxist moves that were being made at Columbia. I mean, you had Union Theological Seminary there, where they were already teaching their students,

their seminary students with a very Marxist bent that was reminiscent of the kinds of teachings that you would get from Walter. to Roshamush, who was a so-called theologian out of Hell's Kitchen, New York, who was, who basically visited England in the late 1800s and was enamored of the tactics of what was called the Fabian Society. Now, the Fabian Society is interesting because these were intellectuals and elitists who shared the sentiments of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. They envis, they envis a envisioned a communist world. They differed, however, from Marx insofar that where Marx wanted a sudden

uprising, a revolution, the workers of the world unite. The Fabian Society, on the other hand, saw a slow, kind of incremental, kind of gradual entering into a Marxist utopia. They saw that it would take time by first taking hold of the institutions. And the reason they saw it this way, is because they didn't see a revolution as sustainable. With a revolution, if you were to capture the institutions by way of a sudden uprising, there's still tradition and there's still a kind of hegemony that exists across the land that people will grow tired and you will have a counter-revolution and you'll just have a lot of unrest and dysfunction.

Too much too fast. Too much too fast. Whereas if you go this slow, gradual, incremental way, you can slowly change the mind of a generation, which will then change the mind of the next generation and the next generation. It will last a lot longer. Right. So the people who were the Fabian types were the more patient. You know, they understood that, well, we might not get there in my generation, but

my grandchildren will get to enjoy socialism. So basically the Frankfurt School, which you said came out of Germany, left Germany in the 1940s, fled to America. got into academia here, they took the ideas of Marx, but the tactics of the Fabian society, right? So the ideas of Marx for people who don't know, it's basically communism. It's this idea that the proletariat, right, the common person, the working person is being oppressed by the bourgeoisie or the elites. And that capitalism is evil. And that, as you said, the workers of the world have to unite against the bourgeoisie or the elites.

the elites. But ultimately, it wasn't just about giving the proles power or the working person power. It was about making sure that everyone was forced to be on the same plane as the lowest common denominator. So no one would have private property, right? You're not earning capital. We hear that those kind of mantras today, you will own nothing and be happy. And ironically, now it's the elites who have some of the many of the ideas that Marx held in the name of the oppressed. But this idea of Marxism is not just applied economically today. It's also applied. Culturally.

Yes, and racially as well. So I imagine that as the Frankfurt School kind of got its tentacles into different parts of academia, into seminaries, the idea of Marxism really evolved. And it sounds like MLK was a big part. of Christianizing Marxism and then kind of disseminating it to the masses. Would that be accurate? That's 100% accurate. So his real name is Michael King. His father's name is Michael King as well. Now, what's interesting about that is that Michael King, Sr., visited Germany shortly before the rise of Hitler. And he was enamored of the story that he learned while in Germany of the Theologian.

of the theologian, the 16th century theologian Martin Luther. In the same way that Marx was enamored of Martin Luther, a lot of people don't know this. What intrigued him about Martin Luther is that here's a man who revolutionized the church. He took authority from the Catholic order, and he vested that authority into the common man by way of the Reformation.

And it's interesting, people should look at the writings of Karl Marx as it relates to, to Martin Luther. And Carl Mark said, and I'm going to butcher this, but he says something to the effect of, we're going to do the same thing as Martin Luther, only our revolution won't stop at the doors of church estates, like our agenda to secularize everything. And so Michael King, Sr. would come later, and he would be enamored of Martin Luther in the same way. And he would come back to the United States and change his name to Martin Luther King, because he saw him himself as the American version of Martin Luther King, of Martin Luther, and he wanted to revolutionize

the American church into accepting the social gospel. And so he changed his name to Martin Luther King, Sr., and his son's name to Martin Luther King Jr. But it would actually be his son who would go on to do exactly what you said in terms of using the church as a kind of hub for the dissemination of Marxist ideology. Yeah. And I just want to say as a Protestant that I don't think the argument that you're making is that Martin Luther, the reformer, was doing something inherently wrong or evil in his reformation. I would say that this is so much of what Satan does is that he takes what a movement that God put forth and something of the Holy Spirit is doing and creates a counterfeit and creates a satanic movement that might, mirror it in some ways, but ultimately has destructive ends. And it sounds like you're saying that that's what happened here with MLK and his son. Right. So yeah, it was definitely a bastardization of what Martin Luther did. I think what Martin Luther did was a good thing. I think Reformation was a

needed thing. But the blueprint, it all comes down to what Michael King Sr. and Karl Marx interpreted as a blueprint for their own kind of revolution, if you will. Tell me more about the kind of education that MLK got that really solidified his kind of Marxist foundation. Really good question. So Michael King, Sr. was a proponent of the social gospel. It was something that he wrote about in his unpublished memoir.

And not only that, he would often go to these communist front. organization events that were put on across the South by an organization called the young the the national Negro Congress but there was another subsidiary of it called the southern Negro Youth League or something like that and they would put on all these organizations in the South they would have Paul Robson who was a famous singer in those days who was a vowed communists he would come and speak at these events and Michael King senior would go to these events along with older Ralph Abernathy and Rosa Parks and others. And so am I saying that Michael King, Sr. was a communist? Not really. I'm just saying

that he was intrigued by a lot of the rhetoric that was being disseminated in those days, some of which he was preaching in his very own church, which Martin Luther King had a front row access to. And sorry, but remind everyone what the social gospel is. So the social gospel, which was popularized by Walter Roshan Bush, is placing the onus on the state or the government to bring about equity by way of legislation and policies. It's using tax dollars to feed the poor and to build houses and to take care of the marginalized. That's where the emphasis is placed on with the social gospel, just put in a very elementary way. Yes. But also it is the that is also what secular progresses,

is believed politically, but the social gospel specifically is saying that all of the things that you just listed, that that's the gospel. Right. That that's what Christians have to believe. That's what Christians have to do. It's less about denying yourself and more becoming a political activist for the advancement of those political goals, right? Yeah, exactly.

And it's social justice with a Christian tinge. And so that's why I call it. it the social justice gospel because it's this when you look at the social that's at social justice and the fact that a lot of secular activists push it in the church the the black church many black churches it's probably not fair to say the church but in a lot of black churches they push the so-called social gospel there's really no difference between social justice and the social gospel right the only difference is that one of them is in the church and one of them isn't and so that's why you know, I synthesize them by calling them the social justice gospel, but the reality of it is

exactly what you just said. It's this idea of God came not to save individual souls, but rather he came to bring utopia on earth by way of politics. And so you have a lot of pastors, so-called pastors, like Raphael Warnock, like, there's too many of the name. But I was going to name William Barb But you have all these so-called pastors who use the pulpit to stump for political causes more so than to call people to repent and to put their faith in Christ and to follow him. When you listen to someone like Raphael Warnock, for example, he never actually mentions the Bible without attaching it to some policy right now that's on the docket. The same is true of Martin Luther King. I listen to every second of every minute, of every hour, of every Martin Luther King's sermon that's in existence, and never once does he actually preach the gospel and call people to repentance? Because he probably did not believe in it.

Right, exactly, exactly. And so Michael King Sr. was a proponent of the social gospel. King himself was enamored of this Marxist idea, as he writes about in his own papers. And so whenever he goes to Crozer Theological Seminary, what he learned there, as well as at Boston University, is how to, in a sense, mask his Marxism through Hegelian dialectics. And what's that? So Hegelian dialectics, to put it simply, is, I think the best explanation of it I've seen is by R.C. Sprole, who said that you have the synthesis, the way things are, and the antithesis, which is the rhetoric. of the activists, the communists in this equation. And so what King was doing was taking the thesis, the way things are, the way America was, and the antithesis, communist rhetoric. And then you have the synthesis. You kind of solve the problem of those two tensions by kind of coming up with this way of acknowledging you're right about this and you're right about that. And let's try to find a way to

compromise and bring these ideas together in a way. So that's Hegelian dialectics. Yeah. very basic way. And so King was able to learn how to, in a sense, synthesize these two worldviews by coming off as a moderate as someone who's trying to progress us forward. Yeah. Okay. So just to make sure that I understand, because I've never heard it explain like that, and it's just making a lot of things click for me. So you have the thesis. Right now, America is this constitutional republic and maybe, you know, MLK at that point. would have said, you know, it's segregated, black people are oppressed. The antithesis would be how he wanted things to be. So underneath it all, while he didn't say this at the time,

maybe he wanted communism. He wanted Marxism. He thought that was the way forward. But being the very strategic and smart person that he was, he knew he couldn't come out there and say, I'm for communism. So he took the way things are, the way he wanted things to be. And then he synthesized them into this kind of American Christian package that he knew most people would have a very hard time in their American Christian consciousness arguing against, which is that we should judge people by the content of their character. Our movement is a movement of peace and love. So that's the tactic that he used to try to convince people that his movement was justified.

100%. And it didn't start with him. I mean, it started, if you look at the writings of Earl Browder in the 1930s, he was the leader of the Communist Party who was advocating for communists to infiltrate both Catholic and Protestant seminaries as well as Catholic and Protestant churches. Where you look at Bella Dodd's book. She wrote a book called The School of Darkness, where she admits that she was a participant in assisting in the infiltration of seminaries and churches. where you look at the writings of Fulton Sheen. The fact that Marxists were able to infiltrate the church is well documented. There's a plethora of information out there that solidifies that. And then King is part of that because of his training, both in his upbringing as well as his formal education. When you look at people like George Davis, who is one of his professors, who was a proponent of the Social Gospel, who basically taught King how to mask his Marxist sensibilities through the social gospel behind

the pulpit. And then, too, when you look at his denouncement of Marxism and of communism, this is interesting because any time I talk about King's infatuation with Marxism and communism, one of the biggest pushbacks I get is, well, he said he wasn't a communist, as if communists don't lie, for one. But then, too, if you look at King's writings on denouncing communism and the reasons that he give, what you'll find is that they were not words that originated with him. He plagiarized a theologian by the name of Robert J. McCracken, who wrote a book in 1951 called Questions People People Ask. And he writes about why communism is antithetical to the Christian faith. And so rather than King coming up with his own idea of why he rejects communism, he simply plagiarized and lifted verbiage from Robert J. McCracken, which begs the question, at least for me, why not give your own words as to why, you know, if you detest communism so much, why not use your own words to say so?

Yeah. Why plagiarize someone else to explain it? And the reason why he would do that is because Marxists are utilitarian. And what this means is lying is just a tool in the bus. bucket for them to yeah that's why we couldn't trust anything china said during COVID exactly they don't have the same ideas about integrity or honesty for the sake of honesty it's more what is going to get me to the goal that I want right and I think I think that nil in the coffin on it is when you look at when you look at all the times king was asked well are there communists in your movement he would always say no which was interesting because his number one handler was a man by the name of Stanley Levison, who was a financier for the communists here in America.

You look at a lot of his speechwriters, including Byard Rustin, including Clarence Jones, Ella Baker, and others, all of whom were either Marxist or were part of the Communist Party at some degree, and at some point, including James Baldwin, who admitted in an interview with Nikki Giovanni that he was part of the Communist Party when he was 19th. 19 and 20 years old. Not only that, when you look at the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which was the organization that King was the president of, this was started with the advice of Stanley Levison. And not only that, he recruited a man by the name of James Jackson, who was a active member of the Communist Party. And James Jackson's role was to basically fill the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, a staff. staff it with ministers. All these ministers came out of the Southern Negro Youth League or Southern Negro Youth Conference, which was a communist organization. It was started with the help of Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union. And so King knew all of these things. Like he knew

that there was a direct line of communication between the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and the Soviet Union. But he denied having anything to do with communism when the the press would ask him about it. The idea, once again, was to come off as someone who's moderate, someone who's just a minister, who's tired of being oppressed and mistreated by white southerners and to influence the passing of legislation that would stand to expand the role of the federal government at the expense of state's rights. So that was his real goal, is what your argument is, that the oppression,

conversation was really his vehicle just to give the government more power for the purpose of establishing what he thought was a just system, which is communism, which is Marxism. Is your argument that it really had nothing to do with race for him at the heart of it? It didn't have anything to do with race. It had everything to do with the expansion of, well, it had everything to do with the ushering in of Marxist ideology into the United States. States. This is a very complex thing, but I'll try my best to explain it. So when it, when it comes to the Civil Rights Movement, the Civil Rights Movement was not this organic grassroots thing that started. It was started by the federal government, dating as far back as the reconstruction era shortly

after the war between the states. You had something called carpet baggers and scallywags that were really kind of imposing on the South, treating Southerners not like co-equal sovereign citizens, but rather as conquered people and a conquered territory. And you had these radicals that were in Congress, many of whom were actually pen pals with Marx and Ingalls that were really kind of imposing and trying to expand and broaden government authority, federal government authority on the South.

So that's phase one of the civil rights movement. Ingles, for those who don't know, is another communist from abroad. And so this is during the 1800s. Again, for those you don't know, this is, yes, this is when. when Marx was coming to prominence, and there was a lot happening in the world,

in the Industrial Revolution, that made Marx's and Ingalls' ideas popular. Because, I mean, there was a lot of stomping the worker at the time, no workers' rights and things like that, especially in Europe. And so not a justification for Marx, but you could see why he became popular at the time. So you're saying Marx and Ingalls had a direct relationship with some members of Congress

that were representing some northern states in America who were treating the South after the Civil War as conquered people. Can you give me some examples of that? Because I've never heard that before. Yeah, so many of the white southerners were disenfranchised, on the one hand, while a lot of the Negro citizens were enfranchised. and this is where you get a lot of black representatives and Congress as a result of who could and couldn't vote. When you look at some of the amendments of the Constitution, a lot of them were pushed through very nefarious means,

first and foremost by disenfranchising white southerners as treasonous traders and things of this nature. there's a whole bevy of rules and regulations and policies that were being pushed and being motivated by what they called radical Republicans in Congress. And this for me is not to get too sidetracked is why it's one of the many reasons why I'm a nonpartisan because the fact of the matter is when you look into history and you see that Republicans were the ones who were infiltrated by the Marxists in the 1800s. By the time you get to the 1900s, it actually became the Democrats who were infiltrated by the communists. I mean, if you look at Robert Lafellette, you know, he was a senator. He was basically

the 20th century version of Bernie Sanders, but he was a Republican. And so the parties, they kind go through these ebbs and flows. And for me, it's not a question of whether the party switched. it's more a question of to what degree was this party or that party infiltrated by these nefarious forces. Okay, I have a question. Maybe it'll lead us in a radical direction or maybe not. So Republicans in the 1800s are also, I mean, led by Lincoln or the party of the abolition of slavery, right? Are you saying like Marxism had any effect on the abolition of slavery in the United States or no? Well, it's a mixed bag. You had genuine Protestant Christians who were influenced by Wolvero Force. Yeah. So these were men who I think were noble in their pursuits who wanted for the

abolition of slavery. But you also had individuals whose agenda was not as noble. There's a book called Letters to Americans. And in this book, what it basically is is correspondence between Marx and Ingalls and American congressmen and war generals, where you have Marx and Engels trying to coach these generals on how best to get in on the South and how best to get them to bend to your will and things of this nature. And they're literally talking about getting a foothold in America, Marks and Ingalls. And when it comes to Abraham Lincoln, Abraham Lincoln was infatuated by Karl Marx.

I mean, infatuated maybe... I did not know this. Sorry? I did not know this. Yeah. This is new information. Infatuated may be a strong word, but he took a liking to some of the writings of Carl Marx.

Because you have to understand, Carl Marx was writing for the New York Daily Tribune, an American newspaper. And, you know, Lincoln would routinely read his articles. And when you look at people like Thaddeus Stevens and others who were in Congress, they too were enamored of some of the things that Marx were writing. And so am I saying that this push for abolition was led by the Marxists? I'm not.

But what I am saying is that they were instrumental in some of the things that were going on, specifically popularizing this notion. that the war between the states had only to do with slavery. When in reality, it had to do more with states' rights. It had to do more with this fact that Southerners believed that the North were not keeping true to their promises that they made during the ratification of the Constitution. This goes all the way back to the founding of our country. When you look at the Federalists versus the anti-federalists, the federalist being led by people like Alexander Hamilton.

And on the other side of it, you get people like, you know, Patrick Henry, Luther Martin, Robert Yates, and others, who likened this push to have this big overarching federal government to the Tower of Babel. They said, you can't take a diverse country of people and give them the ability. to opine on how to build this big monstrous government out of. You have to have state's rights. You have to have the authority of the church. You have to have individual liberty. To the extent that you try to supersede all of that and the building of a large government, you will have problems. And so it's because of the anti-federalists that you got the Bill of Rights because they wanted to limit the reach of the government. They saw by the mid-1800s the North renegging on some of the promises that they made and it was for that reason that they seceded from the union.

You did have some individuals who made it about slavery in the South, but it wasn't a widespread consensus. In fact, the president of the Confederate States, Jefferson Davis, did not believe that slavery, this is according to his own writings, did not believe that slavery should exist in perpetuity. He just thought that the South should have the right to end slavery in the same fashion as the North did. they knew that industrialization was on the rise. They knew that labor was being replaced with machinery and things of this nature. So for some of them, it was a matter of what made practical sense. And for others, it was a moral issue in the South. But it wasn't this thing where all of these Southerners believed that slavery should exist in perpetuity.

That's not a real thing. And so to get back to your original question, Phase one of the civil rights movement was reconstruction. Phase two would have been in the 1930s under what was called the National Negro Congress, which was started after a committee started by FDR. The feds had an interest in using a civil rights kind of movement in order to destabilize the states, to make the states appear as though they're incapable of self-governance, to agitate in the streets and to capitalize on that fallout.

That was the purpose of the feds being involved. Why would they want to do that? To expand their authority, to expand their power at the expense of the states. Did they see the South as just an impediment to that? Yeah, because you have to understand, like, culturally, the South has always been about just being independent and being free. When you look at Jamestown, for example, when the settlers landed in Jamestown, they had something like a communist or Marxist system where they compiled the grain. It was from each according to their ability to each according to their need kind of system.

But voluntary, right? Voluntary, yes. But this is a system that they had in Jamestown. They had a similar system in Plymouth, the Plymouth colony. And what was interesting about that is so abysmal was a system that within two years, half the population died. And they were eating shoelaces and rats. And so the famous John Smith scrapped that system, and he implemented a new system of private property, quoting the biblical ethic that if a man will not work, he will not eat. Yeah.

And, you know, when it comes to the Plymouth Colony, Governor William Bradford did likewise. And so by the time you get to the mid-1800s, I'm sorry, the early, the late 1700s, these lessons were still in the minds of the founding fathers. And so they weren't creating a socialist country. Yeah. They were creating a country of checks and balances that basically respected human nature. this freedom of association that's important because you're taking

for most of human history when you look at the nations across the world these are homogenous nations but what you're now trying to do is have a nation with people from Scotland England

you know what I mean Ireland you have all these different people and different sects as well and you're trying to build a diverse nation you have to respect human nature you have to respect self-segregation because in the same way that it is bad to have laws on the books that impose segregation,

it is also equally as bad to have laws on the books that force that force integration. Yeah. And so, you know, what's the happy medium? And for this reason, because everybody has an opinion, the best thing you could possibly do is uphold the sovereignty of the states, the townships and the family. Freedom of association. Freedom of association. So what do you say?

Okay. So people are tracking with you and they're like, okay, so there were some nefarious people involved in all of these so-called justice movements in the United States going back a very long time. And it really had to do for some people, not everyone, but some people with the consolidation of the power of the federal government in the aim of equity. So the same social justice goals that we have today. Everyone has to be equal. same amount of property, same amount of stuff. So it sounds like bad actors used the actual, the true injustice of slavery and the true injustice of segregation and oppression that was happening in different places in the United

States as a vehicle to create more government power. But I could see some people saying, okay, but who cares? Because ultimately it was good that we abolished slavery. Ultimately, it was good that we did away with Jim Crow laws. Ultimately, it was good that we ended segregation and ultimately the civil rights were good. Maybe we don't like all the people involved. Maybe we don't know all the motivations. But, I mean, ultimately, wasn't it a good thing for black people?

Wasn't it morally right for the government to battle against the Southerners who were clearly still racist against black people? You asked really good questions. That is a really good question. So, and I'll answer it. But first, I think, just to finish the thought about the whole government interest in civil rights, you had both the feds and you had the communists who were interested in the civil rights movement. Under FDR, you had the starting of the National Negro Congress, which would later become the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s led by Dr. King. When it was the National Negro Congress, it was led by A. Philip Randolph.

who was a labor activist. And it was started with the help of the Soviet Union, of Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union. So you had the feds, and you had the Soviet Union who had an interest in starting the National Negro Congress. And you had little kind of brother and sister organizations that were scattered throughout the North and the South, which was doing a lot of agitative things all across the country.

again, in order to bring attention to what it was they're trying to do in terms of expanding the role of the government. Because by the time you have centralized power, you're nice and primed for communist agenda and communist takeover. So you had some tension between the feds and the communists, namely in terms of who should lead this movement, which we'll probably get to later on. But when it comes to blacks in America, Thomas Hole writes extensively about this. When you look at the work of people like Roland J. Fryer and others, they all cover this very extensively. Where you have this kind of upper trajectory, this trending upward of blacks in America as it relates to family formation, entrepreneurship, home ownership, the whole nine from the end of slavery until the 1950s. irrespective of Jim Crow and a lot of these black codes laws that were on the books. And not only that, to the extent that you had a lot of these laws that were on the books

and these regulations and ordinances, they were being repelled at the local and private level, well before King ever even came onto the scene. This is called Reformation. And Reformation works, as I said earlier, because it's sustainable. Through the reformative process, you have character building at work. And that character building is what sustains the new kind of order of things. And that was already happening before the big civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s, you're saying. Exactly. And so I think it is, it's simply wrong to credit King or the Civil Rights Act in 1964 for the ending of Jim Crow.

Jim Crow was already falling off the books as a result of this kind of plan that was put into action by the likes of Bookerty, Washington. Yeah. And you're kind of saying a similar, I don't want to go back to slavery because we're going back and forth and I want to keep moving forward with the civil rights. But it's a similar argument it seems like to what you're making about slavery that, look, slavery was already on its way to becoming irrelevant at the time because of industrialization and maybe also the moral revolution happening in the hearts of men. Right. And so it sounds like you're saying in both instances, while there might have been good people in both movies, Some people use it as a power grab to disenfranchise the self. 100%. And it's a very exploitative thing. And not only that, when it comes to a lot of the grievances that necessitated the civil rights movement in a lot of people's minds, some of them were genuine. Many of them were genuine, but a lot of them were also hoaxes.

Like what? For example, are you familiar with Carl Braden? So Carl Braden was an activist. he was a white Jewish kind of activist who was very, you know, into the civil rights movement, into like a lot of agitative things that was going on. He and his wife and Braden bought a house in Kentucky, Louisville, Kentucky, for a Negro party member and then drew attention to the fact that a Negro just moved into this all-white neighborhood. And then shortly thereafter, the house gets bombed.

And everybody believes that Carl Braden was the one who ignited the bomb. And so he gets arrested and he gets convicted for seditioner or something like that. And what was interesting is he would later go on to work alongside Dr. Martin Luther King in the Civil Rights Movement. And what's interesting about that is that, throughout the civil rights movement under king's leadership you had all these church bombings that were going on and these house bombings and as it turns out a lot of these church bombings were actual negro ministers who were bombing their own churches and you're saying that's what that braiden person did that it seems that he bombed the house that he bought for this black member of the

negro congress well so he was he was just a local party member local party member so he did that to make it seem like. Yeah, white supremacy. Yeah. Like, look, and that, I mean, there's a lot of questions to ask about different instances that we've seen. Yeah, the idea is to, is to, again, is to, is to basically embarrass America as being this kind of hotbed for racism and dysfunction. Embarrass white people. Embarrass the South. Embarrass the South, right. So that the public will cry out for federal action. We'll cry out for something to be done about this injustice. And there were some things that were happening that were real injustices.

There was real race tension going on in some respects. I mean, I would say Emmett Till is an example of something that was completely heinous that took place. But there was also a lot of stuff that was concocted and manufactured. When you look at the Second Congress of the Communist International, 1921. There was a white journalist by the name of John Reed, and he was a delegate to the communist convention there in Moscow.

And what was interesting is they were trying to figure out the best way to infiltrate Marxism into the United States. And John Reed got up and said, the Negro. The Negro is the way to infiltrate Marxism into the United States. He said, as it stands now, and again, this is 1920, 1920. He said, as it stands now, there is no political conscience that the Negro has. We have to raise the consciousness, the political consciousness of the American Negro. That's close to what LBJ said when he signed the Civil Rights Act into law.

Pretty much. Basically that we're going to create a Democrat after the black, out of the black person out of this legislation. So same idea. Same idea. And so what was interesting is after John Reed said this, Vladimir Lenin himself greenlit using whatever means necessary to raise a political consciousness of the American Negro. And over the course of the 1920s, you began to see race riots spring up seemingly out of nowhere. We talk about the Tulsa Race Massacre, which for the longest time it wasn't called a massacre.

It's called a riot, the Tulsa Race Riot, where you had this brawl that broke out because of a newspaper article titled Nab Negro for attacking Girl on Elegan. elevator. Well, as it turns out, that article was written by a fellow traveler. A fellow traveler is somebody who's sympathetic of the Marxist cause. That's what a travel traveler is. Right, an ally. There you go. So his name was Richard Lloyd Jones. He was the owner of a newspaper called the Tulsa Tribune. And so he's the one that ran this article in order to rile up race tensions and they're in Tulsa. Now, what's interesting about that is, that my mom's side of the family's from Oklahoma, right? So I grew up hearing about the Tulsa racist riots and all these things. And I always was a bit puzzled by it because we were told

that the reason why there was a riot was because the white people in Tulsa were jealous of the Negroes for having this great business district. They had the best part of land there in Tulsa, and they wanted to do this riot in order to steal the land from the Negroes. This is what I was always told. But what's interesting about that is after the riot, black folks still lived there in Tulsa in this Greenwood district. They still have businesses in the Greenwood district. In fact, it wasn't called Black Wall Street until after the race riot took place. And in fact, if you look at video footage, archival video footage that was shot by Sir Solomon Jones, and you look at the movie boards or the word boards before the footage,

You see Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1923, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1925, the Greenwood District. You see blacks conducting business as usual. You see these very beautifully constructed houses and businesses and things of this nature. And in fact, I looked into this myself. White people actually assisted in helping blacks build this community back up. And so my question was, if it's true that whites were so jealous and they wanted to take this land, why didn't they seize upon the opportunity to do that in 1921 after everything happened? The reason, once again, was to destabilize and to try to chase blacks out of using the means of

production to make their way. What I mean by that is the communists, they detested capitalism, which I don't really like using that word, but that's neither here nor there. but they detested using the free market system to make their own way. They would rather the Negro join ranks with them, lock arms with them, and they're pushing for a new revolution, a new system. And so if I'm, you know, Joe, the shoe store owner in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and I'm able to pay my bills and serve my family with my shoe store,

but then I wake up one day and my shoe store's burned down, what then shall I do? The idea is to chase me into the arms of the NWLW. or the Communist Party, which, by the way, there were numerous ads ran after this to join the KK, or to, I'm sorry, join the Communist Party. Yeah. To join the NACP. You'll have a fighter on your side. You'll have somebody in your corner to help against white supremacy and racism and all the things.

Yeah. But really, when you look at the footage, you see whites and blacks really getting along. Yeah. You know what I mean? Yeah. But at the same time, you did have a lot of sensationalism in those days, specifically of blacks who are being accused of raping white women and things of this nature. And so because of this, you had, you had this agenda to, to invoke reactionaryism and whites to keep race tensions alive,

to keep race wounds open when, when the reality is these tensions were already being healed well before the 1920s. Right. Yeah, and MLK when these things happened. Exploiting people's empathy. Right. For progressive means. MLK, people say at least he was peaceful. Was he peaceful? Absolutely not. Absolutely not. That was how the press covered him,

which is interesting because when it comes back to Stanley Levison, who was a kind of de facto PR person for King, he told the press when to show up, where to show up, what will be happening, when to roll the cameras, told King where to be, when to be there, what to do in terms of creating, in terms of creating the dramatization that was needed to destabilize the South or to make them come off as just these racist hotbeds. And what was interesting about that too is they would strategically pick the places where they would demonstrate. It wasn't as if racism was widespread in the South. They specifically

chose places because they understood that they had a better chance of getting things captured on camera versus just going any old where in the south. They specifically chose Birmingham. They specifically chose Montgomery. They specifically chose these places because they knew the kind of a picturesque imagery that they would get. Which is interesting because when you look at Birmingham and Montgomery, there was communist activity going on as early as the 1910s. This is documented in Robert G. Kelly's book.

Hammer and Ho who documents. I mean, he's he's a leftist. He's a Marxist, but even he admits in this book Hammer and Ho that, yeah, communist activity was going on. And that's important to note because there was this long kind of standing Hatfield McCoy-esque like tit for tat kind of friction that was going on in these places. Yeah. So by the time you get to the 1960s, it appears as though, oh, they just hate Negroes. It wasn't that, it wasn't that at all. It was, we, we, we, we, we, we, We don't like communists and a bunch of these Negroes are communists. And so that's really what it was. There's a lot of,

there's a lot of backstory that the media just ignores. Yeah. And so when it comes to King and your question as to whether he was a peaceful man or not, he went around saying that he was nonviolent, but he would rely on violence to push his movement forward. An example of this. That's all communists do. Right.

That's all they do. An example of this is that they went into Birmingham, Alabama. and they were kind of traversing the country, the south, trying to pull, pull this off in other counties and other towns, but they were unsuccessful in doing it. But they wanted to get the kids out of school and get images of dogs and hoses being turned on kids. They tried to do this in Albany, Georgia,

but they weren't successful because the police chief there in Albany knew what they were up to. He studied their tactics. He studied what they were doing. And he said, look, King and his contingent, they're going to come into Albany. And they're going to try to do their demonstrating and all this. And we're going to have to arrest them because they're not pulling permits.

They're not going through the proper means to do their demonstrations. In this country, we have a First Amendment right to freedom of speech. However, we are also a country of law and order. We still have to control for traffic, for noise, and all the things. So you have to pull a permit to make sure that you have protection to do your demonstration. We're not going to infringe on your right to free speech. But King's contendant, they didn't pull the permits, they didn't go through the proper channels, because they wanted to invite violence against themselves to get it caught on camera. It's the same thing that BLM happens.

Exactly. I mean, it does today. Exactly. Exactly. So they went into Albany. The police chief knew what they were doing. So what he did was he said, once these gels fill up, we have no choice but to use means to disperse the crowd, which includes the dogs, which includes the hoses. we don't want to do that.

So what we're going to do is we're going to go to the neighboring towns, let them know that kings coming in, and ask them to make space in their gels. So once our gel is full of capacity, we can start sending them to the other gels. So do it as quietly and as peacefully as possible to not give them those, you know, photo opportunities. Exactly. Those photo ops. And so they were unsuccessful in Albany.

And so they went to Birmingham. him. Apparently Bull Connor didn't get the message. Yeah. Because once those jails filled up, they had to turn dogs in the hoses. And when that happened, and that's where we got all the iconic pictures. There were the iconic pictures and images. And it worked like a charm. Yeah. Shortly thereafter, John F. Kennedy, who had already had civil rights legislation ready to go. The reason why he didn't introduce it was because there was a debate going on in Congress. over state's rights versus federal authority. And this debate that was being had was a robust,

uh, debate where there was weight on both sides. And so once this children's march thing happened and once the pictures spread, not all, not only all over the country, but all over the world, it made those who were arguing for state's rights look like a, a joke quite frankly.

Like how do you not get behind this legislation now? And so once he introduced that legislation, that was it was it from there. Yeah. And there was a lot of negativity that came out of that legislation. And of course, when LBJ got in there, he was even kind of more ripe for the taking, I would say, because he just kind of had these proclivities already.

Yeah. And we don't have time to get into MLJ. I really only have time for one more question. We played the trailer for your docu-series at the beginning in the introduction. and Carol Swain said that if MLK believed that we should judge people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin, can we judge MLK by the content of his character? What was the content of MLK's character? Actually, very sad. I mean, the Bible gives us very, the Bible gives us very clear instructions on who is fit to be a leader.

and King didn't fit that at all. He wasn't faithful to his wife. In fact, most cities that he went into, he would sleep with some woman that wasn't his wife. He was a participant in many orgies. He was a compulsive liar. He would often lie about his involvement with communism or... The thing about King is...

It's interesting because whenever we set out to make this docu-series, we made it a point not to touch any of that. We didn't want to touch any of the flandering. We didn't want to touch any of the orgies or anything else that he was involved in. We wanted to focus on the communism. We wanted to focus on the fact that he didn't believe the gospel because we didn't want the docuseries to be dismissed as just another sensational piece, another clickbait thing. But the reality of it is, you know, what Carol Swain said is just up. absolutely true. You have to touch on this aspect of who he was because it begs the question of, is there somebody who fits the moniker of the moral leader of the 20th century?

Well, if you have evangelicals creating conferences after him called the MLK50 conference, then I do think it is justified to say, okay, we are Christians naming conferences after a person. Maybe we should ask if that person was a Christian. Right. And the Bible says it tests every spirit to see if it's of God. And we did a very poor job of that with Martin Luther King. We just did. We just did. I mean, and it was right there in front of our faces. popular you know there's almost no incentive to question MLK especially as a white southern person because you know the accusation you're going to get yeah but do you think and we really do have to wrap but do you think that now after 2020 after BLM has been exposed as a scam after the race Marxism that was you know attempted to be pushed during that time has kind of fallen flat I think

a lot of people have woken up do you think more people are willing to examine the civil rights era in MLK? I think more people are, well, I mean, when I look at my own platform and I look at the emails that I get on a daily basis, a lot of people are waking up.

A lot of people are being reminded of things that were told to them by their parents and grandparents when they were kids concerning King. A lot of people from communist countries are emailing me, saying, you know, everything that you're saying reminds me of this politician in Cuba

or that politician in this country or that country. And I think more people are receptive. And what's interesting about all this, Sally, is that one of the biggest questions I get, in fact, I got this question from a chapter leader for a Turning Point USA organization, not that long ago, who said,

if more and more people come to terms with what you're saying about King and the Civil Rights Movement, what then will we do? Because King is the only person who unifies the left and the right. If not for him, then we're going to be at each other's throat and we're going to. And to me, I think that's a sad commentary on where we are, especially as a church. Because why don't Christ occupy that place of unifying us? And what's interesting, just to tie it back to the Tower of Babel, is that with the Tower of Babel,

you have mankind under the ruler Nimrod trying to erect this tower into the heavens to usurp God. And God comes down and devise the languages. We all disperse and we become different peoples across the land. But what's interesting about that is God gave us the way to unify and that's under Christ. And he descends in the lowest place in Nazareth. He becomes, he's born a baby into the world. He puts on flesh. He lives a perfect life, preaches a perfect message, is crucified, is dead.

He raises again three days. And then he ascends. And in his ascension, he invites those of us who are willing to come to be ascended with him. You know what I mean? To enjoy paradise. That is better than any utopia that we can build on the earth. and what King is doing, what Stalin is doing, what Lenin is doing, what we're trying to do through the political process is build a heaven on earth. We're trying to build our Tower of Babel 2.0 and it won't work.

And so I think it's for that reason that we begin to take people like King off this pedestal, not for the purpose of just being a truer per se, but for the purpose of edifying Christ, who is the only person I think who occupies that place. Yeah, that's really good. Where can people go to watch the docu-series? It's not out yet, but where can they go to support you, too? Chad Oaxon.com. Okay, Chadojackson.com. Thank you, Chad, so much for taking the time.