Exposing the Real Worldview of Martin Luther King, Jr. (Part Two)

Tonight on the Worldview Weekend Hour, part two in our series on the real worldview of Martin Luther King, Jr. Should pastors today, like Matt Chandler and John Piper and others, be promoting Martin Luther King, Jr. as someone the church should look to? Should Matt Chandler be claiming that Martin Luther King, Jr. stood on the authority of God’s Word, had a love of the Word of God and its application? Or was Martin Luther King, Jr. really a democratic socialist? Was he surrounded by communists? Was he even warned by President Kennedy to separate from these communists? Was Martin Luther King, Jr. an example of how the communists infiltrated many movements in America to carry out an information operation–to turn the hearts and minds of Americans toward, if not communism, a liberal Christianity that made way for communism? The Worldview Weekend Hour begins right now.

Announcer: WVWTV presents the Worldview Weekend Hour with Brannon Howse. Whether the topic is law, science, government, economics, history, family, social issues, education or theology, Brannon brings the issues of today into clear focus through the lens of a biblical worldview. And now, here is your host, Brannon Howse.

Brannon Howse: Hello, I’m Brannon Howse and welcome to the Worldview Weekend Hour and part two in our series. Tonight we’ll continue to look at the worldview of Martin Luther King, Jr. Before we pick up where we left off last week, let me just remind you, if you are someone who is prone to racism or a racist worldview, and you think that by watching a program like this you’re somehow gonna have your worldview reinforced, as I said last week, you’ve come to the wrong program. Acts 17:26 is how we started out last week, and we’ll do so again this week. It says, actually in verse 25, “He himself,” speaking about God, “He himself gives to all people life and breath and all things.” Verse 26. “And He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and boundaries of their inhabitance.”

Some translations say we are of one blood. In fact, we have a whole one hour presentation that we produced and put out on DVD several years ago. It's now available inside our Situation Room. Our VIP membership club that has over 13,000 radio shows and TV shows and growing each and every week. We have a DVD in there entitled “One Blood, the Biblical Answer to Racism.” And it’s presented by Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis. I asked Ken to speak at our conference a few years ago, and I asked him specifically if he would speak on this topic so that we might film it and have a resource that we could distribute by DVD to churches and families.

Well, DVDS have kinda come and gone as far as their popularity, but the presentation still remains inside the Situation Room for those of you who are members at Situation Room.net. I hope you’ll watch it. “One Blood, The Biblical Answer to Racism.” Because the reality is, there’s only one race, the human race. We are of one blood. Now there are many people groups, but only one race.

The DVD, “One Blood, the Biblical Answer to Racism,” describes how we have various people groups. It all started at the Tower of Babel in Genesis 10 and 11. So that’s our biblical foundation. We don’t tolerate racism. But neither do we tolerate communism. For communism is another form of prejudice–particularly targeting those who are capitalists, conservatives and for sure, Christians. It was Karl Marx, the father of the Communist Manifesto, who wrote that his object in life was to dethrone God and destroy capitalism.

It’s imperative as we learned last week, to know the agenda of the communists. That includes creating friction between the haves and the have-nots and various people groups –that they might exploit that conflict. And offer up as the true savior of economic and social oppression, that they use as their mantra, themselves. The communist. The communist and the socialists repeatedly portray the source and suffering of all oppression as being capitalism and biblical Christianity. Capitalism and biblical Christianity.

Sadly, the communists have infiltrated many groups in America for many years for their information operation. They infiltrated the civil rights movement, as we will see tonight. We have to remember, however, that the civil rights movement really began in earnest in 1866, led by republicans, who then in 1957 passed more civil rights legislation. And when the final Civil Rights Act of the 60s was passed, it was Republicans who had to carry the water.

Don’t forget it was many of the liberals and the Democrats who were behind stopping people of color from voting. They were behind segregation and they were behind the Klu Klux Klan. It has traditionally been conservatives and Christians and capitalists and free market principles that have been opposed to the scourge of racism. And, of course, it was the Republican Party and its leader, Abraham Lincoln, who ended slavery.

But the communists have used many things, such as the civil rights movement, as they did in the 60s, to try to infiltrate, as we’ll see tonight, to stir up trouble. And indeed, an information operation has gone on in America by the communists for many years to turn the hearts and minds of Americans away from defeating communism. One reason we know this is that there was a book written entitled, Through the Eyes of the Enemy. It was written by a man who was Russia’s highest ranking Soviet military defector. And in his book, Through the Eyes of the Enemy, he writes this: “What would be a great surprise to the American people is that the GRU and the KGB had a large budget for antiwar propaganda in the United States. In fact,” he says, “they had a larger budget for antiwar propaganda in the United States than they did for economic and military support of the Vietnamese.” Speaking about Vietnam. The author goes on to say, “the antiwar propaganda cost the GRU more than 1 billion dollars. But as history shows, it was a hugely successful campaign and well worth the cost. The antiwar sentiment created an incredible momentum that greatly weakened the US military.

I shared with you last week that one of my friends was in Vietnam. Had many men die under his command. And he has told me that not only did Walter Cronkite, he believes, greatly turn the hearts of many Americans away from winning against the communists, but he said while we were in Vietnam we were also being discouraged by what we were hearing coming from the mouth of Martin Luther King, Jr., who became a prominent voice in the anti-Vietnam war propaganda.

My friends, tonight we’re gonna learn history that many of you don’t know. Have Americans, and particularly Christians and conservatives, also become so politically correct that we cannot ask honest questions, seek honest answers, and learn true history?

Well, one reason this program is growing rapidly to the point that we are exceeding the bandwidth that we are allotted by some of the companies we work with–one reason we’re growing so much is because we are not afraid to go and cover topics that many people are afraid to touch. We want to speak truth in love, but we want to speak the truth.

Tonight, we’ll continue to examine the Worldview of Martin Luther King, Jr.. We stopped last week right here. He preached a sermon in 1962 entitled, “Can a Christian Be a Communist?” This is a sermon delivered at Ebenezer Baptist Church, September 30, 1962. The official description of the sermon says this: “King calls on his congregation to consider communism ‘a necessary corrective for a Christianity that has been all too passive and a democracy that has been all too inert.’” The official description goes on to say, “King also admonishes individuals unwilling to commit to social justice.”

Well, what is social justice? Social justice is nothing more than socialism. It is a term that was originally coined in about 1840 by a Jesuit priest by the name Luigi Tapernelli. And it, of course, has been picked up and promoted by the Catholic Church, as well as now evangelical protestant Christians, so-called evangelical protestant Christians, for years. Social justice is just a masking term for socialism.

But Martin Luther King, Jr. was promoting social justice. He was openly promoting the social gospel. In fact, even many of his admirers, radicals like Cornell West and others, openly stated that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a democratic socialist. In fact, if you doubt this assertion, before we look at what Cornell West has said, listen to this video clip of Martin Luther King, Jr. in his own words.

Martin Luther King, Jr.: One day we must ask the question, ‘why are there 40 million poor people in America?’ And when you begin to ask that question, you’re raising a question about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question you begin to question the capitalistic economy. And I’m simply saying that more and more we’ve got to begin to ask questions about the whole society we’ll call upon to help the discouraged beggars in life’s marketplace. That one day we must come to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. It means that questions must be raised. And you see, my friends, when you deal with this, you begin to ask the question, ‘who owns the oil?’ You begin to ask the question, ‘who owns the iron ore?’ You begin to ask the question, ‘why is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that’s two-thirds water?’ These are words that must be said. [end quote]

Brannon Howse: So clearly, in his own words, Martin Luther King, Jr. was embracing socialism. Redistribution of wealth. Even the nationalizing of some industries. We played more clips last week. You’ll find that broadcast at wvwtv.com.

While that clip was playing I actually received a text from my friend, who I mentioned earlier and who I quoted in the first broadcast–the Vietnam veteran–Mr. Udel Myers. He said he just got home from a missions conference in Indiana. “Just finished viewing your expose on Martin Luther King, Jr.. (That’d be part one.) Excellent. My quote was spot on. Thanks for giving this Vietnam veteran an opportunity to sound off about Martin Luther King, Jr.”

Well, my friends, again, if you remember as we looked at last week and we’ll look at again this week, Martin Luther King, Jr.’s disapproval ratings were over 60 percent when he was alive. Why is that? Because Americans then, like Udel Myers who was fighting in Vietnam to try to defeat communism, Americans understood what the worldview of Martin Luther King, Jr. was. While they may have appreciated and respected and even agreed with some of the things he was calling for in regards to civil rights, many of them realized that from his own words, as we just heard, he was going about a solution all the wrong way. And thus, his disapproval ratings were over 60 percent when he was alive.

You see, many Americans understood that Martin Luther King, Jr. was calling for socialism. Social justice. Redistribution of wealth. A remaking of the free market capitalist system. Nationalizing of some industries. Mandatory incomes, housing and healthcare. In fact, Martin Luther King, Jr., in many ways, was a younger version of Barack Obama.

This is not new. What Martin Luther King, Jr. was calling for was not new and it is not new, and yet we still have some of the same ideologies being promoted by some of the same people using some of the same language, wrapping their agenda in a civil rights or racial justice language.

But we need to understand, oftentimes what is good and needed and necessary is highjacked by groups that are opposed to our constitutional republic. And they use often what is good and needed and necessary as the front for promoting what the American people would never accept, never go along with, unless it was camouflaged.

So now let’s look at what Cornell West said about Martin Luther King, Jr.. In an article entitled, “The Radical King We Don’t Know,” subtitle, “Does America Have the Capacity to Heed the Radical Martin Luther King, Jr., or Must America Sanitize King in Order to Evade and Avoid His Challenge?” Cornell West, back in 2015 says this. The radical King was a democratic socialist. In fact, he says in his article in a speech to his staff in 1966, King explained “there must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism.” He says if he had lived and pursued this project, the radical King would be well known.

Here is a book entitled Landmark Speeches of the Vietnam War, by Gregory Allen from 2010. It says, “The New York Times attacked King for comparing US military tactics to the Nazis. Life Magazine came down even harder–labeling his speech ‘demagogic slander that sounded like a script from Radio Hanoi.’ Many in the White House thought King had thrown in with the commies. Historian Lloyd C. Garden quotes Johnson aide Harry McPherson as saying that King was “now the crown prince of the Vietnix.”

What’s the point here, folks? At the time that King was saying what he was saying, The New York Times and other outlets were openly stating that what King was saying was unacceptable. You see, this is why his disapproval ratings were over 60 percent. The American people knew what he was saying. It’s only since his Worldview and ideology and agenda has been sanitized that people now have come to respect him with approval rating of over 90 percent.

But tonight you’re learning the real worldview of Martin Luther King, Jr., and it wasn’t a biblical worldview. But you’re not getting the truth from neo Calvinists Matt Chandler, John Piper, Mark Dever or any of the other Calvinist, neo Calvinist cabal out there who are trying to tell you how much we need to follow the worldview of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Now why on earth would you want to follow the worldview of a guy who is a democratic socialist and who was knowingly surrounded by communists, as you’ll find out tonight?

Teen Vogue, January 15, 2018–that’s this year–had an article by Jen M. Jackson. It was entitled, “Martin Luther King, Jr. Was More Radical Than We Remember. Let’s Do His Memory Justice.” In other words, what these folks are saying is here’s his radical Worldview, now let’s honor his legacy by fulfilling his desire for democratic socialism. The article in teen magazine went on to say that manufactured perspective often told to young children and supported by mainstream, predominantly white commentators, was focused on erasing the divisions between black and white people–not necessarily by blaming white people for their participation in systems of anti-black racism, but by moving beyond racial differences all together. But that was never actually King’s dream. His was much more radical than that.

King was a staunch antiwar activist and spoke firmly against US militarianism in the Vietnam War. And in April 1967, in a speech called, “Beyond Vietnam, King Called the War Madness.” This was a deeply radical and polarizing opinion and a moment when protest of the war had begun erupting across the country in New York, San Francisco and Washington, DC. In no uncertain terms, King articulated his opposition to the war in Vietnam saying, “I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.”

The article in Teen Vogue goes on to say:

[Quote} these opinions not only made him unpopular, as 64 percent of Americans approved of the war according to an October 1965 Gallup poll, they highlighted his increasing distance from mainstream American politics that called for the respectability, quiet assimilation and good behavior of black Americans. In fact, polling during the 1960s reflects how polarizing King’s radical work truly was for US citizens. In 1965 Gallup found that King had a 45 percent positive and 45 percent negative rating. And in 1966, the last year he was included in the poll, his positive rating dropped to 32 percent while his negative rating increased to 63 percent. However, by 2011 his rating was 94 percent positive. This vast swing in approval of King today isn’t rooted in his radical legacy. Rather, it is the product of generations of appropriation of his liberatory work. And a whitening of his effort to ensure more freedom for those least likely to attain it in the United States. [end quote]

In other words, what this writer is saying is the reason King’s approval rating is so high is because people have not concentrated on what his real worldview was or his solution to the problems he was pointing out. We can agree with what some of the problems were, but King’s solution, as you’ve heard in his own words tonight, was socialism. Democratic socialism. Redistribution of wealth. And these writers are saying that one reason why King’s disapproval ratings were so high when he was alive was because people understood what he was saying, and they didn’t agree with it.

The reason his approval ratings now are so high is because people have forgotten or were never taught what his real worldview was. But the radicals want his worldview fully implemented to respect his legacy.

The article in Teen Vogue goes on to say:

[Quote] King’s belief in a more radical vision for America became manifest in his later social organizing work. In early 1968, King planned the poor people’s campaign, a march on Washington, DC. Meant to demand greater attention to the economic disparities between class groups. Disparities that most frequently had a disproportionate effect on black people. The campaign had a radical vision. One that demanded access to housing, employment and healthcare for those historically denied those rights. While it had no specific racial target, it challenged Congress to pass sweeping anti-poverty legislation. [end quote]

So there you go, my friends, this, again, is from a pro Martin Luther King, Jr. columnist telling you, hey, this is what his real worldview is. You don’t have to take my word for it. Look at what the radicals are writing about him.

Now how about the documented communists that surrounded Martin Luther King, Jr.? Here is an article from Human Events. It’s February 6, 2014. And the headline is, “Happy Birthday to Ronald Reagan and His Favorite Magazine.” Now why am I showing you this? To point out that Human Events was, indeed, Ronald Reagan’s favorite magazine. It is a well-known conservative publication. I think it's gone out of business, but it was around for many, many years. And it was known to be Ronald Reagan’s favorite publication. And the reason I want you to know that is so you understand that this is not some far left, racist mag. This was a very well respected publication that was greatly read by the president of the United States, Ronald Reagan. Human Events.

So with that in mind, look at what Human Events reported back in 2006. The headline, “JFK and RFK Were Right to Wire Tap MLK.” And of course JFK would be John F. Kennedy, the president of the United States. And RFK would be Robert F. Kennedy, his brother, the attorney general of the United States.

The article says:

“The Cold War was in full swing in late 1963 when Bobby Kennedy authorized the first King wiretap. On JFK’s watch, Khrushchev had put up the Berlin Wall and had almost provoked a nuclear exchange by introducing atomic armed missiles into Cuba. Wars of national liberation were being fully stoked by the shoe pounder in the Kremlin. Yet King, already a powerful civil rights figure, had surrounded himself with several radical advisors, including at least two long time members of the communist party.

Stanley Levison was one of them. He may have been, as King’s friendly biographer David Garrow sometimes suggests, King’s most trusted advisor. From 1956 until the civil rights leader’s death in 1968. Levison, an important communist party member, was also responsible for placing on the board of King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Hunter Pitts, also known as Hunter Pitts Jack O’Dell, who became a member of the National Committee of the US Communist Party in 1959. These were the indisputable facts that eventually impelled the Kennedy administration to wiretap King. [end quote]

So this is being admitted to by the friendly biographer of Martin Luther King, Jr.. His name, Garrow.

[quote] Garrow also notes on January 4, 1962, that Isadore Wafsi, a top communist party member with whom Levison was in touch, informed undercover FBI agent Jack Childs that “Levison had had a major hand in writing a King speech delivered to the AFL CIO’s annual national convention a month before.” [end quote]

So folks, King is surrounded by communist party leaders Levison and O’Dell. And Levison has helped King write some of his speeches.

The article in Human Events goes on to say:

[quote]  King and Levison “grew closer over the years.” Garrow informs us. With King eagerly seeking Levison’s advice on countless matters, both great and small. Even after King had been warned by Kennedy administration officials about Levison’s background, King refused to abandon his good friend and advisor.

Levison’s influence with King was clear and irrefutable, as was his commitment to communism. Morris and Jack Childs, who has been committed communists themselves in the 1930s and 1940s, knew all about Levison. The Childs brothers had become disenchanted with communism by 1948, but managed to penetrate the party’s highest echelons in the early 1950s. This time as FBI informers.

Their remarkable escapades, including Morris’ critical meetings with key Kremlin leaders, are told in the authoritative Operation Solo, written by the late John Barron and published by Regnery, a Human Events sister company. Barron, who spoke Russian, was a renowned expert on the KGB and Soviet counter espionage activities.

Jack, in 1958, reported a conversation with James Jackson, the party secretary in charge of Negro and Southern Affairs. Jackson claimed that he and Eugene Dennis, then the top communist party leader, had conferred with the “most secret and guarded people who are in touch with consulting with and guiding Martin Luther King.” He did not mention any names. But said they were “party guys” and left the unmistakable impression that he was talking about Levison and O’Dell. Levison, according to Garrow, “recruited” O’Dell back in 1959 to become the “administrator of the SCLC’s two person New York office.” [end quote]

Now folks, remember, Garrow is the friendly biographer of Martin Luther King, Jr. who is documenting that Levison and O’Dell, these men around him, were communist party members who were working closely with King. The Human Events article goes on to say:

[quote] When asked by the House committee on Un-American Activities in 1958 if he was a communist party member, O’Dell hid behind the Fifth Amendment. In December 1959, according to an FBI report, he was elected a member of the National Committee of the Communist.

An FBI surveillance team notes Barron also discovered another Levison connection when he was advising King. “KGB officer Victor Lesaviski, a sophisticated and engaging operative, well known to western security services.” Lesaviski, according to Barron, “specialized in influence operations. That is in inducing influential foreigners to do wittingly or unwittingly what the Soviet Union wanted them to do.” Thus, when Martin Luther King, Jr. began plans for his famous 1963 march on Washington, JFK and his brother Bobby were very concerned. With good reason. They had already sent warnings to King to separate from both Levison and O’Dell through several top administration officials. Then, in June 1963, President Kennedy himself, after a meeting with black leaders at the White House, met alone with King in the Rose Garden. JFK had been fearful for some time that the Soviets may have been manipulating King through the American communist party and through Levison in particular. He warned King that he was in danger of losing his civil rights cause all together because of his loyalty to both Levison and O’Dell.

“They’re communists,” he informed King. According to Garrow’s account. “You’ve got to get rid of them.” King never severed his relations with either man. Even though he pledged that he would and lied about doing so to Kennedy officials on several occasions.

And that’s why the Kennedy brothers felt it necessary to tap King’s telephone. They would have been derelict in their duties if they hadn’t. Martin Luther King, Jr. is remembered by Americans for his achievements in furthering equal rights for blacks. But many believe he was also manipulated by the far left, including communist party members. When he firmly hitched the civil rights movement to the antiwar movement during the Vietnam War, he appeared to take the side of the violent communists in Hanoi rather than of those who genuinely opposed the conflict in that country for religious reasons. He labeled this nation as “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today,” accused President Johnson of lying about Hanoi’s “peace” overtures and likened this country to Nazi Germany for trying to defend South Vietnam from a communist takeover.  [end quote]

My friends, this, again, is history that is brought to us by Garrow–a friendly biographer of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Now in the mid-90s I had the opportunity to speak at a church in North Carolina, in the morning service and the evening service. That night I was invited to dinner by the pastor and his wife, along with another couple. We went to dinner and I learned that the man sitting across from me was a retired agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The FBI.

Our conversation eventually somehow led to talking about history, and particularly Martin Luther King, Jr. I told him that my research had led me to believe that Martin Luther King, Jr. was friendly to the ideas of socialism and was perhaps surrounded by known communists. This retired FBI agent whose name I still know to this day, said, indeed that was the case. I asked him how he knew this to be true from his experience and history of work. He said, ‘I know that King was surrounded by communists and friendly to these socialist ideas because King’s chauffer was my informant.’

So you see, my friends, this history is well documented. Why would Martin Luther King, Jr. not follow the advice of high ranking Kennedy administration officials to separate from these known communist party members, Levison and O’Dell? In fact, as we heard, it eventually came to the point where he was confronted by the president of the United States himself over these communist party members advising and working with King.

As we heard, President Kennedy in the Rose Garden privately told King to get rid of them. They’re communists. He went to tell him that if you do not separate from them you’re going to bring down your cause of civil rights. My friends, I have to ask this question. Was Martin Luther King, Jr. really concerned, ultimately, with the advancement of civil rights in America? Or was he using the civil rights agenda for his ultimate goal, democratic socialism? That’s a fair question.

I would think that if he were truly ultimately concerned about the advancement of civil rights, he would want to do nothing to violate that agenda. And he would thereby separate from these known communists. But that’s not what he did. These men were around him until his death.

It was because of these communists that surrounded King that we now know that King’s phones were wire tapped. It has come out in 2017 that these wiretappings picked up Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. organizing sex parties. Sex parties that are so graphic I would not want to read about them to you on radio or television. It’s also reported last year that then first lady Jackie Kennedy, after she died, it came out that she was so disgusted by what she had learned about King’s behavior through the wiretappings that were revealed to her through her brother-in-law Bobby Kennedy, that she could hardly look at King without being in disgust due to his activities.

Again, are these the actions and behavior and values of a man who was really concerned about the civil rights movement? The president of the United States had told him point blank, stop surrounding yourself with these men. You’re gonna bring down your cause. And then, the sexual behavior. What do you think would have happened to the civil rights movement if it had become well known by the American people at that time that King was involved in immoral activities, as well as surrounded by communists? It would have done exactly what President Kennedy told him it would do. It would have done great damage to the civil rights movement.

So I ask again, was Martin Luther King, Jr. really concerned about the civil rights agenda ultimately? Or was it just simply a vehicle by which to further his ultimate agenda, the social justice, social gospel, democratic socialism he embraced?

It is no secret he embraced the social gospel, which is socialism. In fact, even people close to him wrote about his great affection for Walter Rauschenbusch. Walter Rauschenbusch is the father of the social gospel movement. Walter Rauschenbusch was a Fabian socialist. And Fabian socialists are notorious for using religion to further their agenda. In fact, the Fabian window has in the logo of that window a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Using religion to further their goal. And Martin Luther King, Jr. had great affection for the father of the social gospel movement, Walter Rauschenbusch, a Fabian socialist.

So as we’ve learned, because King was surrounded by communists, the Kennedy administration had no choice but to wiretap his phones because of the national security implications.

Let’s look at the sexual behavior of Martin Luther King, Jr., not for simply some kind of torrid report, but to gauge whether indeed this is someone whose worldview lined up with scripture. Because after all, Matt Chandler told us in the video we saw last week that Martin Luther King, Jr. stood on the authority of the Word of God–loved the Word of God. And applied it. And he could help lead the church even today through many important issues.

Is that indeed the case? Did Martin Luther King, Jr. embrace a biblical worldview? Or the very antithesis thereof?

Look at this headline. Los Angeles Times, 1989. The headline, “Alone Again, Naturally. Civil Rights, the Reverend Ralph Abernathy Has Been Cast Anew as an Embattled Outsider Now for Detailing in His Autobiography the Extramarital Sex Life of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.” Again, October 16, 1989. Los Angeles Times.

The article says:

[quote]  He has been forced to do so because his new autobiographical account of the turbulent civil rights era, “And the Walls Came Tumbling Down” which was the name of his book, includes details of King’s sexual exploits in Memphis the night before he was murdered on April 4, 1968. Ralph Abernathy was good friends with Martin Luther King, Jr. They both were pastoring churches in Alabama, down the street from each other. The older Ralph Abernathy befriended King and became a mentor to him. And he traveled with him. And spoke with him. And was with him the day before he was killed and the day he was killed. In fact, the night before he was killed, it was Ralph Abernathy who introduced Martin Luther King, Jr. before he gave his famous ‘I’ve been to the mountaintop speech.’ [end quote]

Ralph Abernathy shared room 306 at the Loraine Hotel with Martin Luther King, Jr. And he wrote his book, And the Walls Came Tumbling Down, in which he stated that King had been with two women the night before his death.

Here in Memphis I have a friend who is a retired firefighter. His father was a Memphis firefighter. His father went through the fire academy with two friends who ended up being stationed at the fire station right across the street from the Loraine Hotel. For many years he has told me the story, and he told me again last week so that I might be sure I had the facts straight, of how his father, when he was a little boy, told him about the day Martin Luther King, Jr. was killed.

He says as a Memphis firefighter that he received a phone call from his two friends he’d gone through the fire academy with. They, as I said, were stationed at the firehouse across the street from the Loraine hotel. They called his father to say, ‘you don’t believe the events of today. We saw it. We watched it.’ They saw the assassination of Martin Luther King.

They said that they were sitting out on the park bench that day as they were often prone to doing. After they had done their work that was required of them, they would sit there on the park bench and watch the traffic and the people go by. And as they sat there, they would often come in contact with the ladies of the night–the ladies of ill repute. The prostitutes who would walk by and say hi and greet them. They knew who they were. In fact, he says they even knew some of them by name because that was their local block. That was the area they worked. And as these men would sit on the park bench they would talk to them and say hi to them. And they knew who they were. They recognized them. And he says, ‘my father was told by these two firefighter friends of his that he’d gone through the academy with that they watched known prostitutes going in and out of his hotel room.’

So why am I mentioning this? It lines up. Firsthand eye witness accounts. From firefighters. Line up with what Ralph Abernathy was reporting in his own book. The man who King, the night before he was killed, called Abernathy his best friend in the world. The man who shared room 306 at the Loraine Hotel with him, who would be in a position to know.

Again, this isn’t so we have sordid details, but this is to get to the heart of what was the real agenda of Martin Luther King, Jr. and his real worldview. Was he a man of integrity and principle? Was he really concerned about the civil rights movement? I don’t think so because why would he be willing to risk it all for this kind of sexual behavior,  not to mention his being surrounded by communists.

The article goes on to say:

[quote] The book provides a more vivid account of King’s extramarital sex life than those previously published. An account made all the more striking and controversial because the two men were so close. Abernathy writes that King spent part of his last night with two women and that in the course of an argument with a third woman who was jealous, “knocked her across the bed.”

Abernathy said that he discussed King’s sex life to “set the record straight–” to share not only the what but the why of King’s sexual activities. To show that heroes are mortals. And that mortals, even downtrodden ones, can become heroes. [end quote]

Here’s an article from Front Page Magazine dated January 24, 2001. The article says that this author, by the name of Dyson.

[quote] Dyson depicts King as a sexist who treated women scarcely better than the racist southern whites treated blacks–as inferiors. Who should stay in their place? And be compliant?

As King grew more and more distant from his enabler wife, Coretta, writes Dyson, the renowned civil rights leader “established relationships of significant affection with three women. One of the women, in fact, had become King’s de facto wife–a spousal equivalent upon whom he became emotionally dependent as she replaced Coretta as the primary focus of her husband’s intimacy and affection.”

Dr. King’s right hand man, says the article, Reverend Ralph Abernathy, in his 1989 autobiography, And the Walls Came Tumbling Down, revealed Dr. King’s penchant for group sex with prostitutes and groupies. [end quote]

My friends, you may be saying, well, who is this Dyson man? He’s probably just some conservative hater, right? Well, you’d be wrong.

In the book, I May Not Get There With You: The True Martin Luther King, Jr. Story. And it's written by the man who was just being quoted in the Front Page Mag article, Michael Eric Dyson. But who is he?

Well, from the book description we read:

[quote]  A private citizen who transformed the world around him, Martin Luther King, Jr. was arguably the greatest American who ever lived.” [end quote]

So this is what the book description includes. Dyson, the author of this book, thinks that King was arguably the greatest American who ever lived. So his book wasn’t written to trash King. It was just an historical account of King’s life that included the good, the bad and the ugly.

Again, you can’t say, well, that’s just someone who has sour grapes or has an agenda. This is a man who thinks Martin Luther King, Jr. was arguably the greatest American who ever lived. Now what about Dyson? His biography over at Amazon says that Michael Eric Dyson is an award winning author. A widely celebrated Georgetown University Professor. A prominent public intellectual and a noted political analyst. It goes on to say that Dyson is a two-time NAACP Image award winner. So this isn’t some conservative right wing guy with an agenda to smear King. This guy has won awards. Two time NAACP Image awards. And he thinks King was the greatest American that ever lived.

Well, now let’s look at the plagiarism of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Here’s an article from The New York Times dated 1991. October 11. “Boston University Panel Finds Plagiarism by Dr. King.” The article says a committee of scholars appointed by Boston University concluded today that the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. plagiarized passages in his dissertation for a doctrinal degree at the university 36 years ago.

Here’s another article. This one is from Gateway Pundit. Yeah. The Gateway Pundit. Headline: “Bummer, Martin Luther King, Jr. Stole I Have a Dream Speech from Black Republican." The article says:

[quote] Gavin Trudeau reported on the MLK, Jr. penchant to plagiarize. “Even the much celebrated, ‘I Have a Dream’ speech of 1963 was plagiarized. By a particular turn of events, the source King raided for this was a speech given to the Republican National Convention of 1952 by a black preacher named Archibald Cary.” [end quote]

So again, did you know that? Did you know that even his ‘I Have a Dream’ speech was said to have been plagiarized from a black preacher who actually gave the speech at the Republican National Convention in 1952?

So my friends I ask, have the communists really won through an information operation by now getting church leaders to say that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a man who stood on the authority of the Word of God and the application of the Word of God and someone we should follow? And people do read these books written by people that loved King and think he was the greatest American to live. And we find out what his real worldview is. Don’t you think that’s confusing to people? You have a guy who embraced socialism, whose morality was horrible. And yet now we have pastors celebrating him as someone we should follow. Does this not send the message that these pastors are really embracing a form of socialism? Because that’s what King embraced.

Here again, the article by Matt Chandler. “What We Can Learn From King. We Can Learn From His Love and Application of the Word of God.” Well, there’s Matt Chandler speaking at the Together for the Gospel conference in 2014 with John Piper and Al Mohler and others. Here they are speaking together in 2016. And they’re gonna be speaking together next month, April 2018. I’m not shocked by Al Mohler being there. Al Mohler’s wrote an article a few years ago that said Nelson Mandela has to be put on the side of the heroes. Not only of the twentieth century but of any recent century. A necessary man. Nelson Mandela was a communist. His wife was such a thug that she would have tires put around people’s necks, douse them in gasoline and light them on fire and call it a necklace. And yet here we have Al Mohler, who we’re going to start doing a series of TV shows on to expose his worldview, one of these neo Calvinists. Here’s Al Mohler saying that Nelson Mandela, a communist, was a hero.

You see we have a real problem. Neo Calvinists, neo evangelicals, are falling for the communist information operation. They’re using the talking points and masking terms of the communists. White privilege. They’re promoting Black Lives Matter like John Piper has done. They’re promoting white privilege like Chandler has done. They’re praising Martin Luther King, Jr. and that he stood on the Word of God. Again, these are all the ideals of the communist Worldview that we have been studying. And who is bringing this garbage right into the center of the church? Leading evangelical leaders.

In fact, the Together for the Gospel conference in April 2018 is going to have a breakout session led by Mark Dever, by the way, that’s the same Mark Dever who has said if you put your church eschatology on your church website, you’re sinning. He’s not a pretribulation dispensationalist by the way, I guess. He’s gonna be working and having a breakout session in April 2018 on Martin Luther King, Jr. Notice who will be there is pro-Hillary Clinton, Thabiti Anyabwile, who told John Piper not to criticize Black Lives Matter. Of course you know Black Lives Matter was started by three ladies who have a communist worldview and are admitted “queers” by their own definition. And one of them was mentored by Eric Mann of The Weather Underground.

So, again, here we have some of these leading Neo-Calvinists bringing a forum together to celebrate Martin Luther King, Jr. Then the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and the Gospel Coalition will be coming to Memphis in April 2018 to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the murder of Dr. King. And on their website they state that it’s gonna be called ‘MLK 50, Gospel Reflections From the Mountaintop.’ And you’re gonna have John Piper there and Russell Moore and a bunch of other folks.

But notice the image here. Gospel reflections. Did Martin Luther King, Jr. stand for the gospel? No, we learned last week he was greatly committed to social justice and the social gospel. We also learned last week that Coretta Scott King brought a box of papers to a man to study and he was to write on what those papers by King contained. And what he wrote was that King did not believe in the deity of Jesus Christ. Denied the story of Jonah and the fish. And thought aspects of the Bible were mythological. He did not hold to a literal interpretation of the Word of God where it was meant to be interpreted literally. Does that sound like someone interested in a biblical gospel? No. He openly was committed by his own description to a social gospel. He openly spoke about it, preached about it. Social gospel. Social justice. That is not a biblical gospel. But the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and the Southern Baptist Convention and the Gospel Coalition are going to hold an event in Memphis, here in Memphis next month, April 2018. And they’re going to talk about gospel reflection.

Notice also the arrow that points to a Bible. There’s the picture of King and then a Bible. Again, giving the impression that Dr. King stood on the authority of the Word of God. Again, the communists must be laughing their heads off as the useful idiots of evangelicalism, Neo-evangelicalism and Neo-Calvinism are doing their work and their bidding whether they know it or not.

And then, shockingly, in September 2018 there’s going to be a music worship conference in Nashville, Tennessee. And you can see the people that’ll be speaking for that. Tim Keller, John Piper and John MacArthur. We don’t have time tonight. But Tim Keller is openly promoting socialism. He has called it reweaving a community. He said some have called it redistribution of wealth or redistribution. Others call it reweaving.

So again, he’s using masking terms for socialism. Tim Keller. I write about it extensively in my book, The Coming Religious Reich. I write extensively about Keller and his worldview. Documented. Footnotes.

Tim Keller wrote a book called Generous Justice. That’s where he promoted this idea of redistribution or what he calls ‘reweaving.’ So now we have Tim Keller, a socialist, and John Piper who promotes Black Lives Matter and other things that he shouldn’t be promoting, are now going to go to a conference and share the platform with other well-known evangelical leaders. Sadly, it breaks my heart to say it. Why are these people giving credibility to people who are carrying the water, whether knowingly or unknowingly, of the socialists? The globalists. The internationalists. The race baiters. The communists. The progressives.

This is very dangerous. Very troubling. Troubling indeed. And it brings us to the final quote. What some of them seem to be doing. Remember this–from the 1961 speech by William C. Sullivan, assistant director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Who in 1961 said that these pastors and members of the clergy,

“they fail to recognize obvious communist propaganda in petitions, open letters, clemency, appeals, pamphlets, etc. Mistaken notions that clergymen can work with communists for peace, civil rights, ending racial discrimination, etc., without harming religion and strengthening communism.” Sounds like today, doesn’t it?

He says, “confusing the values of communism with those of Christianity, confusing the social doctrines of Karl Marx with those of Jesus Christ, a tendency to reject or drastically dilute the supernatural content of religion in favor of a naturalistic form of humanism, which can make it hard to logically take a strong stand against communism.”

He says these clergy “show a proneness to join organizations without questioning their real sponsorship, direction or policies. Making statements and drawing conclusions relative to foreign policy, economics and domestic politics, which exceed their field of competence.”

May I say, my friends, I believe many of these religious leaders have exceeded their field of competence. They don’t know what I have presented tonight. They don’t know about white privilege. They don’t understand the Frankfurt School and cultural Marxism. And sadly, a new survey shows that 58 percent of millennials today would prefer to live under either socialism, communism or fascism. Fifty-eight percent of millennials.

My friends, with pastors, Neo-calvinists, Neo-evangelicals embracing the agenda of white privilege, Black Lives Matter and the other propaganda masking agendas of the communists, socialists and globalists, they’re only going to further the acceptance of socialism, even within the walls of the church. And sadly, many once well-respected by me are men like John MacArthur who are becoming what I call one of the ‘bridgers, ‘by showing up and sharing their platform at conferences with men like Matt Chandler and John Piper and Tim Keller. And I fear these men have become bridgers, whether they know it or not, or intend to or not.

We are living in a very dangerous time–spiritually, and in the arena of national security. And the warnings from people like Richard Rembrandt, who spent 14 years in a Romanian communist prison, are not being heeded. We cannot mix a little bit of socialism with Christianity and think that it will remain Christianity. Richard Rembrandt said you cannot take a little bit of tuberculosis and mix it with a healthy body and still have a healthy body.

Today, men who should know better are being bridgers and sharing the platform with and giving credibility to men who are promoting socialism by a masking term. White privilege. Black Lives Matter. Reweaving a community. And, it will end very badly for true Christians.

My friends, again, this is a broadcast many will not take part in doing because they have sold out to the good ol’ boy club. They make their living speaking at conferences with these men, and they want to keep getting invited. They speak at churches that embrace these men, and they want to keep getting the invite. They work with book publishers that publish these men, and they want to keep getting published.

Well, my friends, I don’t belong to the good ol’ boy club. And I’m an independent broadcaster. We will continue to do programs just like this for the edification of the church. So that we might be warned of the men who have risen from within and sadly, those many of us thought would never give them credibility, who have become bridgers by sharing the platform with them.

If you appreciate this broadcast and you want to see a program like this continue and all the other programs that we produce, we need to hear from you. You can support us through our Worldview Weekend Foundation. You can make a tax deductible contribution at wvwfoundation.com. If you prefer to send a check, you’ll find our mailing address on that website, as well as on the screen.

You can also join our Situation Room and have access to over 13,000 radio shows, TV shows, conference DVDs and our powerful Bible biblical worldview software, Worldviewpedia.com.

I’m urging you, support this broadcast or it will go away. We have many expenses that include now the need to rebuild our entire system, which is 20 years old. The computer code is 20 years old. It needs to be rebuilt. Our streaming costs are two grand a month at this time, just so you can stream this free of charge wherever you might be watching it from. So your partnership is vital. We are a listener supported broadcast ministry. We need your support. Thank you.

Until next time, I’m Brannon Howse. Take care.