It is always humorous to me when people talk of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as a “great Christian”. It is hard for me to see how that man was a Christian at all. Just because a man has a suit and is able to deceive his way into being called “reverend” does not make him a “man of God.”
I can think of no greater hypocrisy other than that of a man who uses his position of moral authority to condemn others, while he is himself condemned by the standards of the moral authority with which he speaks. This was a man who said that he was a Christian and held the position of Christian minister no less but who was constantly having sex with prostitutes and cheating on his wife.
If this information had been released, then the MLK branch of the civil rights movement would have been over because Christians would not have backed a man like that. He was a philanderer because he cheated on his wife and fraud because he played Christian for the television while not following even its most basic teachings.
Stanley Levinson, A. Phillip Randolph, and Bayard Rustin. Those are the names of three people that were very close to Martin Luther King Jr. Two of the three (Rustin and Randolph) were key figures within his organization, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and the third was a marginal figure within the SCLC but helped to write some of King’s most important speeches.
All three were Communists or Socialists. Levinson was part of the leadership of the American Communist Party (Communist Party USA), which we now know was fully controlled from Moscow, according to declassified Soviet documents and the Venona Papers. So Levinson was, by extension, a Soviet agent and he is widely described as a close friend of Martin Luther King Jr.
Bayard Rustin, who was the organizer of the famous “March on Washington”, where King gave his famous “I have a dream” speech, was a member of the American Communist Party and a member of multiple Communist front groups until 1941. I am assuming that he broke with the Communist Party because of the pact that Moscow made with Hitler in 1941, but he never renounced Marxism and, in fact, became a member of the Socialist Party of America later on in life.
And, A. Phillip Randolph, who was a famous labor union organizer and without whom it would have been impossible for King to rally so many working class blacks. Randolph was a Socialist and he joined the Socialist Party of America during his college years but it was clearly no college fling because he ran on the Socialist Party ticket in 1920 for New York State Comptroller and again in 1922 for New York Secretary of State.
You do not have this many Socialists and Communists in key positions in your organization without having some sympathies towards that ideology. Certainly if he had been an Anti-Communist he would have never hired these people. And it isn’t like King didn’t know that these people were Socialists and Communists when he hired them. He knew, but he didn’t care.
The official party line coming out of Moscow was that “racial equality” movements should be supported within the West for both ideological and tactical reasons. Thus, if the argument is to be made that King himself was not a Socialist/Communist himself, then he had to have made a political calculation.
Which was, if our cause succeeds and that means that communists will have more power in this country, then that is the cost I am willing to pay. By 1960, Americans knew about the gulags and the atrocities committed by the Soviet Union. This apparently didn’t affect King’s view of allowing people in his group which were part of an ideology that supported mass killings, mass prisons for political prisoners, and other such atrocities.
The more likely conclusion is that King was a Socialist/Communist himself and thus was willing to turn a blind eye to the atrocities of the Soviet Union because that was his political side. He even publicly called himself a “democratic socialist”. A man who led Christians either allowed Soviet sympathizers in his organization or outright supported the Soviet Union, a nation that outlawed Christianity.
Martin Luther King Jr. is now the only political figure in the United States that has a national holiday dedicated to him. Not any of our Founding Fathers, not Lincoln, not FDR, none of those men deserve a national holiday apparently.
But a man who was a Christian fraud, who cheated on his wife, and who surrounded himself with our nation’s enemies is worthy of a national holiday? He is considered worthy of this honor because MLK is central to the diversity and racial equality myth. If the truth about him is known then the whole idealism behind sixty years of integration, diversity, and racial equality takes a massive hit. I suppose some agendas are too important to tell the truth about.