King died in 1968, at that time the U.S. was still not fighting to win in Vietnam.
The way Johnson was fighting (or more accurately not fighting) the war led everyone to believe it was a pointless waste of life that was liberating nobody and dividing all nations. Identifying King quotes about Vietnam without considering the historical context in which they were offered is history revision.
Give me a break, this buffoon is your “source”?
Lets look at some gems from Epstein’s “article”.
during the 50s and 60s, the Right almost unanimously opposed the civil rights movement. Contrary to the claims of many neocons
Notice he is very careful to use the term “the right” and not “the GOP”.
Then he goes on to say this
the opposition was not limited to the John Birch Society and southern conservatives. It was made by politicians like Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, and in the pages of Modern Age, Human Events, National Review, and the Freeman.
After his “the right” reference he then names a couple prominent Republican’s.
The truth is the “right” he is talking about were primarily Demoncrat’s, just like I said. This idiot is trying to perpetuate the tired lie that the GOP and the Demoncrat Parties “switched” positions so he can hang the sins of the Racist Demoncrat’s on today’s Republican’s.
It was Demoncrat’s who fought a war to own blacks as slaves.
It was Demoncrat’s who passed and supported Jim Crow laws.
It was Demoncrat’s who sent Klu Klux Klan members to congress.
It was Demoncrat’s who filibustered the Civil Rights Legislation.
It is Demoncrat’s who are supporting all the “programs” that keep blacks impoverished and on the plantation today.
No “switch” has ever occured. This author knows that, he just does not want to admit it. The evidence is how he uses the term “the right” every time he is trying to divert attention away from the well documented sins of the filthy Demoncrat’s.
But there is so much more, consider this quote from King that he uses to claim King would want a quota system.
A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis."
“Equip him” does not mean “give him a position based on skin color”.
The history revision continues.
Here the author says flat out that King wanted quotas and uses this King quote to establish that claim.
To do this he (King) expressed support for quotas. In a 1968 Playboy interview, he said,** "If a city has a 30% Negro population, then it is logical to assume that Negroes should have at least 30% of the jobs in any particular company**
How is that a support for quotas?
It is common sense that the employment statistics should roughly reflect the local demographics. All King is doing is pointing out that obvious fact and saying that if the numbers do not reflect that reality then a problem clearly exists.
King is not claiming in any way that his idea of a “solution” to this is a quota system. King always expressed support for equal funding and opportunities in the black schools on par with what most of the white schools had.
This author completely ignores a common theme from Kings speeches regarding equality in education resources and claims that a King quote that does not mention a quota solution at all reveals that Kings real objective was a quota system.
The fantasy does not stop there, here is the King quote this author claims is proof that King supported reparations.
No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down through the centuries…Yet a price can be placed on unpaid wages. The ancient common law has always provided a remedy for the appropriation of a the labor of one human being by another
So supporting the paying of “back wages” to those who worked and were not compensated is the same as supporting the modern concept of “reparations”?
Reparations encompass all aspects of a wrong committed, that is why this term is used to describe what happens after a war when one side sets right the totality of wrongs they committed.
In Kings lifetime many who actually knew the bondage of slavery were still living yet he focused solely on the Just claim of “back wages”. King also goes on to explain how these “back wages” should be paid.
The payment should be in the form of a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures which could be regarded as a settlement in accordance with the accepted practice of common law.
“The accepted practice of common law”, King is not advocated anything new here, he is saying if someone can prove in accordance with law that they were forced to work without adequate compensation they should get those wages.
That is a far cry from today’s advocates for “Reparations” who want massive cash gifts given to everyone with black skin.
This idiot is not done yet.
He uses the following King quote (or rather he “claims” King said this) to claim that King was not the American Patriot that Conservatives (like me) claim he was.
King did not have much pride in America’s founding. He believed “our nation was born in genocide,” and claimed that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were meaningless for blacks because they were written by slave owners
“Meaningless for blacks” is not the same as “meaningless”. It was a common theme in all King’s speeches and writings that he desired an equal application of our Founders vision to ALL.
Of course he thought it was “Meaningless for blacks” at the time or he would not have been a CIVIL RIGHTS LEADER!.
King was a Great American and he appealed to the timeless wisdom of our Founders words in nearly every recorded speech.
The slander continues.
Next this Liberal buffoon claims that because the FBI “may” have proof of King having extra marital affairs, that means he would not support the agenda of the “Christan Right” today.
So…Since King may have had struggles with sexual purity, we can then reasonably conclude that he would have rejected all the elements of his faith and oppose the groups that coalesce to support those points of faith today?
What kind of an idiot thinks that the only logical response to personally failing to live up to ones ideals is to cast off the ideals?
An Atheist imbecile, that is who.
King obviously never renounced his faith so even if these rumors are true it means he repented and endured the weakness. The idea that he would be screaming for legalized abortion and gay marriage today in spite of having counseled the exact opposite according to his own niece is ludicrous.
All the claim of this author means is that this author has never spent 10 minutes researching the Christian faith.
The slanderer continues with this gem to conclude that King was not Anti Communist.
in the early years, King did make a few mild denunciations of communism. He also claimed in a 1965 Playboy that there “are as many Communists in this freedom movement as there are Eskimos in Florida.” This was a bald-faced lie.
“A bald faced lie” he says.
Lets look at his evidence that in spite of Kings own words condemning Communist’s he was really supporting them.
His closest advisor Stanley Levison was a Communist, as was his assistant Jack O’Dell. Robert and later John F. Kennedy repeatedly warned him to stop associating himself with such subversives, but he never did. He frequently spoke before Communist front groups such as the National Lawyers Guild and Lawyers for Democratic Action. King even attended seminars at The Highlander Folk School, another Communist front, which taught Communist tactics, which he later employed
So speaking to groups means you support their political agenda?
Does that mean that all the Conservatives who speak to NAACP groups endorse their agenda and solutions regarding racial issues?
Does every Conservative that speaks before an AFL-CIO audience support the agenda of the Unions?
How come this “guilt by association” claim only applies when you are trying to prove that someone is NOT Conservative?
How come the fact that King spoke before many known Patriotic groups as well (in addition to his own Patriotic sentiments spoken EVERYWHERE) does not “prove” that he was not lying 95 percent of the time?
King spoke before MANY audiences that opposed his message, that was his MO. He never was a “only preach to the choir” leader, that is why he was a revolutionary Civil Rights leader and why he is known the world over today.
He then goes on to say that this quote confirms Kings Communist desires.
You can’t talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can’t talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You’re really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry… Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong…with capitalism… There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a Democratic Socialism
This supposed “quote” came from “a speech given before his staffers”
Isn’t that convenient!
The ONE statement that this author reasons should be adequate to disregard Martin Luther Kings entire recorded body of work took place before his “staff” where nobody was recording.
Who was it that said I was reaching and embracing a false perception?
Here is this idiots reason for claiming King was “no Conservative”
King’s views were hardly conservative. If this was not enough, it is worth noting what King said about the two most prominent postwar American conservative politicians, Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater.
King accused Barry Goldwater of “Hitlerism.” He believed that Goldwater advocated a “narrow nationalism, a crippling isolationism, and a trigger-happy attitude.” On domestic issues he felt that “Mr. Goldwater represented an unrealistic conservatism that was totally out of touch with the realities of the twentieth century.” King said that Goldwater’s positions on civil rights were “morally indefensible and socially suicidal.”
First off, in 1968 when King died Reagan was hardly a “leading post war Conservative” on the National stage.
Secondly, I think Goldwater was an idiot with mostly stupid ideas on foreign policy as well. I guess that means I am not a Conservative either?
Remember that earlier this idiot author claimed Kings opposition to Vietnam meant he was opposed to fighting Communism. Now he is saying that Goldwater’s desire to ignore Communist encroachment in the world means King was not a Conservative.
So King thought fighting Communism was worthwhile when Goldwater did not but King thought fighting Communism was not worthwhile when Nixon did, this means King was a Communist sympathizer and would sympathize with modern Liberals as well?
This is why people should always consider historical context when evaluating quotes. It is also why young people with NO historical context personally are so susceptible to this propaganda.
And how can this author believe nobody who reads this drivel will know that it was Kennedy and Johnson who perpetuated the Vietnam War? Why would they think anyone would believe that ANY GOP candidate was associated with the Vietnam war in 1968?
Wait, I know.
He assumes they are young and dumb.
Here is his claim about what King thought of Reagan
King said of Reagan, “When a Hollywood performer, lacking distinction even as an actor, can become a leading war hawk candidate for the presidency, only the irrationalities induced by war psychosis can explain such a turn of events.”
In 1968 when King died Reagan was Governor of California, he did mount a bid for the nomination of the GOP in 1968 as a result of GOP fanfare over his speech at Goldwater’s convention in 1964 but he was hardly a “leading war hawk candidate”.
Nixon was the clear GOP choice and a “war hawk”. There is scant evidence that King ever said this of Reagan and even if he did, how would this make King “not Conservative”?
Just because the world recognizes the “post President Reagan” as the standard of Conservative thought is not proof that 1968 Reagan possessed those credentials. Reagan just a rookie Governor in Kings day.
Reagan lost out to Ford in 1976, does that mean Ford was more “Conservative”?
King expressed strong Conservative concepts in every speech he gave, only an idiot would base an opposing view on these supposed “quotes”.
Think about what the author is saying for a minute.
He is claiming that King was a** colossal liar!**
What other conclusion can be drawn of someone who spends their whole life preaching one message publicly but believes the opposite in private.
That is a long way to go just to prop up the Demoncrat’s hatred of Christianity and Conservatives.
I guess next they will have to find all the backroom evidence that shows Kennedy loved Communism and was opposed to Christianity because he cheated on Jackie.
I cannot believe that any rational person could fall prey to such a ridiculous and unsubstantiated hit piece on King. The hatred for Christianity and Conservatives is so great in some people that they will leave all common sense and reason at the door for any opportunity to slam it.