December 19, 2025 • 42 mins
Independent filmmaker Chad O. Jackson joins Joe Pags to discuss his controversial documentary on Martin Luther King Jr. — a project that challenges the widely accepted narrative surrounding the civil rights icon.
Jackson lays out his research into MLK’s speeches, inner circle, political influences, and the broader power structures operating during the Civil Rights era. The conversation explores claims of ghostwriting, ideological movements inside the church, and why certain historical narratives are elevated while others are buried.
This is a calm, fact-driven discussion that asks a difficult question:
Who controls history — and why?
Listeners are encouraged to examine the evidence, question long-held assumptions, and decide for themselves.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
What if I told you everything that you think you
know about a major historical figure could be wrong. It's
being challenged. I'm talking about MLK Martin Luther King Junior
by a guy named Chad O. Jackson. He's out there
making videos and I saw him doing that, invited him
on my show, and what you're about to see is
going to blow your mind. I'm fifty nine years old,
so I wasn't around for much of MLK. I certainly
(00:23):
have learned what we've been told we should know about MLK,
and what we should know is that we should judge
our children by the content of their character, not the
color of their skin. That sounds really good to me. Chad,
what am I getting wrong?
Speaker 2 (00:36):
You're not wrong. The problem is that when you look
at King, you look at the Civil rights movement, and
you look at the communists, the communist influences of the movement,
you begin to understand that a lot of what we understand,
or what we think we understand about King is a
fabrication and a concoction that was meant not to bring
(00:57):
about racial equality, but in a real sense, to sayvia
ties the United States of America. Much of his work
was plagiarized, including the famous wanting his children to be
judged not by the color of their skin but by
the content of their character. I mean that was lifted
from a article written in a Soviet newspaper in eighteen
(01:18):
seventy two, where South South Carolinian journalist wrote that surely
a day will come when the men of South Carolina
will not be judged by the color of their skin
or their golodness of tongue, but by their conduct and
their character. And it's interesting because when you look at
the I have a dream speech, it was heavily written
and edited by King's advisors, most of whom were Communists
(01:41):
or had affiliations with the Communist Party, whether it was
Stanley Levison or Clarence B. Jones's attorney, or Byrd Rustin
or any of the others. Staine Levison in particular was
a very wealthy Communist financier and advisor. He held two
law degrees, a very well read man. So a lot
(02:01):
of the plagiarism that is in King's speeches begins to
make sense when you understand the background of of his
advisers as ghostwriters and those who influenced him.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
Well chat I've got to ask you, why was he
the vessel then? I mean, obviously he delivered these speeches masterfully,
what a great orator. But you're saying they weren't even
his words, So how did they even identify him as
the right guy?
Speaker 2 (02:26):
Well, the King family, I mean, if you look at
his father, who was affectionately, affectionately nicknamed Daddy King. From
a very early age, he says that he was a
proponent of the Social Gospel. And anybody who knows anything
about the Social Gospel understands that it's not the gospel
at all. It's what the Apostle Paul would have called
a counterfeit gospel. And in addition to that, the Apostle
(02:50):
Paul said, let anyone who preaches the counterfeit gospel, or
a gospel that's not what we preach to you, let
them be a cursed And so Daddy King, from a
very early age he was oponenter of the of the
Social Gospel. He say as much in his unpublished memoir.
He would frequent events and social gatherings that were put
(03:10):
on by an organization called the Southern Negro Youth Congress,
which was a Communist front group back in the nineteen
thirties and forties. And it was interesting because the Southern
Negro Youth Congress was a subsidiary of what was called
the National Negro Congress, which was the preeminent civil rights
movement of the nineteen thirties under FDR. The FDR and
(03:34):
the FEDS had an interest in using the civil rights
movement to further and to expand its own power and authority.
This has always been the intention of the civil rights movement,
dating as far back as the Reconstruction, to expand federal authority.
By the time you get into the thirties, FDR will
put forth the Commission which would become the National Negro Congress,
(03:58):
and the National Negro Congress was helped with the It
was started with the help of the Soviet Union, Joseph
Stalin himself, So he had and he had the communists
who had an interest in the civil rights movement, and
their goals were aligned, which were to centralized power, centralized authority,
to usurp it from the States because there was a
(04:18):
raging debate over federal authority versus States rights. And so
to answer your question, you know, King was kind of
born into this milieu, this kind of hegemony, if you will,
where there was already communist activity going on in Montgomery,
in Atlanta and Birmingham dating as far back as the
nineteen twenties, and so he kind of carried the baton,
(04:40):
if you will. I mean, when you even look at
his name, he wasn't born Martin Luther King. He was
born Michael King. His father's name was Michael King. After
taking a journey to Germany in the nineteen thirties late thirties,
I believe his father learned about the sixteenth century reformer
(05:01):
Martin Luther, and what he perceived Martin Luther to be
doing was, in a sense, wrestling away authority from the
Catholic Church and starting Protestantism. That's what King perceived Luther
to be doing. And he thought to himself, I can
actually do that in the United States, basically wrestle away authority,
wrestle away leadership from the religious order in America, and
(05:25):
use it to really advance the social Gospel. So he
would come back to the United States, change his name
to Martin Luther King Senior, and change his name his
son's name of Martin Luther King Junior. Because he saw
himself and his progeny as the kind of vehicle, if
you will, to usher in the social gospel, which is
rooted in Marxism.
Speaker 1 (05:45):
Chadow Jackson is his name. Go to at Chadow Jackson
on all of the social media, Go follow what he does.
Go to Chadowjackson dot com and check out the MLK project.
There's a lot there. Chat, there's a lot there. I
know a little bit about history. I know in the
nineteen thirties, Blackmericans were generally speaking Republican. They generally speaking
had the family unit, the Western family unit, like most
(06:06):
white people did. That didn't start being denigrated until the
nineteen sixties. But if you don't mind, just answer a
simple question for a guy who thought he knew something
about something until I started watching your stuff and you
made me think I don't know anything about anything. Why
why do this? How does it benefit black people in
America to do this, to separate them, to bring in
(06:26):
a communist influence. Was it about making things worse for
black Americans? Because the Civil Rights Acts of nineteen sixty four,
as you say very eloquently, didn't help blacks, actually hurt them.
And I think a lot of what we've done since
then has hurt them as well. The family unit is
decimated in the black community now. And I saw a
video where you talked about the pride poor black people
had in the South had before they moved to the North.
(06:48):
And I want to get into all those things, but
can you answer the simple question why would they want
to hurt the black community the way they did through
putting up leadership that really was steering them the wrong way?
Speaker 2 (06:57):
Well, I'll try to answer it as simply as a
possible can. I can't help but to bring history into it.
But if you look at the Communist common Tern, the
Second Congress common Tern, the Communist International, which was a
convention I guess you could call it that they would
have each year in Moscow, and I think it was
(07:18):
nineteen twenty or nineteen twenty one. There was a white
journalist by the name of John Reid who was a delegate,
an American delegate to the Communist Party International, and they
were trying to figure out the best way to help
usher end Communism into the United States, and John Reid
believed that the way to do that was through the
American Negro and he was lamenting the fact that the
(07:40):
American Negro in the nineteen twenties or the late nineteen
tens going to the nineteen twenties were making their way
in America through capitalistic means that they were still putting
forth the efforts that men like Booker T. Washington put forth,
which is, if you want to be successful, the way
to do it is through conventional means, by hunting your craft,
by starting families, by starting businesses, by building homes. Black
(08:04):
Americans by and large were doing this in the South.
This is well documented even by originally skeptical journalists of
black journalists by the name of George Schuyler, who was
a northern journalist who visited the South and saw all
these so called black wall streets all across the South
and would write about it regularly and the Pittsburgh Courier,
(08:28):
which was the publication he was writing for at the time.
And so as a result of John Reid's input that
the American Negro is our catalyst of ushering communism to
the United States, he said that we need to raise
the political consciousness of the American Negro, to turn them
(08:48):
against capitalism, to turn them against Western civilization innocence. And
so Vladimer Lyn and himself greenlit the utilization of any
means necessary to raise a political consciousness of the American
Negro And so as a result of this, over the
course of the nineteen twenties, you saw all these race
riots springing up seemingly out of nowhere. Nobody could figure
(09:10):
out what what the hidden hand was, what the communists
were doing, where they were purposely instigating turmoil and friction
between Southern Negroes and Southern whites, because the idea and
the objective was to destabilize the negro Because if I'm
Joe the shoe store owner, and I'm selling shoes to
(09:31):
my local townsmen and women, the local miners, and the
school teachers and the children, and there's a race riot
that springs up, and tomorrow I don't have a business
to go to because it's burned down. But then I
opened up my newspaper. I mean, you can look at
these articles that were written around this time. Tired of
racial discrimination, joined the IWW, which was the communist front group,
(09:52):
join this organization, and joined that organization. The idea was
to chase Negroes into the bosom of radical groups because
they can sustain themselves through capitalistic means. That was the objective.
The second part of the objective was to cost so
much unrest, so much friction, so much turmoil, so much reactionaryism,
that it would make the states and the local communities
(10:17):
seem as though they were incapable of self governance, such
to where the public will cry out for a federal response,
and in so doing, here comes a big, bad federal
government passing legislation, expanding its power all the more at
the expense of the states, the local communities, and the
individuals and the families.
Speaker 1 (10:35):
So there, chat, if you don't mind, let me stop
it there, because I mean, you're on a roll and
it's great, But I want to reiterate from my audience
and from my brain because I've born in nineteen sixty six.
I was brought up to believe the things that most
people in America believe, and you are shooting holes in
all of that. So just to reiterate, because I've seen
this on your videos, and if you don't want to
expand upon this, please do. There were complete enclaves of
(10:59):
black America that were doctors and dentists, and the shoemaker
has just said, and the whole infrastructure was there, it
was working, it had many black wall streets all over
the place, and Black Americans were succeeding. If I'm right.
I think I'm right. The first female millionaire in this
country was a black woman. So I'm not sure I
understand why it worked. Why did it work that suddenly
(11:21):
some outside hand or maybe the federal government itself wanting
a more socialist society, but certainly motivated by the Soviet
Union in Lenin. Why did it work when they could
have said, wait, my life is pretty good. What are
you talking about. I don't want to join some weird
group that hates my country. Why was somebody able to
make the Black community victimized or victims when they weren't well.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
What we're talking about when we talk about communism and
Marxism and all these other isms, is a group of
people who've invested large portions of their lives and to
studying the soft sciences, the cognitive sciences, studying group behavior,
trying to figure out how to destabilize and how to
capitalize on the destabilization and the fodder and the friction
(12:05):
that comes out of that. And they were hell bent
on it. I mean, these are people who are basically
like honey badgers they're going to try to find a
way to get an inception, to get an endpoint, and
again it's through friction. It's what we call cultural Marxism. Marxism,
as you know, was popularized in the nineteenth century and
(12:27):
they were trying to get it to spread. Carl Marx
and Friedrick Engles were trying to get it to spread
across Europe, but they had a difficult time doing it
because of one man. And of course there's more to
the story, but if you follow the history, you'll see
that Carl Marx and Friedrich Ingles were contemporaries of not
only Charles Darwin, who you know they all lived in
(12:48):
London at the same time, but also Charles Spurgeon. So
while Darwin was writing on the Origin of Species, and
while Marxian Ingles were writing the Communist Manifesto, here was
Charles Spurgeon at the Metropolitan Taberna and London preaching the gospel,
and a lot of the urban poor were flocking to
hear the gospel. And this disappointed for Drick Engels and
Carl Marx that they weren't able to galvanize the working poor,
(13:15):
the urban poor to the extent that they wanted to.
And so by the time you get to the end
of the nineteenth century, you get people like Walter Rossi
and Bush who figured out that the way to jump
this hurdle, this gospel hurdle, is to subvert it, and
that's where you get the social Gospel. And so again
(13:36):
you have this kind of trial and error and certain
successes that comes out of trying to figure out just
how to destabilize a Negro. And I can't really give
you an answer, and you know, one little quick second
only to say that there were incremental kind of inroads
that were taken, but it wouldn't really come to a
(13:56):
climactic point until the nineteen fifties and six under the
behest of such leaders as Martin Luther King and his contingent.
Because I mean again, Marxism, communism, this is something that
blocks were flocking to in small numbers since the nineteen twenties.
But what they figured out is if they really want
to push their agenda forward, you can't call it communism,
(14:18):
you can't call it Marxism, especially at the heart of
the Cold War. You have to do it through clandestine
and subversive means. And they figured out that, you know,
through a man who's well polished, a Southern Negro minister,
a great Ora tour, And there's a lot of redeeming
qualities about King, to be sure. But it's through that
(14:38):
mechanism that we can in a sense push Americans, not
just Black Americans, but Americans in general, neutralize them, cause
them to let down their guard and being more open
to socialist type policies which will incrementally become communist policies.
That was the agenda.
Speaker 1 (14:55):
It's Chado Jackson. Go to Chadowjackson dot com check out
his docum series The MLK Project Motives Unmasked. You mentioned
something there about there are some redeeming qualities about Martin
Luther King Junior. Obviously great Order certainly was able to
grab a crowd and hold them for as long as
he wanted them. Why was he, though the individual, okay
(15:15):
with being the vessel. Why was he okay with using
the gospel and making its social gospel and then and
then basically pushing an entire race of people in America
to become reliant on the central government that doesn't even
like them. It doesn't make sense to me because the
black community, i think is more socialized in this country
than any other community, because there are so many people
reliant on the government dole and the government controls everything
(15:38):
they do, where they work, how much money they have,
how many kids they have, how much food they eat,
where you know, where they live, whether they have heat
or internet. It doesn't make any sense to me. So
why was he okay with leading that his own race,
his own people, so to say down that path? Or
was he not smart enough to know what was happening.
Speaker 2 (15:55):
He was definitely smart enough to know what was happening.
And you're absolutely right. I mean, according to a twenty
nineteen Cato Institute study, over sixty percent of blacks in
America have a more favorable view of socialism than a
free market enterprise. No other ethnic group has a higher
view of socialism except for blacks. And that's according to
that twenty nineteen Ko Institute study. To answer your question,
(16:17):
which is a fantastic question, the reason King was so
impressionable to Marxist ideology is that he rejected the Gospel
from a very early age. I mean, he writes in
his papers that I have all the volumes of his
papers here in my studio, but you know he writes
that by the age of twelve. He rejected the resurrection
(16:37):
of Christ. He rejected the deity of Christ. He said
that he shocked his Sunday school class at the age
of thirteen by rejecting the resurrection. He wrote also that
he rejected the literal existence of Hell. He rejected the
virgin birth, he rejected the fundamental tenets of Christianity. And
(16:58):
he thought that he was actually small harder than his
Sunday school teachers, who he said were in the fundamentalist
line of the faith. He actually didn't want to become
a pastor. He wanted to become a lawyer or a doctor,
but he was talked into becoming a pastor, uh in
order to advocate and to further the so called social gospel. Because,
I mean, if you if you read his college papers,
(17:20):
you really get a sense of the fact that he
genuinely believed in Marxist Marxist ideology, and he was a
he called himself a Hegelian. He subscribed to the Hegelian dialectic.
He believed that that was a tactical way to really
spread Marxism amongst blacks, uh in in America at large.
(17:40):
When asked, you know, why was it so easy for
you to to get a foot hold in the black community.
By a reporter, King said, because you know, Black Southerners
by and large go to church. So he had a
captive audience as far as as Black Southerners were concerned.
But he was preaching. I mean, if you look at
his Easter sermon, he preached an Easter sermon where he's
(18:02):
basically casting doubt in the resurrection of Jesus. So he
would he would do a lot of precautionary things that
are fitting for a pastor in terms of conducting a sermon,
but he would never call people to repentance. He will
never call people to turn their lives around and to
turn to Christ. He was instead infusing a liberal political
(18:24):
ideology in his sermons, much the same as people like
Jamal Bryant today or Raphael Warnock today using the polpit
as a kind of prop to clandestinely and subversively push
an agenda that he genuinely believed in. He was a
genuine believer in Marxist ideology, and he was deceptive in
how he spread it under the guise of a Christian pastor.
Speaker 1 (18:49):
I was today years old when I found out that
doctor brought Luther King Junior, the reverend that were all
told to hold up on high didn't believe in the resurrection.
He didn't believe in the existence of Hell. I had
no idea. So why were they so successful and tricking
people like me? Because my next question down the line
here is going to be why do you know all this?
And why did you look into it? Why didn't you
believe the colloquial story? But what are they gained by
(19:11):
having both sides fighting over the memory of doctor King today?
And why does a Raphael Warnock, who thinks he's King,
you know two point zero probably in his own mind?
Why does he want to continue to keep black people
in the box that they're in. Why not get back
to where black people can flourish alongside everybody else and
enjoy capitalism because it's the best way of life, because
socialism has never worked in a successful way. Do they
(19:33):
want black people to continue killing each other in the
streets of Chicago? Do they want black people to continue
being under the thumb? If so, what do they gain?
Does a Warnock get more power out of that? There's
a lot there. Chat I get it, but I'm going
I'm learning from you right now even more that I've
seen from your short videos, and I love it that
we're having this conversation. But what do the contemporary the
modern black leaders, and I'm putting that in air coach
(19:53):
for those who are listening on the radio, what do
they gain just their own power, their own control? What
is it?
Speaker 2 (19:59):
No, that's absolutely what it's for. It's for power. It's
the same reason why Satan was cast out of heaven.
And I don't want to isolate the civil rights movement
as being solely responsible for a lot of the disabilization
that we've seen over the course of the last half
century or more. I mean, when you look at a
lot of these social justice movements that were going on
(20:21):
around that time, the nineteen sixties going into the seventies,
whether it's second wave feminism, whether it's gay liberation which
would later become the LGBT movement, or whether it's the
hippie movement or the free love movement. I call it
the era of indulgence. We began to have less children,
not just blacks, but also whites and other ethnic groups
(20:42):
as well. We began to turn our focus inward. We
became a more self centered people. This is a result
of a lot of the distabilization that came to us
by way of the social justice movements. This was talked
about by Yury Besmanov in a famous nineteen eighty four
interview with one G. Edward Griffin where he talked about
(21:03):
ideological subversion and how they were intentionally trying to set
the baby boomers against the adult society of their day.
You saw it in publications like Mad Magazine, You saw
it in a lot of film and entertainment that was
coming out at the time. And basically, when you look
at I'm going to try to answer your question this way,
(21:25):
when you look at the Civil Rights movement, and then
you look at the next phase which came immediately after
after the assassination of King, which was the Black Power movement,
which was more militant, which was more in your face,
which was you know, gun toting, and you know Honky
this and Whitey that. When you look at when you
look at those two organizations, the Civil Rights movement and
(21:46):
the Black Power movement, one looks relatively conservative or moderate
and the other looks militant and very far left. But
the reality is both of these organizations are funded by
the same people, and not only that they have the
same ideological undergird The idea behind the Black Power movement
(22:07):
was to make the civil rights movement look more stomachable,
look more tolerable, so on and so forth, to where
by the time King is assassinated and the propaganda campaign
unleashes a lot of Americans who were none the wiser
began to look at the civil rights movement as more sanitized,
(22:30):
as more you know, this is something you know, we
should do it that way. That's that's real liberalism, that's
real progress. What King was doing was was was genuine
and affectionate, whereas what these other guys are doing, they
want to tear America down. And so it was. It
was kind of a bait and switch kind of situation.
And it's interesting because in the aftermath of King's assassination,
(22:51):
we now have the MLK federal Holiday, we have you know,
the forty foot statue erected in his honor there and
Watchington d C. And anytime a politician, be he right
or left, wants to push some socialist type, you know,
policy in Congress, they invoke the name of Martin Luther
(23:13):
King Junior, so as to signal, you know, King would
want this, this is something that King would want, and
that is meant to destabilize and to neutralize the public,
and to be embracing and accepting of this policy which
is pushing us further and further and further away from
true Western values, from true Christian values. Quite frankly, the
idea is once again like it's a very gradual thing.
(23:35):
And I'll say this real quick. I know I've been
rambling on for a while ago, but when you look
at the Communist manifesto, Carl Marx ends it by saying,
you know, workers of the world unite. What he's invoking
is this sudden uprising, this sudden revolution where the workers
across the world, you know, uniting against the bourgeoisie, where
(23:56):
the proletariat is is coming up against the bourgeoisie. This
was attractive to some people, but not all when it
came to a lot of the European elitists who believed
in what Marx was trying to do but disagreed with
the tactics that he wanted to use to pull it off.
They they didn't like the whole idea of a sudden uprising,
(24:20):
a sudden revolution, because they understood that a large portion
of society will resist it because they're used to a
certain status quo and a certain way of doing things.
And so for a group of radicals to, you know,
suddenly rise up, you'll have this war in the streets,
you'll have this friction. And so what these European elitists
(24:42):
decided to do was to start something called the Fabian
society that had a lot of the same views, shared
a lot of same views with the Marxists. They just
disagreed with the tactics, and they believe that the way
the proper way to cause a revolution is through a
slow burn, a slow march through the institutions, where they
were patient enough to say, look, we might not enjoy
(25:02):
the fruits of our labor, but our children's children's children will.
And so they envision a slow, gradual, long marshal the institutions,
little by little, bit by bit, passing this policy, then
passing that policy, then passing this policy on and into
the future. So when you look at a lot of
what the civil rights movement was doing, it was an
(25:23):
incremental step into a Soviet direction. You look at the
Civil Rights Act in nineteen sixty four, for example, which
is you know, not which is naively praised today. What
did it do? It gave the federal government more of
a foothold into the way that businesses are run. Small
businesses are run. This isn't keeping with the Marxist strategy
of the government controlling the means of production. So, you
(25:47):
know a lot of these things that we celebrate and
that we as conservatives say, Okay, we're okay with that.
We'll tolerate that because we don't want to be racist,
or we don't want to be Uncle Tom's or whatever
the case may be, to the extent that we embrace
these things instead of standing on our values, to the
extent that we plead guilty to the charges that are
(26:10):
lobbed against us by these radicals, where we're giving them
an inch and then they take the mile. And that's
what we're experiencing here now.
Speaker 1 (26:19):
Chadow Jackson go to Chadojackson dot com. He's an independent filmmaker.
Go check out his docu series The MLK Project Motives Unmasked.
Did the BLM group, the actual organization called Black Lives Matter,
did that rip the band aid off of this and
expose a lot of it. And here's what I mean.
They took down this part of their website after people
like me started exposing it, it said that they're in
(26:41):
their charter they were looking to disrupt the Western nuclear family.
It's not really a black organization at all. It's an
lgbtq XYZ organization. It's an organization that enriched a few
top people in the organization who happened to be gay,
to buy themselves a bunch of engines all over the place.
It wasn't about saving anybody's life or making anybody's life better.
They just saw an opportunity, one would imagine because of
(27:02):
George Floyd and that situation. Was that part of what
made you sort of on steroids, really look into what's
going on? Or did this start a long time ago
for you? So let's start with the first question. Did
BLM wake a lot of us up to go?
Speaker 2 (27:15):
Hold on?
Speaker 1 (27:16):
This isn't about black lives at all. This is about control,
This is about pushing an agenda. This is about the
EI EESG, this is about LGBT. Did that wake a
lot of us up? It did?
Speaker 2 (27:27):
Me? Yeah, we it woke a lot of people up,
that's to be certain, And make no mistake about it.
I think you're hitting them now, right on the head
that the Black Lives Matter is not a deviation. It's
not a distinction from the civil rights movement, or the
black militant movement in the seventies, or the black intellectual
movement or the black hip hop movement, which you know,
(27:50):
all of these are heading in the same direction. They're
not contradictions of each other or distinctions from one another.
They are all kind of a caring of the baton
on and into the future. So the problem with Black
Lives Matter is they kind of got a little ahead
of their skis. They grew more impatient, and so doing
(28:11):
they were able to kind of pull back the curtain,
so to speak. That did wake a lot of people up.
For me, I used to be a fan of King.
I used to be an admirer of him until around
two thousand and eight or nine when I heard the
late pastor Vide Bacam say that King was a socialist,
(28:32):
which rocked my world. What are you talking about King
as a socialist? And of course Villia Bakam at the
time with somebody whom I admired, someone who I gleaned
a lot from in terms of learning about the scriptures.
So to hear him say he was a socialist. I
had no reason not to believe him other than the
fact that I was trained and conditioned to believe that
(28:52):
he was an American hero.
Speaker 1 (28:55):
As it were, to that point, I want you to
continue it to that point. Those hit listening need to understand,
I'm a conservative guy. I've been co opting King forever.
I thought he was a conservative guy that people in
the Democrat Party have been co opting him forever. He
was a Democrat, and he was a liberal, and he
was at this end to that, Like you said earlier,
we've all figured out a way to take what he
said and did and fit our agenda. I wanted to
(29:18):
be more like King. So when you hear this, when
you hear the pastors say it, you say, wait a second,
that's my hero. What are you talking about? And what
would he say that made you say let me do
more research. Was it just the fact that he was
of authority and you said, well, I might as well
just not tell him he's wrong. Let me go figure
out why I think he's wrong.
Speaker 2 (29:36):
That was That's exactly it. I mean, Because again, while
I was conditioned and trained to believe I mean, we
grew up listening to that I have a dream speech
every year. Yes I'm Martin Luther King Day and during
during Black History Month. Growing up in Mansfield, Texas, it
was just something that you didn't question. And so for
me doctor Vodie Bacham, who again earned my respect early
(29:59):
on just with his with his handling of the scriptures.
For someone like me who grew up in a church
where it was not exactly doctrinally sound to become a
you know, a late teenager, and to come across doctor
Vodibackam sermons, here was somebody who was different, and he
earned my respect really quickly. So for him to say
(30:20):
doctor King was a socialist, again, that that caused me
a kind of cognitive dissonance because how how could you
say such such a thing? You know, King is an
American hero, and I wanted to look into it to
just see if there was any truth to what Vodi
Bakam was saying, and he was absolutely one correct. In fact,
(30:41):
I would later get to meet doctor Vodi Bacham and
we became good friends, and he was in a film
that I produced back in twenty twenty two. And yeah,
it's it's it's something that I there's not any degree
of pride in revealing this information. It's actually quite disappointing,
(31:01):
but the reality of it is King wasn't the first
to do the kind of Trojan horse thing that he did,
will nor will he be the last. There's other demogogues
among us, and there will continue to be demogogues among us.
The purpose of doing a film like the MLK Project
is to show what this trojan horse look like, what
the purpose of the Trojan horse was, in order that
(31:23):
we might be equipped to not be so gullible and
so credulous and susceptible to that kind of demagoguery. Again,
we have to become principled, especially as conservatives on Christians,
understanding what it takes and what it means to preserve
Western civilization. And we have to be able to distinguish
when someone is saying something and they're in a position
(31:43):
of leadership and authority that is actually antithetical to those
Western values. And we can defend those values without necessarily
being you know, without being annoying out it, or without
you know, without giving.
Speaker 1 (32:03):
I'm kind of annoying about it, or let's be honest,
when I defend the Western values, I'm kind annoying about him. No,
but I get what you're laying down. Let me let
me ask you this, because I obviously MLK was very
successful and very good at what he was doing, extremely
whether it was his words or not. Boy, he could
sell him and may he again all sides wanted to
he's ours. We're all claiming him, we have for a
(32:24):
long time. Why did he become expend Why did he
become expendable? I mean, obviously you would have to think
there was a socialist faction in the deep state, alphabet
agencies whatever in this country that were really cool with
what he was doing because he was getting to the
end goal. So why was he expendable? Why was he killed?
Speaker 2 (32:42):
Well, the problem with King is that as great of
an orator as he was, as great as at memorizing
speeches as he was, when you look at Stale Levison,
who was his handler, his speech writer, his pr person
for all intents and purposes, Stanle Levison was the one
who organized the press, you know, interactions with King, the
(33:06):
interviews that he would do with certain publications and journalists
who basically were the ones who make King look larger
than life. Because a lot of people don't realize that
King actually was not that popular in his day.
Speaker 1 (33:19):
Really.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
I think by the time he died his approval rating
was around thirty percent. I mean, Jager Hoover had a
significantly higher approval rating than did King. But you know,
we live in a time now where the tables have turned.
There was a there was a black minister by the
name of Joseph H. Jackson who was far more popular
than King. And when you look at Joseph H. Jackson,
(33:41):
he was he was among that kind of booker Y
Washington tradition. For example, there was a time where black
sharecroppers were being kind of cheated out of their wages
and white share croppers were two for that matter. But
you know, rather than protesting the government or picking up
picket signs, Joseph H. Jackson bought four hundred acres of
(34:02):
land in Tennessee and allowed the sharecroppers to work the
land rent free and so long as they were saving
their money to buy their own land, to become farmer,
to move from sharecroppers to farmers. These are the kind
of things that Joseph Jackson did. Jackson was a president
of the National Baptist Convention, which boasted around five million
(34:24):
Negro churchgoers under the umbrella of the National Baptist Convention
was of course Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, which King preached at,
and Ebudezer Baptist Church, which his father preached at. King
and his contingent wanted to remove Jackson from his post
as president, so they came up with this scheme where
(34:44):
they would elect Gardner C. Taylor, who was a seasoned
veteran in the National Baptist Convention who was also a
proponent of the Social Gospel. So they tried. They tried
to run him, and he was overwhelmingly rejected in favor
of Jackson, and his contingent demanded a roll call. They
rushed the stage and in this kerfuffle, a minister was
(35:07):
pushed off the stage, cracked his head and died. As
a result of this, King and his friends were kicked
out of the National Baptist Convention, and the following year
they started what was called the Progressive National Baptist Convention
King and his friends and so this kind of gives
you insight into who King really was. He wasn't this
non violent figure that we are made to believe he was.
(35:29):
And the reason I bring that up is because you
know again, that just gives you also insight into how
unpopular King was. He was made popular by the press,
who many of whom were fellow travelers, many of whom
believed in this kind of liberal interpretation of the Constitution,
this liberal interpretation of America. And so they had a
(35:51):
vested interest in making King larger than life, making him
look like there was no rivals to him or whatever.
And not only that he was able to get into
the White House and to have meetings with Kennedy and
then subsequently with LBJ. The problem is that King was
living a double life. He was having extra marital affairs.
(36:13):
He was participating in orgies and drinking and things of
this nature. And the Feds were afraid that if the
public found out about that, it would embarrass the Kennedy administration.
It would embarrass the White House, because the White House
had an interest in passing this legislation to expand executive
(36:34):
and federal authority. Right and so there were internal memos
in the FBI, And what you get from these internal memos,
which are now available today, is that the Feds wanted
the civil rights movement to exist. There's a lot of
podcasters and a lot of people who don't know what
the heck they're talking about, saying, oh, the FBI was
against the civil rights movement. No, they wanted the civil
(36:56):
rights movement to exist. They just didn't want King at
the head of it because they were afraid that he
was a liability to the movement, so they ruin it.
Speaker 1 (37:06):
He would stop it. I mean if they found if
people found out he wasn't who he said he was,
it would be over. Well, why would we were following
this false to this for this false tidle. It's Chad
O Jackson chadowm almost out of time. But there are
two things. I want to get to you, or get
two with you before I let you go. And you
got to promise she'll come back on because we just
scratched the surface here. The docum series is called MLK
Project Motives on maask go to Chadojackson dot com. Follow
(37:27):
him at Chado Jackson Everywhere. Two things. One, I'm very
good friends with doctor Carol Imswain. I think she's amazing.
But on I show a million times we met in
person tomorrow ago. She's just a lovely lady. She wasn't
having you, she was she wasn't putting up with it,
and you convinced her, and that's one of the smartest
people I know. What was it that made her go,
wait a second, maybe he's onto something, Because again, she's
(37:49):
very contemplative, she's very smart, she does her work, she's
an incredible author. So I know that once she heard
the facts. But what what helped you break through that
first initial push where she said, this guy is out
of his mind?
Speaker 2 (38:02):
Now just consistency. Quite frankly, this is a drum that
I kept beating, and Caroly and I had talks early
on when I was first revealing these information, this information,
of these facts.
Speaker 1 (38:16):
And right she was telling you, you're not right about this.
Speaker 2 (38:20):
Well partly, the other part of it was that you know,
a lot of these things are known, but it doesn't
make sense to dethrone King, to remove him from his pedestal,
because he's the only figure that can bring the right
and the left together, to which I responded, you know,
I don't want to come together with the left on
false pretenses, on a lie, quite frankly, because to the
(38:42):
extent that you do that, I mean, ironically, King himself
said a lie can't live forever. To the extent that
we build build coalition on false pretexts, on false premises,
that foundation will soon crumble. And for me, like my
slogan has worship God, not man, I'm not going to
put any man on a on a pedestal at all, right,
And I'm and I'm for the truth. And so, you know,
(39:03):
Carol Swain eventually came on and she's invited me to
speak at some of her events that her nonprofit have
put off, and in fact, she invited me to to
be a guest of hers, to share the stage with
her next month when she speaks at the University of Dallas.
So so Carol's a good friend and she she's she
(39:24):
showed me just in her you know, extending the olive
oil or the olive branch and inviting me to these
events with her. She showed me that she's someone who
genuinely is interested in truth and not just placating and
putting on a front.
Speaker 1 (39:39):
Chad, did you say olive oil because I'm Italian? Is
that what that was? Just Just just check him. I'm
in all right, let let's let's finish with this. As
I'm watching this unfold, I saw a bunch of your
videos which made me say to my bookers. We got
to get Shadow Jackson on and I'm so glad that
we spent the time. You tell a story, and maybe
we'll save this for next time. Just give me a
(40:00):
if you don't mind, just giving the cliff notes of
black Americans in the South who were poor, who still
were so pride filled. Still, if they had a rip
in their pants, they put a perfect patch on the row.
She couldn't go. Things were clean, you smelled good, you
look good, You took care of yourself. Your home was
perfectly quap, no matter or not not quap, but perfectly maintained,
(40:20):
no matter how much money you did or didn't have.
There was a real sense of pride. And once they
started migrating north to places like Chicago, that was almost
beaten out of them.
Speaker 2 (40:29):
Why yeah, I mean it's a Southern pride that existed
not only amongst blacks, but also amongst whites as well.
I mean, there's a teacher. I mean she's no longer
with us today, she passed away, But her name was
Marbara Collins, and she actually tells the story in her
book called the Marble Collins Way, where in Mississippi she
grew up in poverty. But you know, people didn't people
(40:51):
didn't complain about being poor, they didn't feel sorry for themselves.
They still took care of what little they had. And
then there was a mindset shift that she recognized in
Chicago where people kind of wore their poor, their their
poverty kind of on their sleeve. And I think it
flies in the face of a lot of the sociologists
today who believe that poverty breeds crimes like no culture,
(41:15):
culture breeds crime, not poverty.
Speaker 1 (41:17):
There.
Speaker 2 (41:17):
I mean, there's poor people all over this kind, all
over this world who aren't committing the kinds of crimes
that you see in some of these democrat major cities
that are implementing the very socialist policies that we're talking
about here. So we can see the logical conclusion of
the kind of policies that people like King were advocating for.
It doesn't end.
Speaker 1 (41:34):
Well, what was it was the difference, Chad again, we'll
we'll pick this up next time. Was the difference the
fact that the government said, you don't have to have
pride and take care of everything, will take care of
everything for you. And that's where it ended.
Speaker 2 (41:47):
Yes, that's the end. Again, it's indicative of this of
the civil rights kind of mindset shift where we move
from being a trying race to a crying race. Again,
the difference in a large, major city is you have
all of these politicians who are grand standing, who are
putting forth all these policies, are getting all this money,
whereas in a rural southern town where people are kind
(42:09):
of left to their own ways of moving forward, you
can see a distinctive cultural difference between the two. And
so again that's well documented, and you say, next time
we'll be able to flush the story out more. But
as as for now, I do recommend people go and
read Marvel Collins's book Marvel Collins Way to learn more
(42:30):
about that.
Speaker 1 (42:30):
Go and get it. Go check out his movie The
MLK Project Motives Unmasked. Go to Chadojackson dot com and
follow chat everywhere. Man, just a great conversation. I could
talk to you for the next three hours. Let's do
this again very soon. Okay, let's do it. Really appreciate you.
That's it for Unshaking and Unafraid with Joe PAGs this
time another one to drop very soon. Make sure you
subscribe
What if I told you everything that you think you
know about a major historical figure could be wrong. It's
being challenged. I'm talking about MLK Martin Luther King Junior
by a guy named Chad O. Jackson. He's out there
making videos and I saw him doing that, invited him
on my show, and what you're about to see is
going to blow your mind. I'm fifty nine years old,
so I wasn't around for much of MLK. I certainly
(00:23):
have learned what we've been told we should know about MLK,
and what we should know is that we should judge
our children by the content of their character, not the
color of their skin. That sounds really good to me. Chad,
what am I getting wrong?
Speaker 2 (00:36):
You're not wrong. The problem is that when you look
at King, you look at the Civil rights movement, and
you look at the communists, the communist influences of the movement,
you begin to understand that a lot of what we understand,
or what we think we understand about King is a
fabrication and a concoction that was meant not to bring
(00:57):
about racial equality, but in a real sense, to sayvia
ties the United States of America. Much of his work
was plagiarized, including the famous wanting his children to be
judged not by the color of their skin but by
the content of their character. I mean that was lifted
from a article written in a Soviet newspaper in eighteen
(01:18):
seventy two, where South South Carolinian journalist wrote that surely
a day will come when the men of South Carolina
will not be judged by the color of their skin
or their golodness of tongue, but by their conduct and
their character. And it's interesting because when you look at
the I have a dream speech, it was heavily written
and edited by King's advisors, most of whom were Communists
(01:41):
or had affiliations with the Communist Party, whether it was
Stanley Levison or Clarence B. Jones's attorney, or Byrd Rustin
or any of the others. Staine Levison in particular was
a very wealthy Communist financier and advisor. He held two
law degrees, a very well read man. So a lot
(02:01):
of the plagiarism that is in King's speeches begins to
make sense when you understand the background of of his
advisers as ghostwriters and those who influenced him.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
Well chat I've got to ask you, why was he
the vessel then? I mean, obviously he delivered these speeches masterfully,
what a great orator. But you're saying they weren't even
his words, So how did they even identify him as
the right guy?
Speaker 2 (02:26):
Well, the King family, I mean, if you look at
his father, who was affectionately, affectionately nicknamed Daddy King. From
a very early age, he says that he was a
proponent of the Social Gospel. And anybody who knows anything
about the Social Gospel understands that it's not the gospel
at all. It's what the Apostle Paul would have called
a counterfeit gospel. And in addition to that, the Apostle
(02:50):
Paul said, let anyone who preaches the counterfeit gospel, or
a gospel that's not what we preach to you, let
them be a cursed And so Daddy King, from a
very early age he was oponenter of the of the
Social Gospel. He say as much in his unpublished memoir.
He would frequent events and social gatherings that were put
(03:10):
on by an organization called the Southern Negro Youth Congress,
which was a Communist front group back in the nineteen
thirties and forties. And it was interesting because the Southern
Negro Youth Congress was a subsidiary of what was called
the National Negro Congress, which was the preeminent civil rights
movement of the nineteen thirties under FDR. The FDR and
(03:34):
the FEDS had an interest in using the civil rights
movement to further and to expand its own power and authority.
This has always been the intention of the civil rights movement,
dating as far back as the Reconstruction, to expand federal authority.
By the time you get into the thirties, FDR will
put forth the Commission which would become the National Negro Congress,
(03:58):
and the National Negro Congress was helped with the It
was started with the help of the Soviet Union, Joseph
Stalin himself, So he had and he had the communists
who had an interest in the civil rights movement, and
their goals were aligned, which were to centralized power, centralized authority,
to usurp it from the States because there was a
(04:18):
raging debate over federal authority versus States rights. And so
to answer your question, you know, King was kind of
born into this milieu, this kind of hegemony, if you will,
where there was already communist activity going on in Montgomery,
in Atlanta and Birmingham dating as far back as the
nineteen twenties, and so he kind of carried the baton,
(04:40):
if you will. I mean, when you even look at
his name, he wasn't born Martin Luther King. He was
born Michael King. His father's name was Michael King. After
taking a journey to Germany in the nineteen thirties late thirties,
I believe his father learned about the sixteenth century reformer
(05:01):
Martin Luther, and what he perceived Martin Luther to be
doing was, in a sense, wrestling away authority from the
Catholic Church and starting Protestantism. That's what King perceived Luther
to be doing. And he thought to himself, I can
actually do that in the United States, basically wrestle away authority,
wrestle away leadership from the religious order in America, and
(05:25):
use it to really advance the social Gospel. So he
would come back to the United States, change his name
to Martin Luther King Senior, and change his name his
son's name of Martin Luther King Junior. Because he saw
himself and his progeny as the kind of vehicle, if
you will, to usher in the social gospel, which is
rooted in Marxism.
Speaker 1 (05:45):
Chadow Jackson is his name. Go to at Chadow Jackson
on all of the social media, Go follow what he does.
Go to Chadowjackson dot com and check out the MLK project.
There's a lot there. Chat, there's a lot there. I
know a little bit about history. I know in the
nineteen thirties, Blackmericans were generally speaking Republican. They generally speaking
had the family unit, the Western family unit, like most
(06:06):
white people did. That didn't start being denigrated until the
nineteen sixties. But if you don't mind, just answer a
simple question for a guy who thought he knew something
about something until I started watching your stuff and you
made me think I don't know anything about anything. Why
why do this? How does it benefit black people in
America to do this, to separate them, to bring in
(06:26):
a communist influence. Was it about making things worse for
black Americans? Because the Civil Rights Acts of nineteen sixty four,
as you say very eloquently, didn't help blacks, actually hurt them.
And I think a lot of what we've done since
then has hurt them as well. The family unit is
decimated in the black community now. And I saw a
video where you talked about the pride poor black people
had in the South had before they moved to the North.
(06:48):
And I want to get into all those things, but
can you answer the simple question why would they want
to hurt the black community the way they did through
putting up leadership that really was steering them the wrong way?
Speaker 2 (06:57):
Well, I'll try to answer it as simply as a
possible can. I can't help but to bring history into it.
But if you look at the Communist common Tern, the
Second Congress common Tern, the Communist International, which was a
convention I guess you could call it that they would
have each year in Moscow, and I think it was
(07:18):
nineteen twenty or nineteen twenty one. There was a white
journalist by the name of John Reid who was a delegate,
an American delegate to the Communist Party International, and they
were trying to figure out the best way to help
usher end Communism into the United States, and John Reid
believed that the way to do that was through the
American Negro and he was lamenting the fact that the
(07:40):
American Negro in the nineteen twenties or the late nineteen
tens going to the nineteen twenties were making their way
in America through capitalistic means that they were still putting
forth the efforts that men like Booker T. Washington put forth,
which is, if you want to be successful, the way
to do it is through conventional means, by hunting your craft,
by starting families, by starting businesses, by building homes. Black
(08:04):
Americans by and large were doing this in the South.
This is well documented even by originally skeptical journalists of
black journalists by the name of George Schuyler, who was
a northern journalist who visited the South and saw all
these so called black wall streets all across the South
and would write about it regularly and the Pittsburgh Courier,
(08:28):
which was the publication he was writing for at the time.
And so as a result of John Reid's input that
the American Negro is our catalyst of ushering communism to
the United States, he said that we need to raise
the political consciousness of the American Negro, to turn them
(08:48):
against capitalism, to turn them against Western civilization innocence. And
so Vladimer Lyn and himself greenlit the utilization of any
means necessary to raise a political consciousness of the American
Negro And so as a result of this, over the
course of the nineteen twenties, you saw all these race
riots springing up seemingly out of nowhere. Nobody could figure
(09:10):
out what what the hidden hand was, what the communists
were doing, where they were purposely instigating turmoil and friction
between Southern Negroes and Southern whites, because the idea and
the objective was to destabilize the negro Because if I'm
Joe the shoe store owner, and I'm selling shoes to
(09:31):
my local townsmen and women, the local miners, and the
school teachers and the children, and there's a race riot
that springs up, and tomorrow I don't have a business
to go to because it's burned down. But then I
opened up my newspaper. I mean, you can look at
these articles that were written around this time. Tired of
racial discrimination, joined the IWW, which was the communist front group,
(09:52):
join this organization, and joined that organization. The idea was
to chase Negroes into the bosom of radical groups because
they can sustain themselves through capitalistic means. That was the objective.
The second part of the objective was to cost so
much unrest, so much friction, so much turmoil, so much reactionaryism,
that it would make the states and the local communities
(10:17):
seem as though they were incapable of self governance, such
to where the public will cry out for a federal response,
and in so doing, here comes a big, bad federal
government passing legislation, expanding its power all the more at
the expense of the states, the local communities, and the
individuals and the families.
Speaker 1 (10:35):
So there, chat, if you don't mind, let me stop
it there, because I mean, you're on a roll and
it's great, But I want to reiterate from my audience
and from my brain because I've born in nineteen sixty six.
I was brought up to believe the things that most
people in America believe, and you are shooting holes in
all of that. So just to reiterate, because I've seen
this on your videos, and if you don't want to
expand upon this, please do. There were complete enclaves of
(10:59):
black America that were doctors and dentists, and the shoemaker
has just said, and the whole infrastructure was there, it
was working, it had many black wall streets all over
the place, and Black Americans were succeeding. If I'm right.
I think I'm right. The first female millionaire in this
country was a black woman. So I'm not sure I
understand why it worked. Why did it work that suddenly
(11:21):
some outside hand or maybe the federal government itself wanting
a more socialist society, but certainly motivated by the Soviet
Union in Lenin. Why did it work when they could
have said, wait, my life is pretty good. What are
you talking about. I don't want to join some weird
group that hates my country. Why was somebody able to
make the Black community victimized or victims when they weren't well.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
What we're talking about when we talk about communism and
Marxism and all these other isms, is a group of
people who've invested large portions of their lives and to
studying the soft sciences, the cognitive sciences, studying group behavior,
trying to figure out how to destabilize and how to
capitalize on the destabilization and the fodder and the friction
(12:05):
that comes out of that. And they were hell bent
on it. I mean, these are people who are basically
like honey badgers they're going to try to find a
way to get an inception, to get an endpoint, and
again it's through friction. It's what we call cultural Marxism. Marxism,
as you know, was popularized in the nineteenth century and
(12:27):
they were trying to get it to spread. Carl Marx
and Friedrick Engles were trying to get it to spread
across Europe, but they had a difficult time doing it
because of one man. And of course there's more to
the story, but if you follow the history, you'll see
that Carl Marx and Friedrich Ingles were contemporaries of not
only Charles Darwin, who you know they all lived in
(12:48):
London at the same time, but also Charles Spurgeon. So
while Darwin was writing on the Origin of Species, and
while Marxian Ingles were writing the Communist Manifesto, here was
Charles Spurgeon at the Metropolitan Taberna and London preaching the gospel,
and a lot of the urban poor were flocking to
hear the gospel. And this disappointed for Drick Engels and
Carl Marx that they weren't able to galvanize the working poor,
(13:15):
the urban poor to the extent that they wanted to.
And so by the time you get to the end
of the nineteenth century, you get people like Walter Rossi
and Bush who figured out that the way to jump
this hurdle, this gospel hurdle, is to subvert it, and
that's where you get the social Gospel. And so again
(13:36):
you have this kind of trial and error and certain
successes that comes out of trying to figure out just
how to destabilize a Negro. And I can't really give
you an answer, and you know, one little quick second
only to say that there were incremental kind of inroads
that were taken, but it wouldn't really come to a
(13:56):
climactic point until the nineteen fifties and six under the
behest of such leaders as Martin Luther King and his contingent.
Because I mean again, Marxism, communism, this is something that
blocks were flocking to in small numbers since the nineteen twenties.
But what they figured out is if they really want
to push their agenda forward, you can't call it communism,
(14:18):
you can't call it Marxism, especially at the heart of
the Cold War. You have to do it through clandestine
and subversive means. And they figured out that, you know,
through a man who's well polished, a Southern Negro minister,
a great Ora tour, And there's a lot of redeeming
qualities about King, to be sure. But it's through that
(14:38):
mechanism that we can in a sense push Americans, not
just Black Americans, but Americans in general, neutralize them, cause
them to let down their guard and being more open
to socialist type policies which will incrementally become communist policies.
That was the agenda.
Speaker 1 (14:55):
It's Chado Jackson. Go to Chadowjackson dot com check out
his docum series The MLK Project Motives Unmasked. You mentioned
something there about there are some redeeming qualities about Martin
Luther King Junior. Obviously great Order certainly was able to
grab a crowd and hold them for as long as
he wanted them. Why was he, though the individual, okay
(15:15):
with being the vessel. Why was he okay with using
the gospel and making its social gospel and then and
then basically pushing an entire race of people in America
to become reliant on the central government that doesn't even
like them. It doesn't make sense to me because the
black community, i think is more socialized in this country
than any other community, because there are so many people
reliant on the government dole and the government controls everything
(15:38):
they do, where they work, how much money they have,
how many kids they have, how much food they eat,
where you know, where they live, whether they have heat
or internet. It doesn't make any sense to me. So
why was he okay with leading that his own race,
his own people, so to say down that path? Or
was he not smart enough to know what was happening.
Speaker 2 (15:55):
He was definitely smart enough to know what was happening.
And you're absolutely right. I mean, according to a twenty
nineteen Cato Institute study, over sixty percent of blacks in
America have a more favorable view of socialism than a
free market enterprise. No other ethnic group has a higher
view of socialism except for blacks. And that's according to
that twenty nineteen Ko Institute study. To answer your question,
(16:17):
which is a fantastic question, the reason King was so
impressionable to Marxist ideology is that he rejected the Gospel
from a very early age. I mean, he writes in
his papers that I have all the volumes of his
papers here in my studio, but you know he writes
that by the age of twelve. He rejected the resurrection
(16:37):
of Christ. He rejected the deity of Christ. He said
that he shocked his Sunday school class at the age
of thirteen by rejecting the resurrection. He wrote also that
he rejected the literal existence of Hell. He rejected the
virgin birth, he rejected the fundamental tenets of Christianity. And
(16:58):
he thought that he was actually small harder than his
Sunday school teachers, who he said were in the fundamentalist
line of the faith. He actually didn't want to become
a pastor. He wanted to become a lawyer or a doctor,
but he was talked into becoming a pastor, uh in
order to advocate and to further the so called social gospel. Because,
I mean, if you if you read his college papers,
(17:20):
you really get a sense of the fact that he
genuinely believed in Marxist Marxist ideology, and he was a
he called himself a Hegelian. He subscribed to the Hegelian dialectic.
He believed that that was a tactical way to really
spread Marxism amongst blacks, uh in in America at large.
(17:40):
When asked, you know, why was it so easy for
you to to get a foot hold in the black community.
By a reporter, King said, because you know, Black Southerners
by and large go to church. So he had a
captive audience as far as as Black Southerners were concerned.
But he was preaching. I mean, if you look at
his Easter sermon, he preached an Easter sermon where he's
(18:02):
basically casting doubt in the resurrection of Jesus. So he
would he would do a lot of precautionary things that
are fitting for a pastor in terms of conducting a sermon,
but he would never call people to repentance. He will
never call people to turn their lives around and to
turn to Christ. He was instead infusing a liberal political
(18:24):
ideology in his sermons, much the same as people like
Jamal Bryant today or Raphael Warnock today using the polpit
as a kind of prop to clandestinely and subversively push
an agenda that he genuinely believed in. He was a
genuine believer in Marxist ideology, and he was deceptive in
how he spread it under the guise of a Christian pastor.
Speaker 1 (18:49):
I was today years old when I found out that
doctor brought Luther King Junior, the reverend that were all
told to hold up on high didn't believe in the resurrection.
He didn't believe in the existence of Hell. I had
no idea. So why were they so successful and tricking
people like me? Because my next question down the line
here is going to be why do you know all this?
And why did you look into it? Why didn't you
believe the colloquial story? But what are they gained by
(19:11):
having both sides fighting over the memory of doctor King today?
And why does a Raphael Warnock, who thinks he's King,
you know two point zero probably in his own mind?
Why does he want to continue to keep black people
in the box that they're in. Why not get back
to where black people can flourish alongside everybody else and
enjoy capitalism because it's the best way of life, because
socialism has never worked in a successful way. Do they
(19:33):
want black people to continue killing each other in the
streets of Chicago? Do they want black people to continue
being under the thumb? If so, what do they gain?
Does a Warnock get more power out of that? There's
a lot there. Chat I get it, but I'm going
I'm learning from you right now even more that I've
seen from your short videos, and I love it that
we're having this conversation. But what do the contemporary the
modern black leaders, and I'm putting that in air coach
(19:53):
for those who are listening on the radio, what do
they gain just their own power, their own control? What
is it?
Speaker 2 (19:59):
No, that's absolutely what it's for. It's for power. It's
the same reason why Satan was cast out of heaven.
And I don't want to isolate the civil rights movement
as being solely responsible for a lot of the disabilization
that we've seen over the course of the last half
century or more. I mean, when you look at a
lot of these social justice movements that were going on
(20:21):
around that time, the nineteen sixties going into the seventies,
whether it's second wave feminism, whether it's gay liberation which
would later become the LGBT movement, or whether it's the
hippie movement or the free love movement. I call it
the era of indulgence. We began to have less children,
not just blacks, but also whites and other ethnic groups
(20:42):
as well. We began to turn our focus inward. We
became a more self centered people. This is a result
of a lot of the distabilization that came to us
by way of the social justice movements. This was talked
about by Yury Besmanov in a famous nineteen eighty four
interview with one G. Edward Griffin where he talked about
(21:03):
ideological subversion and how they were intentionally trying to set
the baby boomers against the adult society of their day.
You saw it in publications like Mad Magazine, You saw
it in a lot of film and entertainment that was
coming out at the time. And basically, when you look
at I'm going to try to answer your question this way,
(21:25):
when you look at the Civil Rights movement, and then
you look at the next phase which came immediately after
after the assassination of King, which was the Black Power movement,
which was more militant, which was more in your face,
which was you know, gun toting, and you know Honky
this and Whitey that. When you look at when you
look at those two organizations, the Civil Rights movement and
(21:46):
the Black Power movement, one looks relatively conservative or moderate
and the other looks militant and very far left. But
the reality is both of these organizations are funded by
the same people, and not only that they have the
same ideological undergird The idea behind the Black Power movement
(22:07):
was to make the civil rights movement look more stomachable,
look more tolerable, so on and so forth, to where
by the time King is assassinated and the propaganda campaign
unleashes a lot of Americans who were none the wiser
began to look at the civil rights movement as more sanitized,
(22:30):
as more you know, this is something you know, we
should do it that way. That's that's real liberalism, that's
real progress. What King was doing was was was genuine
and affectionate, whereas what these other guys are doing, they
want to tear America down. And so it was. It
was kind of a bait and switch kind of situation.
And it's interesting because in the aftermath of King's assassination,
(22:51):
we now have the MLK federal Holiday, we have you know,
the forty foot statue erected in his honor there and
Watchington d C. And anytime a politician, be he right
or left, wants to push some socialist type, you know,
policy in Congress, they invoke the name of Martin Luther
(23:13):
King Junior, so as to signal, you know, King would
want this, this is something that King would want, and
that is meant to destabilize and to neutralize the public,
and to be embracing and accepting of this policy which
is pushing us further and further and further away from
true Western values, from true Christian values. Quite frankly, the
idea is once again like it's a very gradual thing.
(23:35):
And I'll say this real quick. I know I've been
rambling on for a while ago, but when you look
at the Communist manifesto, Carl Marx ends it by saying,
you know, workers of the world unite. What he's invoking
is this sudden uprising, this sudden revolution where the workers
across the world, you know, uniting against the bourgeoisie, where
(23:56):
the proletariat is is coming up against the bourgeoisie. This
was attractive to some people, but not all when it
came to a lot of the European elitists who believed
in what Marx was trying to do but disagreed with
the tactics that he wanted to use to pull it off.
They they didn't like the whole idea of a sudden uprising,
(24:20):
a sudden revolution, because they understood that a large portion
of society will resist it because they're used to a
certain status quo and a certain way of doing things.
And so for a group of radicals to, you know,
suddenly rise up, you'll have this war in the streets,
you'll have this friction. And so what these European elitists
(24:42):
decided to do was to start something called the Fabian
society that had a lot of the same views, shared
a lot of same views with the Marxists. They just
disagreed with the tactics, and they believe that the way
the proper way to cause a revolution is through a
slow burn, a slow march through the institutions, where they
were patient enough to say, look, we might not enjoy
(25:02):
the fruits of our labor, but our children's children's children will.
And so they envision a slow, gradual, long marshal the institutions,
little by little, bit by bit, passing this policy, then
passing that policy, then passing this policy on and into
the future. So when you look at a lot of
what the civil rights movement was doing, it was an
(25:23):
incremental step into a Soviet direction. You look at the
Civil Rights Act in nineteen sixty four, for example, which
is you know, not which is naively praised today. What
did it do? It gave the federal government more of
a foothold into the way that businesses are run. Small
businesses are run. This isn't keeping with the Marxist strategy
of the government controlling the means of production. So, you
(25:47):
know a lot of these things that we celebrate and
that we as conservatives say, Okay, we're okay with that.
We'll tolerate that because we don't want to be racist,
or we don't want to be Uncle Tom's or whatever
the case may be, to the extent that we embrace
these things instead of standing on our values, to the
extent that we plead guilty to the charges that are
(26:10):
lobbed against us by these radicals, where we're giving them
an inch and then they take the mile. And that's
what we're experiencing here now.
Speaker 1 (26:19):
Chadow Jackson go to Chadojackson dot com. He's an independent filmmaker.
Go check out his docu series The MLK Project Motives Unmasked.
Did the BLM group, the actual organization called Black Lives Matter,
did that rip the band aid off of this and
expose a lot of it. And here's what I mean.
They took down this part of their website after people
like me started exposing it, it said that they're in
(26:41):
their charter they were looking to disrupt the Western nuclear family.
It's not really a black organization at all. It's an
lgbtq XYZ organization. It's an organization that enriched a few
top people in the organization who happened to be gay,
to buy themselves a bunch of engines all over the place.
It wasn't about saving anybody's life or making anybody's life better.
They just saw an opportunity, one would imagine because of
(27:02):
George Floyd and that situation. Was that part of what
made you sort of on steroids, really look into what's
going on? Or did this start a long time ago
for you? So let's start with the first question. Did
BLM wake a lot of us up to go?
Speaker 2 (27:15):
Hold on?
Speaker 1 (27:16):
This isn't about black lives at all. This is about control,
This is about pushing an agenda. This is about the
EI EESG, this is about LGBT. Did that wake a
lot of us up? It did?
Speaker 2 (27:27):
Me? Yeah, we it woke a lot of people up,
that's to be certain, And make no mistake about it.
I think you're hitting them now, right on the head
that the Black Lives Matter is not a deviation. It's
not a distinction from the civil rights movement, or the
black militant movement in the seventies, or the black intellectual
movement or the black hip hop movement, which you know,
(27:50):
all of these are heading in the same direction. They're
not contradictions of each other or distinctions from one another.
They are all kind of a caring of the baton
on and into the future. So the problem with Black
Lives Matter is they kind of got a little ahead
of their skis. They grew more impatient, and so doing
(28:11):
they were able to kind of pull back the curtain,
so to speak. That did wake a lot of people up.
For me, I used to be a fan of King.
I used to be an admirer of him until around
two thousand and eight or nine when I heard the
late pastor Vide Bacam say that King was a socialist,
(28:32):
which rocked my world. What are you talking about King
as a socialist? And of course Villia Bakam at the
time with somebody whom I admired, someone who I gleaned
a lot from in terms of learning about the scriptures.
So to hear him say he was a socialist. I
had no reason not to believe him other than the
fact that I was trained and conditioned to believe that
(28:52):
he was an American hero.
Speaker 1 (28:55):
As it were, to that point, I want you to
continue it to that point. Those hit listening need to understand,
I'm a conservative guy. I've been co opting King forever.
I thought he was a conservative guy that people in
the Democrat Party have been co opting him forever. He
was a Democrat, and he was a liberal, and he
was at this end to that, Like you said earlier,
we've all figured out a way to take what he
said and did and fit our agenda. I wanted to
(29:18):
be more like King. So when you hear this, when
you hear the pastors say it, you say, wait a second,
that's my hero. What are you talking about? And what
would he say that made you say let me do
more research. Was it just the fact that he was
of authority and you said, well, I might as well
just not tell him he's wrong. Let me go figure
out why I think he's wrong.
Speaker 2 (29:36):
That was That's exactly it. I mean, Because again, while
I was conditioned and trained to believe I mean, we
grew up listening to that I have a dream speech
every year. Yes I'm Martin Luther King Day and during
during Black History Month. Growing up in Mansfield, Texas, it
was just something that you didn't question. And so for
me doctor Vodie Bacham, who again earned my respect early
(29:59):
on just with his with his handling of the scriptures.
For someone like me who grew up in a church
where it was not exactly doctrinally sound to become a
you know, a late teenager, and to come across doctor
Vodibackam sermons, here was somebody who was different, and he
earned my respect really quickly. So for him to say
(30:20):
doctor King was a socialist, again, that that caused me
a kind of cognitive dissonance because how how could you
say such such a thing? You know, King is an
American hero, and I wanted to look into it to
just see if there was any truth to what Vodi
Bakam was saying, and he was absolutely one correct. In fact,
(30:41):
I would later get to meet doctor Vodi Bacham and
we became good friends, and he was in a film
that I produced back in twenty twenty two. And yeah,
it's it's it's something that I there's not any degree
of pride in revealing this information. It's actually quite disappointing,
(31:01):
but the reality of it is King wasn't the first
to do the kind of Trojan horse thing that he did,
will nor will he be the last. There's other demogogues
among us, and there will continue to be demogogues among us.
The purpose of doing a film like the MLK Project
is to show what this trojan horse look like, what
the purpose of the Trojan horse was, in order that
(31:23):
we might be equipped to not be so gullible and
so credulous and susceptible to that kind of demagoguery. Again,
we have to become principled, especially as conservatives on Christians,
understanding what it takes and what it means to preserve
Western civilization. And we have to be able to distinguish
when someone is saying something and they're in a position
(31:43):
of leadership and authority that is actually antithetical to those
Western values. And we can defend those values without necessarily
being you know, without being annoying out it, or without
you know, without giving.
Speaker 1 (32:03):
I'm kind of annoying about it, or let's be honest,
when I defend the Western values, I'm kind annoying about him. No,
but I get what you're laying down. Let me let
me ask you this, because I obviously MLK was very
successful and very good at what he was doing, extremely
whether it was his words or not. Boy, he could
sell him and may he again all sides wanted to
he's ours. We're all claiming him, we have for a
(32:24):
long time. Why did he become expend Why did he
become expendable? I mean, obviously you would have to think
there was a socialist faction in the deep state, alphabet
agencies whatever in this country that were really cool with
what he was doing because he was getting to the
end goal. So why was he expendable? Why was he killed?
Speaker 2 (32:42):
Well, the problem with King is that as great of
an orator as he was, as great as at memorizing
speeches as he was, when you look at Stale Levison,
who was his handler, his speech writer, his pr person
for all intents and purposes, Stanle Levison was the one
who organized the press, you know, interactions with King, the
(33:06):
interviews that he would do with certain publications and journalists
who basically were the ones who make King look larger
than life. Because a lot of people don't realize that
King actually was not that popular in his day.
Speaker 1 (33:19):
Really.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
I think by the time he died his approval rating
was around thirty percent. I mean, Jager Hoover had a
significantly higher approval rating than did King. But you know,
we live in a time now where the tables have turned.
There was a there was a black minister by the
name of Joseph H. Jackson who was far more popular
than King. And when you look at Joseph H. Jackson,
(33:41):
he was he was among that kind of booker Y
Washington tradition. For example, there was a time where black
sharecroppers were being kind of cheated out of their wages
and white share croppers were two for that matter. But
you know, rather than protesting the government or picking up
picket signs, Joseph H. Jackson bought four hundred acres of
(34:02):
land in Tennessee and allowed the sharecroppers to work the
land rent free and so long as they were saving
their money to buy their own land, to become farmer,
to move from sharecroppers to farmers. These are the kind
of things that Joseph Jackson did. Jackson was a president
of the National Baptist Convention, which boasted around five million
(34:24):
Negro churchgoers under the umbrella of the National Baptist Convention
was of course Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, which King preached at,
and Ebudezer Baptist Church, which his father preached at. King
and his contingent wanted to remove Jackson from his post
as president, so they came up with this scheme where
(34:44):
they would elect Gardner C. Taylor, who was a seasoned
veteran in the National Baptist Convention who was also a
proponent of the Social Gospel. So they tried. They tried
to run him, and he was overwhelmingly rejected in favor
of Jackson, and his contingent demanded a roll call. They
rushed the stage and in this kerfuffle, a minister was
(35:07):
pushed off the stage, cracked his head and died. As
a result of this, King and his friends were kicked
out of the National Baptist Convention, and the following year
they started what was called the Progressive National Baptist Convention
King and his friends and so this kind of gives
you insight into who King really was. He wasn't this
non violent figure that we are made to believe he was.
(35:29):
And the reason I bring that up is because you
know again, that just gives you also insight into how
unpopular King was. He was made popular by the press,
who many of whom were fellow travelers, many of whom
believed in this kind of liberal interpretation of the Constitution,
this liberal interpretation of America. And so they had a
(35:51):
vested interest in making King larger than life, making him
look like there was no rivals to him or whatever.
And not only that he was able to get into
the White House and to have meetings with Kennedy and
then subsequently with LBJ. The problem is that King was
living a double life. He was having extra marital affairs.
(36:13):
He was participating in orgies and drinking and things of
this nature. And the Feds were afraid that if the
public found out about that, it would embarrass the Kennedy administration.
It would embarrass the White House, because the White House
had an interest in passing this legislation to expand executive
(36:34):
and federal authority. Right and so there were internal memos
in the FBI, And what you get from these internal memos,
which are now available today, is that the Feds wanted
the civil rights movement to exist. There's a lot of
podcasters and a lot of people who don't know what
the heck they're talking about, saying, oh, the FBI was
against the civil rights movement. No, they wanted the civil
(36:56):
rights movement to exist. They just didn't want King at
the head of it because they were afraid that he
was a liability to the movement, so they ruin it.
Speaker 1 (37:06):
He would stop it. I mean if they found if
people found out he wasn't who he said he was,
it would be over. Well, why would we were following
this false to this for this false tidle. It's Chad
O Jackson chadowm almost out of time. But there are
two things. I want to get to you, or get
two with you before I let you go. And you
got to promise she'll come back on because we just
scratched the surface here. The docum series is called MLK
Project Motives on maask go to Chadojackson dot com. Follow
(37:27):
him at Chado Jackson Everywhere. Two things. One, I'm very
good friends with doctor Carol Imswain. I think she's amazing.
But on I show a million times we met in
person tomorrow ago. She's just a lovely lady. She wasn't
having you, she was she wasn't putting up with it,
and you convinced her, and that's one of the smartest
people I know. What was it that made her go,
wait a second, maybe he's onto something, Because again, she's
(37:49):
very contemplative, she's very smart, she does her work, she's
an incredible author. So I know that once she heard
the facts. But what what helped you break through that
first initial push where she said, this guy is out
of his mind?
Speaker 2 (38:02):
Now just consistency. Quite frankly, this is a drum that
I kept beating, and Caroly and I had talks early
on when I was first revealing these information, this information,
of these facts.
Speaker 1 (38:16):
And right she was telling you, you're not right about this.
Speaker 2 (38:20):
Well partly, the other part of it was that you know,
a lot of these things are known, but it doesn't
make sense to dethrone King, to remove him from his pedestal,
because he's the only figure that can bring the right
and the left together, to which I responded, you know,
I don't want to come together with the left on
false pretenses, on a lie, quite frankly, because to the
(38:42):
extent that you do that, I mean, ironically, King himself
said a lie can't live forever. To the extent that
we build build coalition on false pretexts, on false premises,
that foundation will soon crumble. And for me, like my
slogan has worship God, not man, I'm not going to
put any man on a on a pedestal at all, right,
And I'm and I'm for the truth. And so, you know,
(39:03):
Carol Swain eventually came on and she's invited me to
speak at some of her events that her nonprofit have
put off, and in fact, she invited me to to
be a guest of hers, to share the stage with
her next month when she speaks at the University of Dallas.
So so Carol's a good friend and she she's she
(39:24):
showed me just in her you know, extending the olive
oil or the olive branch and inviting me to these
events with her. She showed me that she's someone who
genuinely is interested in truth and not just placating and
putting on a front.
Speaker 1 (39:39):
Chad, did you say olive oil because I'm Italian? Is
that what that was? Just Just just check him. I'm
in all right, let let's let's finish with this. As
I'm watching this unfold, I saw a bunch of your
videos which made me say to my bookers. We got
to get Shadow Jackson on and I'm so glad that
we spent the time. You tell a story, and maybe
we'll save this for next time. Just give me a
(40:00):
if you don't mind, just giving the cliff notes of
black Americans in the South who were poor, who still
were so pride filled. Still, if they had a rip
in their pants, they put a perfect patch on the row.
She couldn't go. Things were clean, you smelled good, you
look good, You took care of yourself. Your home was
perfectly quap, no matter or not not quap, but perfectly maintained,
(40:20):
no matter how much money you did or didn't have.
There was a real sense of pride. And once they
started migrating north to places like Chicago, that was almost
beaten out of them.
Speaker 2 (40:29):
Why yeah, I mean it's a Southern pride that existed
not only amongst blacks, but also amongst whites as well.
I mean, there's a teacher. I mean she's no longer
with us today, she passed away, But her name was
Marbara Collins, and she actually tells the story in her
book called the Marble Collins Way, where in Mississippi she
grew up in poverty. But you know, people didn't people
(40:51):
didn't complain about being poor, they didn't feel sorry for themselves.
They still took care of what little they had. And
then there was a mindset shift that she recognized in
Chicago where people kind of wore their poor, their their
poverty kind of on their sleeve. And I think it
flies in the face of a lot of the sociologists
today who believe that poverty breeds crimes like no culture,
(41:15):
culture breeds crime, not poverty.
Speaker 1 (41:17):
There.
Speaker 2 (41:17):
I mean, there's poor people all over this kind, all
over this world who aren't committing the kinds of crimes
that you see in some of these democrat major cities
that are implementing the very socialist policies that we're talking
about here. So we can see the logical conclusion of
the kind of policies that people like King were advocating for.
It doesn't end.
Speaker 1 (41:34):
Well, what was it was the difference, Chad again, we'll
we'll pick this up next time. Was the difference the
fact that the government said, you don't have to have
pride and take care of everything, will take care of
everything for you. And that's where it ended.
Speaker 2 (41:47):
Yes, that's the end. Again, it's indicative of this of
the civil rights kind of mindset shift where we move
from being a trying race to a crying race. Again,
the difference in a large, major city is you have
all of these politicians who are grand standing, who are
putting forth all these policies, are getting all this money,
whereas in a rural southern town where people are kind
(42:09):
of left to their own ways of moving forward, you
can see a distinctive cultural difference between the two. And
so again that's well documented, and you say, next time
we'll be able to flush the story out more. But
as as for now, I do recommend people go and
read Marvel Collins's book Marvel Collins Way to learn more
(42:30):
about that.
Speaker 1 (42:30):
Go and get it. Go check out his movie The
MLK Project Motives Unmasked. Go to Chadojackson dot com and
follow chat everywhere. Man, just a great conversation. I could
talk to you for the next three hours. Let's do
this again very soon. Okay, let's do it. Really appreciate you.
That's it for Unshaking and Unafraid with Joe PAGs this
time another one to drop very soon. Make sure you
subscribe
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.