Remembering Martin Luther King, Jr.
by Richard Houck
THERE ARE FEW displays of ethnomasochism and xenophilia more perverse than that of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day — a day in January when White and Black alike are meant to remember this hero of the Civil Rights era and to reflect on how far we have come as a country. MLK Day is an odd holiday to me, since it is as if the Byzantines had set aside a day to celebrate the heroism of Mehmed II, or some other Ottoman Sultan. Perhaps this analogy gives Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) far too much credit. After all, he was no tactician or conqueror. MLK was little more than a convenient avatar, a ventriloquist dummy through which his Jewish puppet master, Stanley David Levison, waged war against his host nation. Levison influenced King to the point of ordering him to say nothing without his prior approval.
This is no mere coincidence. Jews were well entrenched in the Civil Rights movement. Thousands of Jews marched with King from Selma, Jewish lawyers and Jewish money were prominent in staffing and funding civil rights organizations, and Jewish House member Emanual Celler introduced the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which decreed that privately-owned businesses could not discriminate on the basis of race; the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which ruled that Whites-only neighborhoods were illegal; and finally, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which flooded our nation with aliens from whom we could not legally separate due to the other two acts. All of these huge assaults on White society were aided by King and his Jewish handlers.
Someone who worked closely with Communists, as an apparatchik himself; a semi-literate plagiarizer; a degenerate reprobate who spent his spare time in drunken orgies; an abuser of women — all these are accurate descriptions of King. Yet as a nation, we decided that he was worthy to join the ranks of George Washington and Christopher Columbus, and that his life was worth reflecting upon in the same manner as Thanksgiving, Memorial Day, and Christmas. And perhaps, in a very nuanced and yet warped way, King is indeed worth reflecting upon with such gravitas.
The very holiday itself fetishizes King in a bizarre way. There are thousands of better Americans who are much worthier of their own holiday than King, and yet the modern “conservative” movement routinely engages in self-flagellation by pathetically groveling at his feet. Statements from GOP leaders honoring King to articles from The Heritage Foundation lauding his “conservative legacy” are commonplace. These “conservatives” often speak of King’s appeal to the idea that Americans are united not by race or ethnicity, but by the acceptance of civic virtues. They also often call attention to King’s alleged rejection of racial nationalism to support their own premises. But trying to frame America as a mongrelized nation whose people are bound not by blood, but by amorphous values, is not only dishonest, but it is blatantly subversive and antithetical to our Founders’ intent. Further, King never truly rejected racial nationalism, as is often the case with subversives; he only rejected racial nationalism for Whites, but was an avowed supporter of Israel as a Jewish state.
In Heritage, Caryolyn Garris writes, “As America drifts from the ideas and ideals of the Founders, conservatives stand with King as believers that the principles of the American Founding are as relevant today as in 1776.” Nothing could be further from the truth. America’s Founders never had any qualms about assessing people as a group, based on their race and ethnicity. The men who sacrificed everything for this nation limited citizenship to Whites for a reason. Even decades after the first Congress, Abraham Lincoln, who is often invoked alongside King as America’s greatest hero, had absolutely no inclination towards racial equality, miscegenation, cohabitation, integration, or even a hint of legal equality.
I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause] – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. — Abraham Lincoln, September 28, 1858
Very few things are as indicative of the fact that modern conservatism is a Left-wing movement as their celebration of a Black Marxist as a “conservative” icon, along the way making a bastardization of American history. King’s “color blind” message (“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character”) is also frequently invoked as representing “true conservative principles.” “Color blind conservatism” is simply civic nationalism — the idea that when all the disparate races believe the same things, which they don’t, we can have a functioning nation. And even if they did all believe the same things, there is still the insurmountable variation in culture, customs, and the loss of social capital that inevitably occurs as a result of mere physical proximity with foreign races. And even if social capital were not a consideration, the reality is that only we can maintain our culture.
The “color blindness” which King espoused is nothing but Boasian anthropology for the masses. Franz Boas was a Jewish anthropologist who is known for his work in “discrediting” so-called scientific racism, otherwise known as human biology. Prior to the work of Boas and his coethnic activists, race realism and genetic determinism were widely-accepted beliefs in regards to variations in behavior and culture which were observed between the races. Boas set out to undermine this state of affairs and replace ethnocentrism with cultural relativism. Boas sought to overthrow the old order of common sense observations and ideas based on reality. When cultures are appraised through the lens of ethnocentrism, some will be seen as superior and others inferior. Boas rejected this notion, and instead wanted to instill the idea that there are no superior or inferior races, but only differences. This means that those cultures which produce more inventions, discoveries, explorations, constructions, works of art, and fly to the Moon and explore the depths of the oceans are, in a sense, “equal” to those who poach endangered animals for their husks, traffic in small children, and do not have a written language. Boas was the quintessential Jewish academic, spending his life undermining White civilization. Cultural relativists do not compare races objectively, but rather look at each culture in terms of its own values. It is only in this way that the achievements of Europeans can be seen as comparable to those of other races.
In 1907, Congress created the United States Immigration Commission in order to study immigration and make use of the results to determine a rational policy that was best for the American people. Madison Grant recommended a literacy test as a way to exclude those who could not contribute positively to America. Jeremiah Jenks looked at the propensity of the various races for employment and crime, to determine if some races or ethnicities were more likely than others to contribute positively toward America. Boas, on the other hand, submitted a report that concluded through the use of cranial measurements that differing racial characteristics were not immutable because the skull size of children born to European immigrant women in the US were different from those of their European counterparts. A the time, Congress sided with the racialist view, limiting immigration, implementing a national quota system, and keeping certain races out nearly entirely. This would later be undone by Jewish organizations and a campaign by Representative Emanuel Celler. While Grant and others were making the case for a nice White country, Boas, who became the “father of American anthropology,” was working tirelessly to prove this could not be achieved through immigration policies based on race.
Many decades later, anthropologists would take another look at the Boas’ study. What they would find is consistent with all Jewish academic activism — the truth had been hidden in favor of subverting White civilization. Anthropologists can measure a human skull and determine its race with eighty percent accuracy. Boas claimed that environment, not race, was determinative. The new findings show that environment is insignificant, and that the differences Boas claimed to have found between Europeans and children born to European families in America were negligible. Boas ”was intent on showing that the scientific racism of the day had no basis, but he did have to shade his data some to make it work that way.” In other words, Boas was never going to let the truth get in the way of undermining his host nation.
Decades of research on race was rendered useless because the fictitious study produced by Boas was assumed to be valid. The idea that “race is a social construct” has become prevalent today — so much so, in fact, that those who do believe in biological differences between the races, including James Watson, the man who discovered the structure of DNA, are now ostracized and vilified. Despite all this, The American Society of Human Genetics, an organization founded by the Jewish psychiatrist Franz Josef Kallmann, recently published a paper denouncing the link between genetics and racial supremacy. They write, “It follows that there can be no genetics-based support for claiming one group as superior to another.” This of course means that if there is no genetic or biological explanation for why one race has achieved more than all the other races combined; it must be because there is some magic European dirt that nobody knows about. Never mind the fact that even when the other races come to Europe or the US, they and their descendants still achieve little; just accept what the Jews tell you to believe.
The Jewish role in the Civil Rights movement should not be viewed as altruism towards Blacks. It served their own ethnic interests in several ways. First, when all racial concepts are broken down, Jews, who are a distinct race in themselves, are in no fear of being excluded. For as long as the West remains open to all, Jews will not have to be concerned about being seen as a unique diaspora population outside of their own lands. Thus, opening the West to the world helps them as much as other non-Whites. There was also some overlap in the exclusion of Blacks and Jews in some housing policies; thus, Jews had a common desire with Blacks to gain access to Whites-only neighborhoods. Few things strike fear in the Jewish psyche like the idea of a nation that feels there is a unique “us” and a definite “them.” It greatly behooves Jewish interests to remain united themselves while instilling deracination within their host nations.
Finally, the Civil Rights era highlights how the Jews use other races as a caustic agent to erode White society. They used the Blacks – largely led by Martin Luther King – to flood White schools, disrupt White businesses, and destroy what were once nice, White neighborhoods.
Boas was instrumental in developing the cultural attitude needed for a population to accept racial egalitarianism. If the only differences between the races is skin tone, it would indeed be silly, aside from aesthetic considerations, to treat them differently. However, if the races are unique in qualities and character, all of the mental heuristics, biases, prejudices, and preferences we innately possess suddenly become entirely legitimate; they are no longer products of irrational fears or learned prejudicial behavior, or the result of structural racism, but are in fact sets of highly-evolved mechanisms coupled with sociological pattern recognition.
If you could look at a person and immediately know with greater than ninety percent accuracy what political policies they support, wouldn’t that be a good thing to know when it came to making immigration laws? If you could look at a person’s race and know they were more than twice as likely to commit occupational crimes than another race, wouldn’t an employer want to be able to use that information?
If you could look at two groups of men of different races walking towards you on the street, and know instantly which group was more likely to mug or rape you, wouldn’t that be a rather keen heuristic to possess? Would it not make people safer?
If you were to pick a potential mate, and you could tell simply by looking at his or her skin whether he or she would be much more likely to abuse you, not take care of your children, and bear socially transmitted diseases, wouldn’t that be something of the utmost importance to consider?
And if you were a member of the race with all the baggage, would you not want to be looked at not for the color of your skin, but as an individual? Would you not want those who would surely be victimized by associating with you to have their guard down, and for them to be told it is evil and racist to make use of these largely accurate heuristics and judgments?
It is fitting that the man who advocated for such a situation would be nothing short of a depraved fiend himself. My contention regarding MLK and his holiday does not lie in his moral failures as an individual, however; that much is to be expected of his ilk. The underlying social mechanism that elevates a corrosive miscreant to sainthood is far more disconcerting. King’s image, whoever he was in reality, will be of little consequence in the long run. Nobody cared if Nathan Bedford Forrest was a good man or not when they tore down his statues. They cared about what he represented. Likewise, when we tear down the statues of King and replace them with better men, men of our own stock, we will make no such arguments. We will only act, not moralize. There is no justification needed to save your nation and your people.
We should, however, understand Blacks’ motives during the Civil Rights era. What they wanted above all else was access to White people. They wanted to live in White neighborhoods, go to White schools, eat at White restaurants, and spend time in White spaces. Yet they had no claim to any of these. They did not build those schools, neighborhoods, parks, or businesses. Blacks were already being treated fairly under the law; it’s not as if you could attack a Black person with legal impunity. Rather, what the Civil Rights laws did was to allow Blacks access to Whites in all aspects of society, to the point that Whites are no longer legally allowed to have neighborhoods of their own anymore. These people were marching, protesting, demonstrating, and rioting – all so they could be around us. The Civil Rights era was about Blacks crying like petulant children to be with us, and the legal system, which was heavily influenced by Jews, told them they were not equal until they could attend the same schools, live in the same neighborhoods, and marry us.
If there is one lesson we should learn from the Civil Rights movement, it’s that the very worst thing Whites can do to Blacks or any other race is to force them to live among their own kind. If segregation is seen at the absolute moral low point in American history, we can safely conclude that those wishing to be with us view having to live in among the fruits of their own race as the worst punishment that can be inflicted upon them. Looking at the outcomes of integration, we can also safely say that what the Civil Rights activists called White supremacy was little more than White preservation.
King spent his last night on earth sleeping with multiple women and physically abusing at least one of them, according to close friend, Ralph Abernathy. The next day, King’s drunken orgies and assaults on White America would come to an end, yet the damage was already done and its repercussions are still being felt. Every time a White child is bullied by their Black “peers” in school, every time a White family is forced to move once more into a new neighborhood “with better schools” a little further away, every time entire cities are abandoned by the Whites who built them, and after every crime committed against a White person at the hands of Blacks, we will remember Martin Luther King.
We should remember King for what he was: a useful idiot, a caustic force employed by Jews to aid in the destruction of White society, and perhaps most of all, a symbol of our occupation by a very hostile elite. The next time you pass a statue of King, find yourself on a Martin Luther King Boulevard, or see a school named after him, realize that those who wish to see us destroyed are sending you a very clear message: this isn’t your nation anymore.
We live in a country where politicians of both parties argue with each other about who is more closely aligned with King’s “values,” and where our schoolchildren are taught that the destruction of all-White schools and neighborhoods is something to celebrate; meanwhile, the media spends countless dollars to uphold the entire charade. What this day signifies is far greater than King himself. It even goes beyond the Civil Rights era. This holiday represents the ritual celebration of a nation’s conquest. Our nation.
To conclude, I would like to quote King himself: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” I hope a day will come when all of King’s statues are torn down, his streets all renamed after the Americans who played a role in taking our homeland back, and every school bearing his moniker is bulldozed. The closer we move to that reality, the more we can be assured that the arc of the moral universe is finally bending back towards justice.
 Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Subject: Martin Luther King, Jr., A current analysis,” March 12, 1968, p. 3.
 Sue Fishkoff, “A half-century later, rabbis recall marching with Martin Luther King,” Jewish Journal, January 11, 2011.
 Kevin MacDonald, “Jews, Blacks, & Race,” Counter-Currents, February 2012.
 BBC News, “Explosive Martin Luther King document amid JFK files,” November 4, 2017.
 “Martin Luther King Jr. was a true conservative,” The Washington Post, January 15, 2014.
 Stuart Applebaum, “A Special Bond: Martin Luther King, Jr., Israel and American Jewry,” Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.
 Carolyn Garris, “Martin Luther King’s Conservative Legacy,” The Heritage Foundation, January 12, 2006.
 Robert F. Zeidel, “A 1911 Report Set American On a Path of Screening Out ‘Undesirable’ Immigrants,” Smithsonian, July 16, 2018.
 Nicholas Wade, “A New Look at Old Data May Discredit a Theory on Race,” The New York Times, October 08, 2002.
 Adam Rutherford, “He may have unraveled DNA, but James Watson deserves to be shunned,” The Guardian, December 01, 2014.
 “ASHG Denounces Attempts to Link Genetics and Racial Supremacy,” ASHG, Vol. 103, No. 5, P636, November 01, 2018.
 USHMM, “Defining The Enemy,” Holocaust Encyclopedia.
 Donald A. Manson, “Tracking Offenders: White-Collar Crime,” U.S. Department of Justice, November 1986.
 Richard Houck, “The War Against Whites in Advertising,” Counter-Currents, March 2018.
 Jonathan Zimmerman, “Where does MLK fit in today’s #MeToo World?”, The Baltimore Sun, April 06, 2018.
* * *