What ‘Selma’ Gets Wrong

Mark K. Updegrove, Politico, December 22, 2014


To that end, Paramount Pictures’ ambitious “Selma,” depicting the bloody civil rights campaign in Selma, Alabama, gets much right. The film humanizes Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the colossal burden he faced in 1965 leading a fractious movement that was so perilous for his flock. But “Selma” misses mightily in faithfully capturing the pivotal relationship–contentious, the film would have you believe–between King and President Lyndon Baines Johnson.

In the film, President Johnson resists King’s pressure to sign a voting rights bill, which–according to the movie’s take–is getting in the way of dozens of other Great Society legislative priorities. Indeed, “Selma’s” obstructionist LBJ is devoid of any palpable conviction on voting rights. Vainglorious and power hungry, he unleashes his zealous pit bull, FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover, on King, who is determined to march in protest from Selma to Montgomery despite LBJ’s warning that it will be “open season” on the protesters.

This characterization of the 36th president flies in the face of history. In truth, the partnership between LBJ and MLK on civil rights is one of the most productive and consequential in American history.

Yes, Johnson advocated stripping a potent voting rights component out of the historic Civil Rights Act he signed into law in the summer of 1964. A master of the legislative process–and a pragmatist–he knew that adding voting rights to the Civil Rights Act would make it top heavy, jeopardizing its passage. Break the back of Jim Crow, Johnson believed, and then we’ll tackle voting rights.

And yes, King kept the pressure on Johnson to propose voting rights legislation. But Johnson, the political mastermind, knew instinctively that Congress would reject it. As King’s former lieutenant, Andrew Young, recalled earlier this year at the LBJ Presidential Library’s Civil Rights Summit: “Right after [Dr. King won] the Nobel Prize, President Johnson talked for an hour about why he didn’t have the power to introduce voting rights legislation in 1965, and gave very good reasons. [H]e kept saying, ‘I just don’t have the power. I wish I did.’ When we left, I asked Dr. King, ‘Well, what did you think?’ He said, ‘I think we’ve got to figure out a way to get this president some power.’”

That’s exactly what the President wanted–and that’s what the Nobel Laureate did. And it’s not a matter of opinion; it’s a matter of archival record.

In a taped phone conversation between Johnson and King on January 15, 1965, the two spurred each other on. King pointed out that giving African-Americans unimpeded access to the ballot box in the Deep South would expand Johnson’s electoral base. And Johnson encouraged King to wage a campaign that would expose the worst of voting oppression and create a moral imperative to pass the legislation. See for yourself:

MLK: It’s very interesting, Mr. President, to notice that the only states you didn’t carry in the South [in the 1964 presidential election], those five southern states, have less than forty percent of the Negroes registered to vote. I think it’s just so important to get Negroes registered to vote in large numbers in the South. It will be this coalition of the Negro vote and the moderate vote that will really make the New South.

LBJ: That’s exactly right. I think you can contribute a great deal by getting your leaders, and you yourself, taking very simple examples of discrimination . . . If you can find the worst condition that you run into in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, or South Carolina–well, I think one of the worst I ever heard of was the president of a school at Tuskegee, or head of the Government department there or something, being denied the right to cast a vote. If you just take that one illustration and get it on radio, get it on television, get in the pulpits, get it in the meetings, get it every place you can; pretty soon, the fellow that didn’t do anything but drive a tractor will say, “that’s not right, that’s not fair.” And then, that’ll help us in what we’re going to shove [legislation] through in the end.

MLK: You’re exactly right about that.

LBJ: And if we do that, we’ll break through–it’ll be the greatest breakthrough of anything, not even excepting the ’64 Act . . . because it’ll do things even that ’64 Act couldn’t do.

LBJ used the crisis of Selma to compel reluctant lawmakers to pass the Voting Rights Act, which he signed into law on August 6, 1965.


Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • The main reason that Selma was released now is that March is the 50th anniversary of Selma. I think one of the hidden agenda reasons is that one of the lessons learned from Obama’s re-election campaign in 2012 was that you can really gin up and goose up turnout from older black women if you ratchet up the civil rights era style rhetoric. Selma is basically Democrat battlespace preparation for the 2016 Presidential campaign, in anticipation of what will be the likely reality of the 2016 Democrat nominee not being a black individual.

    MLK: It’s very interesting, Mr. President, to notice that the only states you didn’t carry in the South [in the 1964 presidential election], those five southern states, have less than forty percent of the Negroes registered to vote. I think it’s just so important to get Negroes registered to vote in large numbers in the South. It will be this coalition of the Negro vote and the moderate vote that will really make the New South.

    The five states in this case were SC, GA, AL, MS and LA. Sure, getting all those blacks registered to vote in accordance with the 1965 Voting Rights Act really did help the cause of getting those states into the black/Democrat/liberal column in future Presidential elections, didn’t it?

    • Oil Can Harry

      You beat me to it. I was also going to comment on what an epic fail was LBJ’s and MLK’s plan to use the Civil Wrongs movement to keep the South in the Blue State camp.

      This film also falsely depicts LBJ siccing J. Edgar Hoover on King when it was those liberal saints JFK and RFK who did that.

      • MLK and LBJ more or less assumed that those five states voting “for” Barry Goldwater was just a one time one off based on reactionary political passions, and that white Southerners would never really abandon the Democrat Party to vote for the party of Lincoln.


    • Maximo Partagas

      100% on the mark. You can bet that with The Traitor-in-Chief in the White House making normalization overtures towards Cuba the flow of propaganda will be South to North as the Communist Revolution will be glamorized and made to be sexy and cool for the youngsters of The US.

  • This is rather boring material if one doesn’t include King joking about the death of JFK, and LBJ–well, things worked out for him when JFK was killed by that ex-Marine/CIA/trip to Russia, chap.

    • MannyR

      Oswald didnt kill JFK, I was in the Marines, a shot similar to JFKs kill shot would be extremely difficult with that type of rifle. Stone was correct on that point in his film.

      • Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t–but how can one talk about LBJ and King without talking about JFK? Stories like this generate false controversy rather than get into real, primary source material.

  • Truthseeker

    Oh goody. Another movie lionizing the Civil Rights movement. It was in fact the death knell of traditional America, but boy, does it make guilty, self-hating Whites feel all tingly inside.

    • Reynardine

      The Passion of the Negro. The black has replaced Christ as the object of adoration for Western Civilization. Each year, we must renew the black passion play ad nauseum.

      12 Years a Slave. The Help. Django Unchained. Roots. Amistad.

      • Alucard_the_last

        I saw 12 Years of a black man who actually worked and didn’t like it. I have no sympathy of a ‘slave’ having attitude for doing a little work in exchange for free healthcare, food, clothing and shelter but the biggest disappointment this year was Django. Tarintino is really slipping. He hasn’t made a good film since Kill Bill.

        • MannyR

          Tarantino is by far one of the biggest anti white film makers in Hollywood today. I will not pay to watch any of the garbage he puts out after the German soldier torture scene in inglorious Bastards and then the ending of Django Unchained. Filth

          • Germanic Depressive

            I’m ashamed to have some of his filth, including Inglorious Basterds, up on my blu-ray collection shelf. I bought them before I became a race realist, or learned that the depiction of the Germans we’ve been fed re: WWII is simplistic to say the least.

          • This is my account for personal exchanges. What you said in your comment in reply to me was right on spot. I have recently written a couple of posts on the themes that you covered in your excellent comment. I will just copy and paste them here for you to read if you are interested:


            @ JCNC

            I don’t support colonising white nations. I recognise them as our best possible allies. We are great civilised peoples, and I would like there to be peace and friendship between our peoples instead of unnecessary conflict. Chinese, although wary of Western influences, have generally a positive view of the West. Those living in the West who espouse anti-white views are simply having identity issues. I believe many more Chinese will be on your (our) side if provided with a more nuanced view of whites.

            It is hard to see through the propaganda, but I managed and so can others. Whites are also dealing with similar problems. Many whites also have anti-white views. The establishments are trying to set us up against our own and against each other. They especially seem to be making a huge effort to prevent northern civilised peoples from teaming up against the establishment(s). I have to admit that China is lost for the time being, but I believe there is hope. As long as there are people like you and me, we stand a chance against the Marxists. However, I believe that divided we fall.

            Whites teaming up with other whites is a great thing and I advocate that every single day when I am online, but we have to think more internationally to destroy the enemy completely. Only an alliance, which will have the eternal aim of marginalising the Marxists, can save northern humanity in the long term. The Marxists have aimed at world domination by conquering the northern peoples. We must do the same in reverse.

            Ethnonationalists must reconquer the northern peoples for a common cause. We have a common enemy; we have common interests. Eurasian unity might appear strange to some, and it might bring up images of race-mixing Asians and Whites to some, but I absolutely reject race-mixing although people are free to disagree with me on that; the point is that what I am proposing is not some kind of White-Asian melting pot, but I am proposing that we fight together for a common cause, while we respect separate evolution and existence.

            The reason to help each other is to protect our peoples; we are fighting for our bloodlines. It would be odd if we decided to betray them suddenly for an irreversible and short-sighted melting pot ideal. I believe that, despite some differences, we have enough in common to be able to get along well when we are working together closely. I have good experiences with whites, and although purist types might try to scare me away sometimes, I will not run away like a coward nor turn my back on the cause because I will not give up on our races; I know that if our peoples refuse to work together, it might be the beginning of the end for civilised man.

            The clash between civilisations is to be prevented; we should be more concerned about the clash with the Marxists and the Third World (and that will stay our main concern for many generations to come). There will never be a time that the need for a strong alliance will cease; there will always be Marxist types left on this planet, no matter how marginalised they are.

            If you feel some agreement with my ideas or if you totally agree, it would be much appreciated if you wrote a comment of support under my article: http:// www(DOT)eurocanadian(DOT)ca/2015/01/chinese-and-white-nationalists-should(DOT)html


            @ propagandaoftruth

            I don’t support race-mixing, but people are free to disagree with me. I observe strict racial integrity, and I have sworn an oath to my ancestors that I would never betray our racial lineage. I take pride in racial integrity, and I only wish others would use their personal freedom to do the same. Biracialism is the approach that I support, and I believe that this approach is a necessity for securing our future.

            If Asians and Westerners cannot share the planet, then none of us will have the planet. A racial war between our peoples will end in mutual destruction. Thus, biracialism will be the only long-term solution to secure our continued separate existence and evolution. White nationalists are free not to accept the idea of an unconditional racial alliance, but they cannot say that I did not warn them.

            I will continue to reach out to White nationalists no matter how many times they refuse to accept me as a comrade, because the utter necessity of cooperation between our peoples will remain regardless of their contemporary attitudes. I am merely an individual, but I believe individuals can have a huge influence on others; history proves that the individual can literally change the world.

            Lothrop Stoddard’s idea of living ‘biologically distinct, yet linked by mutual interests and cooperating for common ends’ appears the most appealing to me. Regardless of the fact that Lothrop Stoddard originally proposed this as a solution to the racial differences between whites and Negroes, I believe that this idea would work very well for Asians and Westerners, because they have much in common.

            I do not identify as a ‘racial purist’ but I believe racial purity is relevant. I am sure that people would say that I am a ‘racial purist,’ but I feel it is better not to label myself by my ideas. I believe that people naturally prefer their own, and that this is a necessary evolutionary-biological inclination for the perpetuation of the race. However, this inclination does not negate interracial social relations.

            My belief is that social identity processes are not subject to genetic differences. Since Asians can identify with Westerners and vice versa, Asians and Europeans can develop and adopt a unique biracialist identity which will be a Eurasian one. I believe that we should get beyond our petty nationalist differences which have somehow managed to survive into this modern century.

            ‘Eurasian unity above all’ might seem strange, but this unity which will not negate separate evolution is a requirement for a secure future. I believe Western nationalists will become victorious in the end, and it would be an unfortunate thing if they were misinformed about the Asians. Therefore, I seek to provide a nuanced perspective on my own people without resorting to unrealistic oversimplification.


            lyovmyshkin asked me a couple of excellent questions in a comment and I will copy and paste the comment here:


            Great comment, CNM.

            In regards to Nationalism in China, are there similar proscriptions on explicit advocacy for the Han Chinese majority like we find in the Western world? Is this even necessary for a Chinese Nationalist?

            What are the major concerns for Chinese Nationalists of late? Am I right in thinking that the Chinese minorities are not generally held to the “One Child” policy?

            In the West minority groups have theorized that they are being restricted by the concept and practice of “White privilege”, they believe a subtle and mostly undetectable web of behaviours carried out by even non-racially minded White people is the reason for their failures. Are these tactics being used in China?

            Thank you.


            @ lyovmyshkin

            You asked excellent questions. I could see from your questions that you have some more knowledge of China than the average commenter.

            Let me answer your questions one by one.

            1. China is thoroughly Marxist. This is a huge obstacle to ethnonationalism. Many of the problems in China are similar to those in the West. There is much more to say about this, but I would recommend you to read my recent article:

            http:// www(DOT)eurocanadian(DOT)ca/2015/01/chinese-and-white-nationalists-should(DOT)html

            If the link doesn’t work, you can also google it.

            The title of the article is: ‘Chinese and White Nationalists Should Work Together’

            It is published at Council of European Canadians.

            There are some critical/negative comments on my article, but they basically fall into two categories:

            [a] purist types who fail to see that Chinese and White nationalists have common interests and therefore reject Chinese support (Asians would be good for nothing but eating cats and dogs after all), and

            [b] Marxist types who don’t like what I am saying and therefore claim that I am wrong, while providing loads of links that support such biased views (any non-Marxist is ignorant and stupid of course).

            It would be hugely appreciated if you could take the trouble to reply to some of these commenters to provide your own perspective: Panopticon, RideTheTiger, John Kellner, jmf, and alma.

            2.a. To get a glimpse of what Chinese nationalists are interested in you should follow me on Disqus (my other account of course), and pay special attention to favourited articles. It would be too much to inform you about all current issues, but you can ask me questions if you are interested in specific issues, and I am also available for discussion when you want to talk about specific issues. For example, if you are interested in the influence of Jews in the People’s Republic of China or the Chinese perception of Jews, then we can talk about that.

            2.b. Ethnic minorities are exempt from the One-Child Policy. Moreover, some Westerners believe that the policy is eugenic, but I believe the opposite is true. There are those who want to believe that China is practising eugenics in secret, but there is no valid reason to believe this. To think that China is practising eugenics is wishful thinking on the part of eugenics advocates. I understand they have an interest in spreading such a delusion, but I think it is better to accept the reality that China isn’t officially nor secretly practising eugenics.

            3. Again I refer you to my recent article. It should give you a better idea of the political climate in China. I will mention one thing though. One of the commenters on the article basically denied that there are differences among the Han Chinese. This is odd, because traditionally there are many linguistic, cultural, and ethnic differences between them. Han Chinese have different traditional identities. Moreover, recent DNA analyses also show that there are genetic differences between Han Chinese ethnic groups, although they are closely related. I recognise denial of traditional diversity among the Chinese as a communist theme. It is common for the Chinese communists to deny differences in the population. They want to push a Chinese communist monoculture on us.

            I am originally from Guangzhou, but I am located in Holland now. Many Westerners do not know that there is an increasing number of Negroes in China. The government is denying that there are many Negroes in Guangzhou. In the wake of the Ebola crisis and as Chinese were afraid to get infected, the government came up with a very low official figure of 16,000. There are way more Negroes in Guangzhou than the government is telling us. This is definite proof that the government is selling us out. The truth is that the CPC has its own interests which are at odds with those of the people.

            Here some links:

            http:// www(DOT)amren(DOT)com/news/2012/06/african-migrants-rioted-in-china-today-after-a-man-died-in-police-custody/

            http:// www(DOT)amren(DOT)com/news/2014/07/afro-chinese-marriages-boom-in-guangzhou-but-will-it-be-til-death-do-us-part/

            http:// en(DOT)wikipedia(DOT)org/wiki/Africans_in_Guangzhou

            The two AmRen articles were first brought to my attention by an AmRen moderator who anticipated on the fact that I’m originally from Guangzhou.

          • lyovmyshkin

            I’ve read your article and have left a lengthy comment (which is awaiting moderation). Looking forward to your response.

  • Epiminondas

    LBJ was such a tick. I find it immensely entertaining that he is being smeared by his liberal buddies in the media. There is something deliciously ironic about his civil rights stance being trashed by blacks…and very satisfying.

  • LHathaway

    This is the article I couldn’t get through tonight, not that they are not all insane.

  • Reynardine

    I myself, even before my racial awakening, felt “uncomfortable” for an unknown reason while watching the Black Pity Porno movies. There was something nefarious about them, which my indoctrinated mind refused to acknowledge. Really we just need to point out the horrid little anti-white diatribes and plot points and make people see them, then we could use their filth as a recruiting tool.

    Too bad antiwhitemedia isn’t updated anymore.

    • Tim

      I had my own Eureka moment watching “Lean on Me” with Morgan Freeman as the heroic Ghetto principal. In the movie he locks all 600 students in the auditorium as a protest. the White Fire Marshal arrives with twenty men but is cowed into submission by Freeman and a couple of black coaches. The Fire Marshal leaves defeated with his men. I sat in my theatre seat and went, “Whoa!! Wait a minute…600 children locked in a fire trap building and he does NOTHING?!?! ” I realized then in real life he would have directed ten men to hold the principal at bay while the others cut the whole door off its hinges… I knew then that Hollywood had its own self serving reality that glorified Blacks at the expense of the truth…

      • Reynardine

        No, no, I would have done what the White Fire Marshall did if there were only black kids in the auditorium.

  • E. Newton

    The mid-sixties marked the discernible start of the destruction of this nation. The seeds were sown by Lyndon Johnson and there has been no historian yet who has honestly chronicled this decisive period. Johnson’s Immigration Act, all the “great society” legislation, the beginnings of the assault on the second amendment rights, “civil rights” and the assaults on your rights of association, the debasement of our currency, the wars that go nowhere and for no clear goal, allowing negroes to riot across the nation and begin rewarding them for it. Johnson was the wet dream of modern progressives, a white, Protestant, a huge government psychopath. Obama is nothing more than a weak shadow of old LBJ.

    • Luca

      And he did it all to bolster the Democratic party. He is reliably rumored to have said “I’ll have those ‘knickers’ voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”

      I always say, 1965 was the beginning of the end.

      • MikeofAges

        Luca: Johnson was reported as saying “We have lost the South for generations”. But the Johnson-Humphrey ticket carried Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas and Texas, at a time when black voter participation was very low.

        The South went Republican because of dislike of radical social movements and dislike of who took over the Democratic Party in the late 60s. Nixon was modernizer and civil rights supporter. The key tenets of Southern Republicanism were acceptance of the 1964 Civil Right Act as the law of the land, acceptance of public school desegregation, and the economic mainstreaming of the region.

        Sorry, but the left should be forced to accept the inconvenient truth that the white South went Republican because the white South is inherently conservative, and doesn’t want to be party with the political left.

    • ElComadreja

      Don’t forget Hart-Celler and Ted Kennedy which started the Hispanic invasion in earnest.

  • phillyguy

    The majority of the people in the United States today are dumb. unfortunately the people who lived through that time are dying out,, the young white liberal idiots take all of this Hollywood propaganda for real history.

  • LHathaway

    I want to know if anyone was actually prevented from voting from around 1954 to 1964, or anytime. One person somewhere was prevented from voting, somewhere, in the deepest of the deep south (for all we know only for the purpose of highlighting the ‘plight’ of African Americans) and 100 years later this is used to make white northerners (whose ancestors fought for the union) feel guilty. It went from the deep south to the south to the whole country. . up until 1966 (well, to whatever day it is now). The irony being the repeat of these docudramas is to divert our attention away from white oppression allowing it to continue to go on. .

  • curri

    As he proved to the entire world during Vietnam, LBJ was an all-around lunatic. Nothing at stake in SE Asia could possibly justify such a huge troop deployment. He was a traitor too, as his actions related to the USS Liberty incident prove. Most of the LBJ biographies show that he was the kind of head case that made Lee Harvey Oswald look normal.

    Another entry [in the daily notes of historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.] made just a week before Johnson left the White House for good indicated that Schlesinger had talked to Bill Moyers and Richard “Dick” Goodwin about the problems with anyone ever trying to write a book about Johnson, because “no one would believe it.”

    • John Ambrose

      Basically LBJ thought that by plunging us head first into Vietnam’s low-level civil war he could use the war to undermine claims that he was soft on Communism and thus enhance his own political prospects. But he knew he’d never be able to secure congressional approval to escalate the war under such pretexts so he (quite probably) fabricated the story that the Vietnamese had attacked our own ships. The war then was used as a recruiting tool by the New Left of the 1960s to draw in disaffected young people to their agenda. So not only did LBJ not halt the spread of Communism in southeast Asia he inadvertently gave it a boost here at home.

  • Maximo Partagas

    LBJ sold out his fellow whites for the forwarding of his liberal agenda, I wonder if he realized he was planting the seeds of The United States and the Whites Race’s own demise. I hope he’s suffering in eternal torment and pain.

  • phillyguy

    unfortunately most of the people in this country are stupid the young people don’t know what happened yesterday, sad thing is most people who lived through them times are dying off at a quick rate , the young people especially in colleges today are taught a revisionist Hollywood propaganda history.

  • Alucard_the_last

    Choke! Luke warm on human rights? Try going overboard. I wish that bastard was alive today to see the outcome of his ‘Great Society’. Negroes being on welfare for generations, lawlessness in every one of their neighborhoods, no fear of the police, no fear of going to jail, never ending lawsuits and -of course, the eternal whine. If he wanted to build a ‘great society’, he could have started by mass deportation of negroes back to their rotten homeland where they could finally be happy.

  • Perhaps so, but I don’t imagine the EC map would have been much different, and I don’t think the binary result would have been any different, if nuclear ordnance was never an issue in that campaign. Maybe Goldwater wins a few more states. But the big issue was that election day was not even a full year after JFK was assassinated, and that was going to be enough to push JFK’s Vice-President over the top no matter what. Then there was the matter of Goldwater’s dogmatic economic libertarianism.

  • Spikeygrrl

    Do you get paid by the post?!

    We get it, we get it, you want us to read this book. One plug is great, two are tolerable. Any more and this crowd starts giving your intentions the ‘ol hairy eyeball. Which is just as it should be.

  • ElComadreja

    What’s this? At least five plugs so far.

  • IstvanIN

    He was a traitor, an evil opportunist who put the final nails in the coffin.

  • This movie is just another black pity party designed to rake whites over the coals yet again. Must keep the white liberals’ guilt stirred up! The shiite that was going on in the 60s was nothing but typical political flimflam–none of the politicians or black ‘leaders’ cared about civil rights, blacks’ well-being, or anything else noble. They were all in it for self-aggrandizement & money. It was the beginning of the end of western civilization and that was the intention. Whites knew at the time and had known for centuries that the dysfunctional, pathological black race could never successfully mix with the industrious, forward-thinking, intelligent, and creative white race (its warts notwithstanding.) These idiot black-whine movies (that taxpayers are probably financing with all sorts of government grants) are about lies and obfuscation so the pathetic, white liberals will roll over and say walk all over me, and dim blacks will have another excuse to riot, loot, kill, burgle….the usual.

  • Indeed he was the typical psycho politician.

  • The Kennedys were at that time a family of crooks & self-aggrandizing schemers. JFK’s libertine father bought the presidency for him.

  • MannyR

    What self hating, no backbone having mental case would 1) pay to watch this garbage 2) be silly enough to take their life in their hands and watch this type of propaganda in an enclosed, dimly lit space with black people?

  • Stone’s book–and Stone is a major Nixon backer to this day– is just another book, which describes an agenda we can only pretend to understand. LBJ didn’t care about blacks, or whites, or his countrymen–only his party and his own ego. Coupled with MLK’s grotesque attitude towards a dead man–caught on FBI tape–, that would make for an interesting movie and real controversy.

  • Oil Can Harry

    How am I “totally incorrect”? I never denied Hoover and LBJ were friendly.

    All I said was that FBI surveillance of King began under JFK, not LBJ as this film claims.

  • Luca

    The Gulf of Tonkin incident is 100 times worse than the “Weapons of Mass Destruction” blunder, but LBJ always get s a free pass from the liberal propaganda machine. WMD is plausibly a product of bad intel, but Tonkin was 99.9% fabrication, exaggeration and maliciously engineered.

  • E. Newton

    I appreciate the recommendation. I’m about a third of the way through the book. The man was a monster, a being without principle other than the acquisition of power. As brilliant as the founders were, what controls did they imagine would keep a narcissistic psychopath, an LBJ or an Obama, from rising to control of the nation? Johnson was responsible for the death of many young men in Vietnam. Yet his spawn walk the earth with complete innocence. As Billy Ayers said, “guilty as hell, free as a bird”. America in the decades after the mid-sixties.

    • MikeofAges

      Lyndon Johnson had some principle. He had real sympathy for the socioeconomic underdog. But once someone was in the “game”, that meant in the game of power, position, politics and big-money business, it was no holds barred and no scruples or mercy. It is disgusting how the film “Selma” portrays Johnson. Like it or not, getting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through Congress was one of the greatest feats of political heavy lifting in the history of elected government. So Johnson talked dirty and often was mean-spirited. What about that holy plaster saint then, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

      This just in, I guess, powerful men talk dirty and mean. And they take their pants off too. It’s what I would have done.

  • A Freespeechzone

    Just another step in revising history away from the truth based upon facts.

  • Ograf

    Just look at who is responsible for all the propaganda films that are strategically released to defame the White race in particular. Wonder why that is ?