Uncelebrate Martin Luther King Day
By Alan Stang
Most Americans recognize that shakedown artists like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are working an immensely lucrative racket, sponsored by the conspiracy for world government and implemented by the nation’s Communist government schools. Train white boys – honkies – from kindergarten through high school and college to believe they are guilty of “racism,” and when they are grown they will collaborate in shaking themselves down. Hey, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, right Jesse?
Because of intense, lifelong brainwashing, not enough Americans yet understand that Mike (Martin Luther) King, Jr., is an even bigger fraud; that in fact everything we have been told about him is phony, even starting with his name, which his father changed to enhance their career in religion. As part of the uncelebration of the phony holiday inflicted in his name, here again is our annual rendition of the facts.
There are five aspects of the King career: his Communism, his violence, his plagiarism, the fact that he was a sexual predator who made Bildo Clinton, the Arkansas rapist, look like a cloistered monk; and the fact that he did not believe in Christianity. We shall look at each, but first let’s consider the holiday itself. Where should such a holiday come from?
Typically, enough time passes after a man’s death so that everything about him is known. Then sentiment spontaneously builds to honor him. Finally, that sentiment coalesces into the proclamation of a holiday in his name. So it is, or, rather, was, in the case of Washington, the Father of our country.
On the contrary, the King holiday was proclaimed, after considerable, racist intimidation, when the nation knew hardly anything about him, not alone because it was inflicted so soon after his death, but because by court order the truth about him was suppressed. Yes, that is correct; we have a national holiday for a man whose wife got a court ruling that suppresses the facts about him until 2027 to spare the intense embarrassment she would have felt had the truth been revealed.
This is a scandal that has nothing to do with race. It should be a scandal whatever the color of the man so sanctified. Consider also that the only other American so honored used to be Washington, whose résumé Martha did nothing to suppress, but he no longer has a day all to himself. He shares Presidents Day. Mystery Man Mike therefore is honored above the Father of our country.
Mike King attended a Communist training school in Tennessee. A famous picture shows him enjoying a lecture in the company of Abner W. Berry, a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. Hunter Pitts O’Dell ran King’s organization. O’Dell was another member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. Reporters would point that out, so King would pretend to fire him, but O’Dell would soon be discovered elsewhere in the King organization.
Many people wondered why King’s speeches began to depart from “civil rights.” Soon, he was spouting the Communist line, during the war in Vietnam. Eventually, we learned that the author of his speeches was New Yorker Stanley Levison, the KGB paymaster in this country. Ask yourself how important a Communist a man must be if the Soviet secret police send him the funds he distributes to finance Moscow’s activities in this country. Mike enjoyed Stanley’s largesse.
Another thing people wondered about was the fact that violence almost always erupted in a Mike King “non-violent” demonstration. He explained himself in an article he wrote for Saturday Review in the April 3, 1965 issue (“Behind the Selma March,” pp. 16-17, 57). Mike King said this:
“Long years of experience indicate to us that Negroes can achieve this goal when four things occur: 1. Nonviolent demonstrators go into the streets to exercise their Constitutional rights. 2. Racists resist by unleashing violence against them. 3. Americans of conscience in the name of decency demand federal intervention and legislation. 4. The Administration, under mass pressure, initiates measures of immediate intervention and remedial legislation.”
Notice in Step Two that violence is an essential element of the “non-violent” process. Indeed, violence in a King operation was not an unfortunate accident, not a mistake. Violence was what he went into the streets to get. Without the manufactured violence, there would have been no manufactured “sympathy” and no “mass pressure.” Remember, Mike King wrote this himself. Maybe his ghost writers didn’t know what they were revealing.
Why would “racists” attack them? Drue Lackey was Montgomery, Alabama Chief of Police. In a speech in October, 2006, he explained that in the famous confrontation of 1965, “non-violent” demonstrators tried to provoke his policemen to react, by throwing “non-violent” bottles and bricks, and bedecking them with gobs of spit, while other “non-violent” demonstrators waited nearby to take pictures.
Here is Chief Lackey’s rendition of the event: “Those four days on the road had turned into an habitual sex orgy by the time they reached the capitol. King was always seen on TV marching in the front row among clean, well-disciplined performers. It was all a sham. He stayed partying separately most of those days, and would only arrive in a chauffeured limousine for appointed press deadlines, leaving immediately after.
“Most of the others put off at least until nightfall, what they had come for, as this mob had been bused in from across the country and around the world: unemployed Blacks, White students, party activists of both races, on promises of all the free food, booze and sex they wanted.
“They reached Montgomery late on the afternoon of March 24, 1965, and spent the night at St. Jude’s where they had been invited. We kept security along with the National Guard, for the local Whites were up in arms. We witnessed them sleeping on the ground all together, and a lot of sexual activity went on throughout the night, with frequently changed partners. This is what the federal government sponsored: a bunch of communists and moral degenerates.”
Chief Lackey also had to protect Mike’s residence from provoked locals who were threatening to bomb it. But there was nothing he could do about the 25,000 misfits fornicating and committing other canine functions on local residents’ front lawns. Yes, confronted with such expert provocation, many locals snapped. Would you have been able to keep your head?
For a while, I traveled the country trying to defuse these King provocations. One of the people I traveled with was the utterly delightful Julia Brown. Mrs. Brown hailed from Cleveland, where she had been tricked into joining the Communist Party. When she found out what she had joined, she went to the FBI and asked what she should do. They told her to go back into the Party and work for them under cover, which she did. One of the things she learned was that Mike King was a Party asset.
By the way, Mrs. Brown was black. When we came to a town to talk about Mike, she routinely took great delight in telling our hosts that she was my grandmother. They were too polite to ask, but I could see them wondering how a man as white as Herman Talmadge could have a black grandmother, and I never corrected her, because she got such a kick out of it and you didn’t really want to cross Mrs. Brown.
One Georgia town we worked was ready to explode when we arrived because Mike’s provocateurs had been there for a while. It would have been too dangerous to speak to the townspeople together, so we addressed the black people the first evening and then, in the same hall the next evening, the white people. When we explained who Mike and his provocateurs were and what they were there to do, the tension dissipated, the people united and Mike’s revolutionaries left town unsatisfied.
When a great man dies, the professors go through his works to prepare them for posterity. So it was with Mike King. The trouble was that the professors were aghast at what they found. Mike was a world-class plagiarist who stole just about everything that appeared in his name. Remember, I can’t take credit for this discovery. I knew nothing about it. His staunchest supporters brought it to light.
Browse through a book entitled The Martin Luther King Jr. Plagiarism Story (Rockford Institute, Rockford, IL, 1994), by Theodore Pappas. In 1984, the “Martin Luther King Papers Project” was launched at Stanford University. In 1986, Professor David J. Garrow, in his book, Bearing the Cross, wrote that big chunks of King’s Stride Towards Freedom are identical to passages from Paul Ramsay’s Basic Christian Ethics and Anders Nygren’s Eros and Agape.
It is important to note that Professor Garrow is a leftist, who admires Mike King. No doubt that was why he did not call what King had done plagiarism, and his index calls the incident “ghostwriting.” No, David. A ghostwriter is someone who is hired to write something by the person whose name will appear on the cover as the author. A ghostwriter is not someone who steals what someone else writes and puts his own name on the cover. I have been a ghostwriter, but, because I was a ghost, I am not going to tell you what I wrote.
The King Papers project first discovered evidence of King’s plagiarism in late 1987. In October, 1989, according to Wall Street Journal reporter Peter Waldman, the professors discussed King’s plagiarism in the presence of his widow, Coretta Scott King, in an all-day meeting in Atlanta. Mrs. King remained silent through most of the meeting, and thereafter declined to answer queries about her husband’s thefts. The board decided to publish King’s papers with footnotes fully detailing the plagiarism, and to publish a separate article outlining its extent.
By the way, have you watched a DVD movie at home lately? Isn’t the first thing that came up on your screen an announcement that the F.B.I. investigates copyright infringement – which can even include infringement without monetary gain – and that conviction could land you in prison for five years? It’s a serious felony.
On December 3, 1989, Frank Johnson revealed in the British Sunday Telegraph, that Ralph Luker, associate editor of the King Papers Project, said King had “borrowed” heavily from the thesis of Jack Boozer, fellow Boston University theology student and later Professor of Religion at Emory. While Boozer was away in the military, Mike apparently committed the theft. In September, 1990, Thomas Fleming wrote in Chronicles that King’s doctorate should be regarded as a courtesy title, because of the revelation that he plagiarized his dissertation.
If the truth got out, Boston University would have been humiliated. It is a short distance from B.U. to P.U. So, B.U. President Jon Westling sent a letter to Chronicles (published in the January 1991 issue) denying Fleming’s charge. Westling said King’s dissertation had been “scrupulously examined and reexamined by scholars,” and that “not a single instance of plagiarism of any sort has been identified. . . . not a single reader has ever found any nonattributed or misattributed quotations, misleading paraphrases, or thoughts borrowed without due scholarly reference in any of its 343 pages.” Hey, Jon, how long was your nose after you said all that? Just curious.
Claiborne Carson was director of the Project. He denied all charges until Peter Waldman said he had a copy of Boozer’s dissertation. Then he caved. The story appeared on the front page of the Wall Street Journal on November 9, 1990. The article quoted Claiborne Carson finally admitting King’s plagiarism, but it calls his thievery “borrowings,” and “voice merging” that derives from the oral traditions of the black church. No, plagiarism is not a tradition of the black church. Black preachers are not plagiarists.
The article says that “most of King’s papers had many original thoughts,” but often “borrowed without citing.” According to Waldman, Carson was asking staff members to refrain from use of the “p” word at work. In short, even the author of the exposé leaned over backward far enough to do an Olympic flip. Compare this treatment to what you know would be done to anyone else – black, white or whatever – who commits misrepresentation as outrageous as King’s. At the very least, his degree would be rescinded.
Gerry Harbison was a professor of chemistry at the University of Nebraska. He was certainly not a “right-wing wacko.” He was full of praise for the “civil rights movement.” Professor Harbison is worth quoting at length: “Like most graduate students, King spent the first half of his doctoral work taking courses in his degree area, theology. His surviving papers from that period show that from the very beginning he was transcribing articles by eminent theologians, often word for word, and representing them as his own work.
“After completing his course work, graduate students usually write a dissertation or thesis, supposedly an independent and original contribution to scholarship. King’s thesis was anything but original. In fact, the sheer extent of his plagiarism is breathtaking. Page after page contains nothing but direct, verbatim transcriptions of the work of others. In 1990, the King Project estimated that less than half of some chapters was actually written by King himself. Since then, even more of his ‘borrowings’ have been traced.
“. . . But most unforgivably of all, thousands of words in paragraph-sized chunks, were taken from the thesis of a fellow student, Jack Boozer, an ex-army chaplain who returned to Boston University after the war to get his degree. We even know how he did it, for King was systematic in his plagiarism. He copied significant phrases, sentences or whole paragraphs from the books he was consulting onto a set of index cards. ‘Writing’ a thesis was then a matter of arranging these cards into a meaningful order.
“Sometimes he linked the stolen parts together with an occasional phrase of his own, but as often as not he left the words completely unchanged. The index cards still survive, with their damning evidence intact. King fooled everybody: his adviser, his thesis reader and King scholars for more than 30 years. Everything I’ve written above can easily be verified in a couple of hours in Love Library. None of it comes from right-wing scandalmongers who might have a vested interest in damaging King’s reputation.”
In other words, “Martin Luther King, Jr.” was a fiction, a phantasm, manufactured and maintained by the Communists who chose him because of his oratorical talent, groomed him, used him, protected him and then (probably) eliminated him when exposure made him a liability. The “Martin Luther King, Jr.” we were told about did not exist. Remember that we are talking about a man who has been honored above George Washington.
Now let’s look at Mike King’s Christianity. Mike was a “Reverend.” He had a “doctorate” in theology. As we have seen, his degree was a fraud, like Mike Huckabee’s, but Christianity, we are told, was the inspiration for everything he did. What did he believe? What kind of Christian was he?
Among the papers with his name on it is one entitled, “What Experiences of Christians Living in the Early Christian Century Led to the Christian Doctrines of the Divine Sonship of Jesus, the Virgin Birth, and the Bodily Resurrection.” The title itself tells us something is wrong. These doctrines came not from anyone’s “experience,” but from history and from what Jesus said. But, “Dr.” King comments, “these doctrines are historically and philolophically untenable.” (sic)
Here is how Jesus got to be divine, according to “Dr.” King: “The first doctrine of our discussion which deals with the divine sonship of Jesus went through a great process of developement. (sic) . . . How then did this doctrine of divine sonship come into being? We may find a partial clue to the actual rise of this doctrine in the spreading of Christianity into the Greco-Roman world. . . . Anything that possessed flesh was always underminded (sic) in Greek thought. And so in order to receive inspiration from Jesus the Greeks had to apotheosize him.
“. . . As Hedley laconically states, ‘the church had found God in Jesus, and so it called Jesus the Christ; and later under the influence of Greek thought-forms, the only begotten Son of God.’” In short, according to King, it was the Greeks who made Jesus “divine.” My guess is that King really did write this, because it is so incompetent. This is the writing of a mediocre high school sophomore, not a man with a doctorate.
Here is King on the virgin birth: “First we must admit that the evidence for the tenability of this doctrine is to (sic) shallow to convince any objective thinker . . . .” So, according to Mike, there was no virgin birth.
Finally, consider that the resurrection is the master doctrine of Christian belief. Catholics believe it. Protestants believe it. Without the resurrection, there is no Christianity; there is just another “wise man.” If you don’t believe in the resurrection – if you don’t believe that Jesus died, was dead and then rose – then go your way in peace, but you are not a Christian.
So, what does “Dr.” King believe about the resurrection? “The last doctrine in our discussion deals with the resurrection story. This doctrine, upon which the Easter Faith rests, symbolizes the ultimate Christian conviction: that Christ conquered death. From a literary, historical, and philosophical point of view this doctrine raises many questions. In fact the external evidence for the authenticity of this doctrine is found wanting. . . .” Indeed, according to King, the apostles made it all up because they loved Him so much.
So, “Dr.” King was not a Christian. Along these lines, King was an ardent supporter of Planned Parenthood, won their Margaret Sanger Award in 1966 and said “there is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger’s early efforts.” Mrs. Sanger’s early efforts included agitation to limit the procreation of the “inferior races” and publishing the work of Nazi propagandists. Were those the early efforts he meant? Was Mike himself a racist?
Finally, there was King’s career as a sexual predator. We are not just talking about a world-class philanderer like Jack Kennedy. We’re not just talking about womanizing with Fiddle and Faddle in the White House. We’re talking about a genuine sexual psychopath, like the Arkansas Attorney General who raped that lady in Little Rock. I can’t recall his name. His wife recently came in third in the Iowa caucuses. I can’t recall her name either.
How do we know what Mike was doing? We know it because FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover tapped his telephones and bugged King’s activities. Why did Hoover do that? He did it because his boss, Attorney General Bobby Kennedy – a certified demigod in the illiberal pantheon – ordered him to.
The Kennedys had become aware of King’s Communist activities and were worried. They brought him to the White House, where the President himself warned King that what he was doing was dangerous. They wanted to know what he was up to, hence the wiretaps and bugs. What did they find out? Because the truth is so putrid, some of it has leaked.
For instance, Mike went to Oslo to accept the Nobel Prize. The evening before he did so found him running naked – naked? – yes, naked down the hallway of his hotel chasing a woman. A story in the Atlanta Journal, dated March 31, 1965, quoted Republican Congressman William Dickinson as saying that “all night sessions of debauchery” involving Mike took place in a church. On the night before he was killed, King participated in another orgy. He hired prostitutes and paid for them with church money. He beat at least one of them up.
What don’t we know? There are tens of thousands of censored pages. Some of them have been released under the Freedom of Information Act; the rest has been labeled “Obscene.” King’s own son has speculated that his father was killed in a “massive conspiracy” by those who saw the elder King’s behavior, long-term depression and alcohol abuse to be a liability they couldn’t afford.”
Again, at the request of Mrs. King, a court sequestered that evidence until the year 2027, long enough to milk everything possible from the myth. We share Mrs. King’s embarrassment. Ordinarily, all this should be private; but remember that we’re talking about a man who is presently honored above Washington. Yet, most of his life has been hidden from us. The fact that Martin Luther King Day exists is proof of how completely the Communist revolution has triumphed.
Because Mike as a “martyr” is still so valuable a revolutionary tool, the facts about him that routinely ooze forth despite such organized suppression are usually greeted with hysterical charges that this is a “racist” country. Of course, such accusations are wearing extra thin in a country that soon could have a black President named Hussein.
Join me in uncelebrating this spurious holiday.
Read more Alan Stang at www.alanstang.com
