XPost: alt.politics.conservative, alt.politics.democrats, alt.business
XPost: dc.politics

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.

http://davidduke.com/alan-stang-on-mlks-10000-page-fbi-file-his- plagiarism-and-communist-ties/


--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)