Martin Luther King
The following is a good overview of the background
of Martin Luther King, but a few additional points must be added.
- "Martin Luther King" is not his real name.
The jews insisted he change his name to discredit the real Martin Luther.
- He was a proven plagiarist who lifted entire works
word for word from friends and other publications without citing them, which is a CRIME.
- He was never elected to office, never ran a
successful business, and was a failure in his personal life.
- Since his march on Washington and his "I have a
dream" speech for which the media deified him:
The majority of self-respecting White Americans fail
to recognize how black Americans benefitted from the above.
86% oppose the affirmative action mindset which he
spawned or accelerated.
The race war between blacks and Whites accelerated
after his speech and never slowed down.
|The courts have gone into high gear
"interpreting" a previously inviolable US Constitution.|
|The percentage of black children growing up without
fathers quadrupled to 76%.|
|The percentage of black men who are behind bars
before age 32 quintupled to 74%.|
|The purchasing power of the average black family
plunged two thirds.|
|The murder rate of 18-24 year old black males
quintupled to 200 deaths per 100,000 population, a rate higher than in Africa|
|His own family refused to permit his name to be used
in the fight against affirmative action, even though aa defies every principle he ever
|One million black men are behind bars in the US--more
than in the entire Continent of Africa.|
With friends like this, black Americans just don't
The Beast as Saint:
The Truth About "Martin Luther King, Jr."
by Kevin Alfred Strom
(A speech given by Mr. Strom on the nationwide radio program, AMERICAN
DISSIDENT VOICES, January 15th, 1994)
WHEN THE COMMUNISTS TOOK OVER a country, one of the first things that they
did was to confiscate all the privately-held weapons, to deny the people the
physical ability to resist tyranny. But even more insidious than the theft
of the people's weapons was the theft of their history. Official Communist
"historians" rewrote history to fit the current party line. In many
countries, revered national heroes were excised from the history books, or
their real deeds were distorted to fit Communist ideology, and Communist
killers and criminals were converted into official "saints." Holidays were
declared in honor of the beasts who murdered countless nations.
Did you know that much the same process has occurred right here in America?
Every January, the media go into a kind of almost spastic frenzy of
adulation for the so-called "Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr." King
has even had a national holiday declared in his honor, an honor accorded to
no other American, not Washington, not Jefferson, not Lincoln. (Washington
and Lincoln no longer have holidays -- they share the generic-sounding
"President's Day.") A liberal judge has sealed the FBI files on King until
the year 2027. What are they hiding? Let's take a look at this modern-day
Born in 1929, King was the son of a Black preacher known at the time only as
"Daddy King." "Daddy King" named his son Michael. In 1935, "Daddy
an inspiration to name himself after the Protestant reformer Martin Luther.
He declared to his congregation that henceforth they were to refer to him as
"Martin Luther King" and to his son as "Martin Luther King, Jr." None
this name changing was ever legalized in court. "Daddy" King's son's real
name is to this day Michael King.
King's Brazen Cheating
We read in Michael Hoffman's "Holiday for a Cheater":
The first public sermon that King ever gave, in 1947 at the Ebenezer Baptist
Church, was plagiarized from a homily by Protestant clergyman Harry Emerson
Fosdick entitled "Life is What You Make It," according to the testimony of
King's best friend of that time, Reverend Larry H. Williams. The first book
that King wrote, "Stride Toward Freedom, - -was plagiarized from numerous
sources, all unattributed, according to documentation recently assembled by
sympathetic King scholars Keith D. Miller, Ira G. Zepp, Jr., and David J.
Garrow. And no less an authoritative source than the four senior editors of
"The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr.- - (an official publication of the
Martin Luther King Center for Nonviolent Social Change, Inc., whose staff
includes King's widow Coretta), stated of King's writings at both Boston
University and Crozer Theological Seminary: "Judged retroactively by the
standards of academic scholarship, [his writings] are tragically flawed by
numerous instances of plagiarism.... Appropriated passages are particularly
evident in his writings in his major field of graduate study, systematic
theology." King's essay, "The Place of Reason and Experience in Finding
God," written at Crozer, pirated passages from the work of theologian Edgar
S. Brightman, author of "The Finding of God- -. Another of King's theses,
"Contemporary Continental Theology," written shortly after he entered Boston
University, was largely stolen from a book by Walter Marshall Horton. King's
doctoral dissertation, "A Comparison of the Conceptions of God in the
Thinking of Paul Tillich and Harry Nelson Wieman," for which he was awarded
a PhD in theology, contains more than fifty complete sentences plagiarized
from the PhD dissertation of Dr. Jack Boozer, "The Place of Reason in Paul
Tillich's Concept of God." According to "The Martin Luther King Papers", in
King's dissertation "only 49 per cent of sentences in the section on Tillich
contain five or more words that were King's own...."! In "The Journal of
American History", June 1991, page 87, David J. Garrow, a leftist academic
who is sympathetic to King, says that King's wife, Coretta Scott King, who
also served as his secretary, was an accomplice in his repeated cheating.
Reading Garrow's article, one is led to the inescapable conclusion that King
cheated because he had chosen for himself a political role in which a PhD
would be useful, and, lacking the intellectual ability to obtain the title
fairly, went after it by any means necessary. Why, then, one might ask, did
the professors at Crozer Theological Seminary and Boston University grant
him passing grades and a PhD? Garrow states on page 89: "King's academic
compositions, especially at Boston University, were almost without exception
little more than summary descriptions... and comparisons of other's
writings. Nonetheless, the papers almost always received desirable letter
grades, strongly suggesting that King's professors did not expect more...."
The editors of "The Martin Luther King Jr. Papers" state that "...the
failure of King's teachers to notice his pattern of textual appropriation is
But researcher Michael Hoffman tells us "...actually the malfeasance of the
professors is not at all remarkable. King was politically correct, he was
Black, and he had ambitions. The leftist [professors were] happy to award a
doctorate to such a candidate no matter how much fraud was involved. Nor is
it any wonder that it has taken forty years for the truth about King's
record of nearly constant intellectual piracy to be made public."
Supposed scholars, who in reality shared King's vision of a racially mixed
and Marxist America, purposely covered up his cheating for decades. The
cover-up still continues. From the "New York Times" of October 11, 1991,
page 15, we learn that on October 10th of that year, a committee of
researchers at Boston University admitted that, "There is no question but
that Dr. King plagiarized in the dissertation." However, despite its
finding, the committee said that "No thought should be given to the
revocation of Dr. King's doctoral degree," an action the panel said "would
serve no purpose."
No purpose, indeed! Justice demands that, in light of his willful fraud as a
student, the "reverend" and the "doctor" should be removed from King's
Communist Beliefs and Connections
Well friends, he is not a legitimate reverend, he is not a bona fide PhD,
and his name isn't really "Martin Luther King, Jr." What's left? Just a
sexual degenerate, an America-hating Communist, and a criminal betrayer of
even the interests of his own people.
On Labor Day, 1957, a special meeting was attended by Martin Luther King and
four others at a strange institution called the Highlander Folk School in
Monteagle, Tennessee. The Highlander Folk School was a Communist front,
having been founded by Myles Horton (Communist Party organizer for
Tennessee) and Don West (Communist Party organizer for North Carolina). The
leaders of this meeting with King were the aforementioned Horton and West,
along with Abner Berry and James Dumbrowski, all open and acknowledged
members of the Communist Party, USA. The agenda of the meeting was a plan to
tour the Southern states to initiate demonstrations and riots.
From 1955 to 1960, Martin Luther King's associate, advisor, and personal
secretary was one Bayard Rustin. In 1936 Rustin joined the Young Communist
League at New York City College. Convicted of draft-dodging, he went to
prison for two years in 1944. On January 23, 1953 the "Los Angeles Times"
reported his conviction and sentencing to jail for 60 days for lewd vagrancy
and homosexual perversion. Rustin attended the 16th Convention of the
Communist Party, USA in February, 1957. One month later, he and King founded
the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, or SCLC for short. The
president of the SCLC was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The vice-president of
the SCLC was the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth, who was also the president of
an identified Communist front known as the Southern Conference Educational
Fund, an organization whose field director, a Mr. Carl Braden, was
simultaneously a national sponsor of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, of
which you may have heard. The program director of the SCLC was the Reverend
Andrew Young, in more recent years Jimmy Carter's ambassador to the UN and
mayor of Atlanta. Young, by the way, was trained at the Highlander Folk
School, previously mentioned.
Soon after returning from a trip to Moscow in 1958, Rustin organized the
first of King's famous marches on Washington. The official organ of the
Communist Party, "The Worker,- - openly declared the march to be a Communist
project. Although he left King's employ as secretary in 1961, Rustin was
called upon by King to be second in command of the much larger march on
Washington which took place on August 28, 1963.
Bayard Rustin's replacement in 1961 as secretary and advisor to King was
Jack O'Dell, also known as Hunter Pitts O'Dell. According to official
records, in 1962 Jack O'Dell was a member of the National Committee of the
Communist Party, USA. He had been listed as a Communist Party member as
early as 1956. O'Dell was also given the job of acting executive director
for SCLC activities for the entire Southeast, according to the St. Louis
"Globe-Democrat - -of October 26, 1962. At that time, there were still some
patriots in the press corps, and word of O'Dell's party membership became
What did King do? Shortly after the negative news reports, King fired O'Dell
with much fanfare. And he then, without the fanfare, "immediately hired him
again- - as director of the New York office of the SCLC, as confirmed by the
"Richmond News-Leader - -of September 27, 1963. In 1963 a Black man from
Monroe, North Carolina named Robert Williams made a trip to Peking, China.
Exactly 20 days before King's 1963 march on Washington, Williams
successfully urged Mao Tse-Tung to speak out on behalf of King's movement.
Mr. Williams was also around this time maintaining his primary residence in
Cuba, from which he made regular broadcasts to the southern US, three times
a week, from high-power AM transmitters in Havana under the title "Radio
Free Dixie." In these broadcasts, he urged violent attacks by Blacks against
During this period, Williams wrote a book entitled "Negroes With Guns." The
writer of the foreword for this book? None other than Martin Luther King,
Jr. It is also interesting to note that the editors and publishers of this
book were to a man all supporters of the infamous Fair Play for Cuba
According to King's biographer and sympathizer David J. Garrow, "King
privately described himself as a Marxist." In his 1981 book, "The FBI and
Martin Luther King, Jr.", Garrow quotes King as saying in SCLC staff
meetings, "...we have moved into a new era, which must be an era of
revolution.... The whole structure of American life must be changed.... We
are engaged in the class struggle."
Jewish Communist Stanley Levison can best be described as King's
behind-the-scenes "handler." Levison, who had for years been in charge of
the secret funnelling of Soviet funds to the Communist Party, USA, was
King's mentor and was actually the brains behind many of King's more
successful ploys. It was Levison who edited King's book, "Stride Toward
Freedom." It was Levison who arranged for a publisher. Levison even prepared
King's income tax returns! It was Levison who really controlled the
fund-raising and agitation activities of the SCLC. Levison wrote many of
King's speeches. King described Levison as one of his "closest friends."
FBI: King Bought Sex With SCLC Money
The Federal Bureau of Investigation had for many years been aware of Stanley
Levison's Communist activities. It was Levison's close association with King
that brought about the initial FBI interest in King.
Lest you be tempted to believe the controlled media's lie about "racists" in
the FBI being out to "get" King, you should be aware that the man most
responsible for the FBI's probe of King was Assistant Director William C.
Sullivan. Sullivan describes himself as a liberal, and says that initially
"I was one hundred per cent for King...because I saw him as an effective and
badly needed leader for the Black people in their desire for civil rights."
The probe of King not only confirmed their suspicions about King's Communist
beliefs and associations, but it also revealed King to be a despicable
hypocrite, an immoral degenerate, and a worthless charlatan.
According to Assistant Director Sullivan, who had direct access to the
surveillance files on King which are denied the American people, King had
embezzled or misapplied substantial amounts of money contributed to the
"civil rights" movement. King used SCLC funds to pay for liquor, and
numerous prostitutes both Black and White, who were brought to his hotel
rooms, often two at a time, for drunken sex parties which sometimes lasted
for several days. These types of activities were the norm for King's
speaking and organizing tours.
In fact, an outfit called The National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis,
Tennessee, which is putting on display the two bedrooms from the Lorraine
Motel where King stayed the night before he was shot, has declined to depict
in any way the "occupants - -of those rooms. That "according to exhibit
designer Gerard Eisterhold "would be "close to blasphemy." The reason? Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr. spent his last night on Earth having sex with two
women at the motel and physically beating and abusing a third.
Sullivan also stated that King had alienated the affections of numerous
married women. According to Sullivan, who in 30 years with the Bureau
hadï¿½seen everything there was to be seen of the seamy side of life, King was
one of only seven people he had ever encountered who was such a total
Noting the violence that almost invariably attended King's supposedly
"non-violent" marches, Sullivan's probe revealed a very different King from
the carefully crafted public image. King welcomed members of many different
Black groups as members of his SCLC, many of them advocates and
practitioners of violence. King's only admonition on the subject was that
they should embrace "tactical nonviolence."
Sullivan also relates an incident in which King met in a financial
conference with Communist Party representatives, not knowing that one of the
participants was an infiltrator actually working for the FBI.
J. Edgar Hoover personally saw to it that documented information on King's
Communist connections was provided to the President and to Congress. And
conclusive information from FBI files was also provided to major newspapers
and news wire services. But were the American people informed of King's real
nature? No, for even in the 1960s, the fix was in"the controlled media and
the bought politicians were bound and determined to push their racial mixing
program on America. King was their man and nothing was going to get in their
way. With a few minor exceptions, these facts have been kept from the
American people. The pro-King propaganda machine grinds on, and it is even
reported that a serious proposal has been made to add some of King's
writings as a new book in the Bible.
Ladies and gentlemen, the purpose of this radio program is far greater than
to prove to you the immorality and subversion of this man called King. I
want you to start to think for yourselves. I want you to consider this: What
are the forces and motivation behind the controlled media's active promotion
of King? What does it tell you about our politicians when you see them,
almost without exception, falling all over themselves to honor King as a
national hero? What does it tell you about our society when any public
criticism of this moral leper and Communist functionary is considered
grounds for dismissal? What does it tell you about the controlled media when
you see how they have successfully suppressed the truth and held out a
picture of King that can only be described as a colossal lie? You need to
think, my fellow Americans. You desperately need to wake up.
"Little known facts and overlooked history"
The Other Dr. King
Each year we hear of many well deserved tributes to Dr.
Martin Luther King Jr., who was one of the great Americans
of the 20th century. But if someone looked closely at the
records they would ask, if one only followed the media, did
Dr. King die in 1965 or in 1968? There seems to be a three-
year gap where the efforts of Dr. King are never discussed.
Why don't they ever mention what happened after 1965?
This is because the national media refuses to come to grips
with what Dr. King stood for in his final years. Soon after
the passage of the civil rights bills of 1964 and 1965, Dr.
King began to assert that the just recently passed laws were
meaningless without basic "human rights." Dr. King began to go
in another direction. He said that the right to a job, the
right to afford a decent home were the next stages of the
civil rights movement. He began to talk about a radical
redistribution of "political wealth and economic power."
What Dr. King was trying to do was move beyond the civil
rights movement and into the area of class perspective. He
understood that the majority of Americans below the poverty
line were white. Dr. King spoke out against the wide dis-
parity between the rich and the poor. "True compassion," said
Dr. King. "Is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it comes
to see an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring."
He began to question the war in Vietnam and the whole direct-
ion of American foreign policy. In his "Beyond Vietnam" speech
at Riverside Church on April 4, 1967, a year before he was
murdered, Dr. King described the United States as "the great-
est purveyor of violence in the world today." He said that we
were on the wrong side of the revolutions across the globe. Dr.
King argued that the U.S. was suppressing justified revolts
instead of helping them. King maintained that the West was
investing "huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America,
only to take the profits out with no concern for the social
betterment of the countries.
For this he was denounced by the national press. The Washing-
ton Post said that "King has diminished his usefulness to his
cause, his country, his people." The New York Times called it
"demagogic slander." The liberals, who had started the war in
Vietnam, attacked him as well. They were joined by academics
like John P. Roche of the Americans for Democratic Action who
commented to President Johnson that Dr. King's speech "indi-
cates that King, in desperate search for a constituency, has
thrown in with the commies...The civil rights movement is shot,
broke and disorganized and King who is inordinately ambitious
and quite stupid (a bad combination) is thus looking for a
Black columnist and CIA operative Carl Rowen said Dr. King
was "more interested in embarrassing the United States than
in the plight of either the Negro or the war weary people of
Vietnam." Other Johnson aids said civil disobedience was really
"criminal disobedience" and warned against the upcoming "Poor
Peoples March." The march would assemble "a multiracial army
of the poor" that would descend on Washington and use tactics
of nonviolent civil disobedience until Congress enacted a
"Poor People's" bill of rights. The Readers Digest labeled
it as an "insurrection."
Dr. King was asking for was a massive job program that would
rebuild American cities. He felt the need to confront a
Congress which had displayed its "hostility to the poor." He
said the Congress appropriated "military funds with alacrity
and generosity and poverty funds with miserliness." Unfortun-
ately that sounds as accurate today as in 1968. When people
speak about justice for the poor, they are said to be inviting
class warfare, when missile defense systems are made for no
other reason than to line the pockets of defense contractors,
that is called the public interest.
Maybe that is why they refuse to tell us about the last years
of Dr. King's life. Dr. King died in a labor struggle, fight-
ing so that garbage workers could earn a decent living, rather
than working forty hours a week and still qualify for food
stamps. This is the Dr. King that they never tell us about
in the mass media. Perhaps, that should be of no surprise
considering what little attention they pay to the plight of
millions of Americans and the hatred they have shown to
organized labor throughout the years. It's not that the press
lies, it's just that they never tell the truth.
Sources: Film, The FBI's War On Black America.
Film, The Assassination of Martin Luther King
David J. Garrow, The FBI and Martin Luther King Jr