PDA

View Full Version : Martin Luther King Jr.- Communist Fraud


nohope187
04-30-2005, 06:17 PM
"MARTIN LUTHER" KING, JR.
COMMUNIST FRAUD

By: Alan Stang
Let us now praise famous men – if we can. There are two reasons you don’t need to know anything about Mike (even his name is a fraud) King, to know that we should not be celebrating a holiday in his name. First, a respectable time needs to pass after a man dies, during which the facts will mature. After sober reflection has considered them, a national clamor will spontaneously call such an honor into being – it if is deserved.
To force such a holiday into law soon after a man dies, almost gasping in haste as in an emergency, using intimidation and threats, is unseemly to say the least; but that is how the present farce we uncelebrate was arranged. Need we add that this principle applies to any man, whatever his name, whatever his color.




The second reason proves ipso facto that the "Martin Luther" King holiday is a fraud. The only American who used to be so honored – the only one – was George Washington himself, the Father of our country, because sober reflection on the facts proved he deserved it.
Since then, George Washington has been demoted. Look at your calendar. His birthday has been submerged in "Presidents Day," with the result that the only American honored with a holiday all his own is Mike King. Even if you knew nothing about him before you started reading this, the obvious question should erupt from your monitor: Does this man – does any American – deserve to be honored above Washington?
Mike was said to be an apostle of Mohandas K. Gandhi’s non-violence. Many Americans at the time wondered why it was that, wherever King went, violence erupted. He explained it himself, in a piece he wrote for Saturday Review (April 3, 1965), in which he set forth the four steps of his technique.
"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."
Remember, this is not something we are accusing him of. Mike King wrote this himself. Notice that step two of his formulation calls for violence. The reason violence broke out wherever he went was that violence was what he went into the streets to get. His lieutenants would do things in the target city deliberately designed to drive normal human beings berserk.
What would you do if you looked out your bay window some glorious morning and saw someone peeing on your lawn? What would you do if you saw a couple there enjoying sex? What would you do if you were a mounted policeman and someone tried to disembowel your horse?
The Communist Broadcasting System, etc., would not record this, but it would broadcast graphic coverage of what you did when you went crazy, with the logical result that fair-minded people around the country believed you attacked the "nonviolent demonstrators exercising their constitutional rights" for no reason. This was a typical King "nonviolent" demonstration.
I participated in a modest effort to defuse some of this, as the only white member of a strike team that would travel to a targeted town and explain the scheme before Mike’s terrorists arrived to foment animosity. For instance, King chose Sandersville, Georgia as a target and Julia Brown and I went there to do what we could.
Mrs. Brown had served as an F.B.I. undercover agent for many years in Cleveland. (This was the original, American F.B.I., not today’s terrorist gang that commits mass murder of Americans and has merged with the Soviet KGB.) Julia and I worked together many times. She would delight in telling people I was her grandson, which raised some eyebrows among people too polite to ask how a black lady could have a grandson as white as Herman Talmadge.
When we arrived, Sandersville was simmering. King’s men had already provoked so much tension that it would have been dangerous to bring the black and white residents together to the same hall to hear us. So, we spoke to them on two consecutive evenings, one evening to the blacks, the other to the whites.
We told them what this man King was, which organizations and people he worked with and fronted for, how he did it and what his purpose was. We explained that he was trying to divide the races and foment violence in behalf of his bosses who had more contempt for Negroes, as people of color then were known, than the worst racist concocted by the perfervid imagination of Harriet Beecher Stowe
And, mirabile dictu, the tension dissipated. The people of Sandersville, Georgia, black and white, united in understanding who their true enemy was. King’s revolutionaries left. There was no riot. Later, Congressman Larry McDonald, the Georgia Democrat, invited Julia and me to testify against the proposed holiday for Mike. My beautiful "grandmother" and I flew together to the District of Criminals for the purpose. Julia testified that while she was a Party member, she "knew Martin Luther King to be closely connected with the Communist Party."
Mrs. Brown became a one-woman truth squad. When word arrived about the next town King planned to terrorize, she would go there first and talk to the townspeople of both races who were willing to listen. Mike’s scheme would fizzle. So effective was she at exposing what Mike really was, so discredited and ineffective did he become, I worried that his Communist bosses might have him killed. As a martyr, he would be much more valuable to them than he had become.
Wanting Mike to remain alive and ineffective, I warned my colleagues of my fear, hoping that sufficient publicity could neutralize the threat, but a few weeks later he was dead, killed by the usual "lone assassin." As usual, there was "no conspiracy." There never is. Waving a shirt he said was drenched with King’s blood (it wasn’t), Jesse Jackson, who said he cradled the dying King in his arms (he didn’t), launched a career selling "protection," that no doubt has turned Cosa Nostra black with envy.
So, what was "Martin Luther" King, Jr.? Please look at the piece I did a year ago on the subject, which you will find in the archives of etherzone.com. He was a Communist. For proof of this, look, for just one example, at my book, It’s Very Simple: The True Story of Civil Rights (Boston, Western Island, 1965), which sold half a million copies.
It’s Very Simple talks about Bayard Rustin, King’s sodomite "secretary," who spent his entire life in Communist Party activities, and who demanded that "more bloody Negro suffering should be encouraged so that squeamish Northern Negroes would be horrified into line. . . ." There was also a man named Hunter Pitts O’Dell, who ran King’s organization. O’Dell was a member of the national committee of the Communist Party. The media of the time kept exposing O’Dell and Mike kept pretending to fire him, but O’Dell later would turn up elsewhere in King’s apparatus.
But the thing that has always amused me is that, after the book was published, we learned much more about King’s Communist and other activities than we knew before. I had to write many magazine articles to catch up. For instance, when I wrote It’s Very Simple I did not yet know about Stanley Levison.
Suddenly, King started to make speeches about the war in Vietnam. Well meaning Americans scratched their heads. The war took him far afield from "civil rights," and his speeches sounded like enemy propaganda cooked up in Hanoi. The reason was that Stanley Levison was writing those speeches. So who was Stanley Levison?
Stanley was the paymaster in this country for the KGB, the Soviet secret police. The KGB would send Stanley the rubles to pay for all Soviet activities in the United States, and he would distribute the money. How high up in the Soviet apparatus would you have to be – how much would the KGB have to trust you – to get that job? Stanley Levison, of the KGB, financed Mike King and wrote his speeches.
I also did not yet know that "Dr." King was a consummate plagiarist, who stole enormous chunks of other people’s work. Anyone else doing that to such an extent would be summarily stripped of his doctorate, but "Dr." King is more than equal. (See George Orwell’s Animal Farm.) He also turns out to have been a world-class womanizer, maybe even surpassing his protector, Jack Kennedy. Remember that King was allegedly a preacher of the gospel.
The giveaway to all this is that even King’s admirers – unable to staunch the extrusion of treason and filth – reluctantly admit it. See for instance the work of Professor David J. Garrow, certainly a sympathetic King scholar. This is the record of the man our Communist leaders in the District of Criminals have even elevated above Washington.
I’ll be talking about King for the entire two hours on my radio show on Monday. Compare what I tell you to what every other host on the radio says. Simply go to my website, http://www.stangbooks.com/, click on Network Talk Radio and click on Listen. I also have a few copies of the first and second editions of the paperback It’s Very Simple available. They are "new," but remember that they are almost 40 years old and somewhat yellowed and faded. Call the North Hollywood American Opinion Bookstore, 800 470-8783.

from etherzone.com :-P

Ahmad
05-01-2005, 06:17 AM
All quotes from: Final Report of the select committe to study Governmental operations with respect to intelligence activities (United States Senate) (http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIIb.htm)


Doctor King Vs. Director Hoover !

It is a fact that the director of the FBI hated the person called Martin Luther King and completely demonized him.


The depth of Director Hoover's bitterness toward Dr. King, a bitterness which he had effectively communicated to his subordinates in the FBI, was apparent from the FBI's attempts to sully Dr. King's reputation long after his death.Plans were made to "brief" congressional leaders in 1969 to prevent the passage of a "Martin Luther King Day." In 1970, Director Hoover told reporters that Dr. King was the "last one in the world who should ever have received" the Nobel Peace Prize. 13

Mr. Hoover in his envy tried every thing possible to discredit the man, the best way was to associate him with the communist "terrorists" so as to demonize him, Satan's trick always is to attack the person and not the message, since the message cannot be attacked!

From December 1963 until his death in 1968, Martin Luther King, Jr. was the target of an intensive campaign by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to "neutralize" him as an effective civil rights leader. In the words of the man in charge of the FBI's "war" against Dr. King:


Dr. King replies.

The Director was quoted in the press as having testified that "'Communist influence does exist in the Negro movement' and can influence 'large masses' of people.'" 325 Dr. King immediately issued a forceful reply:It is very unfortunate that Mr. J. Edgar Hoover, in his claims of alleged communist infiltration in the civil rights movement, has allowed himself to aid and abet the salacious claims of southern racists and the extreme right-wing elements.We challenge all who raise the "red" issue, whether they be newspaper columnists or the head of the FBI himself -- to come forward and provide real evidence which contradicts this stand of the SCLC. We are confident that this cannot be done.We affirm that SCLC is unalterably opposed to the misguided philosophy of communist.It is difficult to accept the word of the FBI on communist infiltration in the civil rights movement, when they have been so completely ineffectual in resolving the continued mayhem and brutality inflicted upon the Negro in the deep south. It would be encouraging to us if Mr. Hoover and the FBI would be as diligent in apprehending those responsible for bombing churches and killing little children as they are in seeking out alleged communist infiltration in the civil rights movement. 326


Mr. Hoover doesn't stop!

The feud between Director Hoover and Dr. King heightened on November 18, 1964, with the Director's public allegation that Dr. King was the "most notorious liar" in the country.

The honorable King replies.

Some of Dr. King's advisers drafted a strong response, one of which would have "blown Hoover out of the water, calling him every name in the book." 332 Before they had an opportunity to release the statement, Dr. King, who was then in Bimini, issued the following public reply:I cannot conceive of Mr. Hoover making a statement like this without being under extreme pressure. He has apparently faltered under the awesome burden, complexities and responsibilities of his office.


--------------------------------------------------
Character assasination campaign.
One man against a whole army!

" Congressional leaders were warned "off the record" about alleged dangers posed by Reverend King. The FBI responded to Dr. King's receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize by attempting to undermine his reception by foreign heads of state and American ambassadors in the countries that be planned to visit. When Dr. King returned to the United States, steps were taken to reduce support for a huge banquet and a special "day" that were being planned in his honor."

"The FBI's program to destroy Dr. King as the leader of the civil rights movement entailed attempts to discredit him with churches, universities, and the press. Steps were taken to attempt to convince the National Council of Churches, the Baptist World Alliance, and leading Protestant ministers to halt financial support of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), and to persuade them that "Negro leaders should completely isolate King and remove him from the role he is now occupying in civil rights activities." 6 When the FBI learned that Dr. King intended to visit the Pope, an agent was dispatched to persuade Francis Cardinal Spellman to warn the Pope about "the likely embarrassment that may result to the Pope should he grant King an audience." 7 The FBI sought to influence universities to withhold honorary degrees from Dr. King. Attempts were made to prevent the publication of articles favorable to Dr. King and to find "friendly" news sources that would print unfavorable articles. The FBI offered to play for reporters tape recordings allegedly made from microphone surveillance of Dr. King's hotel rooms."

-------------------------------------------------

9 At the August 1963 March on Washington, Dr. King told the country of his dream that "all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, 'Free at last, free at last. Thank God almighty, I'm free at last."' 10 The FBI's Domestic Intelligence Division described this "demagogic speech" as yet more evidence that Dr. King was "the most dangerous and effective Negro leader in the country."


-------------------------------------------------
King was sincere, the final argument:

"The FBI now agrees that its efforts to discredit Dr. King were unjustified. The present Deputy Associate Director (Investigation) testified:

Mr. Adams. There were approximately twenty-five incidents of actions taken [to discredit Dr. King] ... I see no statutory basis or no basis of justification for the activity.

The CHAIRMAN. Was Dr. King, in his advocacy of equal rights for black citizens, advocating a course of action that in the opinion of the FBI constituted a crime?

Mr. ADAMS. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. He was preaching non-violence was he not, as a method of achieving equal rights for black citizens?

Mr. ADAMS. That's right ... Now as far as the activities which you are asking about, the discrediting, I know of no basis for that and I will not attempt to justify it. 15


In any event, the FBI has stated that at no time did it have any evidence that Dr. King himself was a communist or connected with the Communist Party. Dr. King repeatedly criticized Marxist philosophies in his writing and speeches. The present Deputy Associate Director of the FBI's Domestic Intelligence Division, when asked by the Committee if the FBI ever concluded that Dr. King was a communist, testified, "No, sir, we did not."

Allegations of communist influence on Dr. King's organization must not divert attention from the fact that, as the FBI now states, its activities were unjustified and improper. In light of the Bureau's remarks about Dr. King, its reactions to his criticisms, the viciousness of its campaign to destroy him, and its failure to take comparable measures against the Advisers that it believed were communists, it is highly questionable whether the FBI's stated motivation was valid. It was certainly not justification for continuing the investigation of Dr. King for over six years, or for carrying out the attempts to destroy him."


------------------------------------------------
Yes Martin luther King was a sincere person, just listen to his last speech. We should judge men by their beliefs and messages rather by what we hear others accusing them of!

Quotes of M.L.King:

A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.

Almost always, the creative dedicated minority has made the world better.

An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.

Before the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth, we were here. Before the pen of Jefferson etched across the pages of history the majestic words of the Declaration of Independence, we were here. If the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the opposition we now face will surely fail.

Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. And so we must straighten our backs and work for our freedom. A man can't ride you unless your back is bent.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree.

Everybody can be great... because anybody can serve. You don't have to have a college degree to serve. You don't have to make your subject and verb agree to serve. You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love.

Everything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see.


----------------------------------------------

Malcolm X and Martin Luther balanced each other, one called for violent resistence, the other called for peacefull demonstrations. Amazingly both died just before the age of forty (39years old), in the religion of God, "Submission" anybody who dies before 40 (the age of responsbility) goes directly to Heaven.

http://www.usn2161.net/mlkmlx.jpg

nohope187
05-01-2005, 03:43 PM
Hearsay? you jest! :-P
"MARTIN LUTHER" KING, JR.
PAGAN, PLAGIARIST, SEXUAL PREDATOR

By: Alan Stang
There are five important aspects of Michael King’s career: 1) the violence that always erupted in a King demonstration; 2) his Communist Party activities; 3) his plagiarism; 4) his sexual pathology; 5) his pagan beliefs. Last week, we touched on the first two of these. There were so many examples of the violence he went into the streets to get and the Communist Party officials he worked with and for, that all we could do was touch on them.
This week, let’s conclude our examination with a look at his plagiarism. After King was killed – which made a valuable martyr out of a man who had become a liability because he had been so well exposed – the professors went to work on his writings. Their motive was not to speak ill of the dead; they loved, admired, even revered King and wanted to give his writings the same treatment they would give any other "great" man’s. They were astounded and horrified, even shocked – shocked – to discover that their hero was a slovenly, semi-literate writer, who had plagiarized most of what he "wrote."
Plagiarism is the literary version of bank robbery. It is theft; it is stealing. That is why the federal government rightly guarantees copyright in this country. A literary work is a property just as much as a piece of real estate is, and a copyright does the same thing a land title does. That is why moviemakers pay millions for the right to film best-selling books. But Mike King plagiarized as prolifically as the young Stalin robbed banks.
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 Michael King. No doubt that was why he did not call what King had done plagiarism, and his index calls the incident "ghostwriting." No. 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.
According to an anonymous timeline that came to me over the transom via the Internet, 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 has since 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.
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." Jon, how long was your nose after you said all that?
Claiborne Carson was director of the Project. He denied all charges until 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.
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. He would be stripped of his degree.
Gerry Harbison was a professor of chemistry at the University of Nebraska. He is certainly not a "right-wing wacko." He is 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 he became a liability. The "Martin Luther King" we were told about did not exist. Remember that we are talking about a man who has been honored above Washington.
Now let’s look at Mike King’s Christianity. Mike was a "Reverend." He had a "doctorate" in theology. Christianity, we are told, was the inspiration for everything he did. What did he believe?
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 . . . ." 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, 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. . . ." 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? Remember, this is the man who now is honored above Washington.
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 Fiddle and Faddle in the White House. We’re talking about a genuine sexual psychopath. How do we know this? 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.
Mary Starrett was a television anchor for 21 years and has had her own talk show. In her column she writes about "a naked Dr. King running down the hallway of a Norwegian hotel chasing a woman during his trip to accept the Nobel Prize." In a story in the Atlanta Journal, dated March 31, 1965, Republican Congressman William Dickinson was quoted as saying that "all night sessions of debauchery" 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.
Mary Starrett writes as follows: "According to one source, there are over 60,000 censored pages. While a small amount of this material has been released under the Freedom of Information Act, the rest has been labeled ‘Obscene.’ King’s own son has expressed the belief 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."
At the request of Mrs. King, a court has 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 revolution has triumphed.
As Mary puts it: "You’ve been had."

nohope187
05-01-2005, 04:08 PM
:-P MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.
TRAITOR

By: Alan Stang
It’s that time of the year again. As this issue of these weekly diatribes goes to press, the nation is preparing to honor by means of a national paid holiday the only other man who enjoys the same status as Washington. The Martin Luther King holiday smelled as bad as the Bush Administration from the beginning because of the unseemly haste with which it was rammed through the Congress.
It doesn’t matter who is being nominated for a national holiday. Enough time should pass for the nation to know everything it can about the candidate, enough time for a new generation that didn’t know him personally to decide whether he embodies the qualities that make our nation great. Should that be the case, the argument to ennoble him would become as spontaneous as anything can be in politics, and would spring from every quarter of society.


Instead, the billionaire totalitarian socialist conspirators who rule us waited only a few years after King was assassinated in Memphis to impose the preposterous holiday in his name. They did so by means of the usual brainwashing campaign, in which the preeminent weapon was the putrid guilt that has brought the white man and the nation to their knees.
So intense was that campaign, so intense does it remain, that Martin Luther King has been turned into something of an archangel, a man whose very name is sacrosanct. Notice that some "conservative" commentators have ventured to expose other "civil rights" charlatans. In recent years, the concatenation of obfuscation that shields the "Reverend" Jackson from inculpation has been dissipating; the parasite who launched his endless shakedowns with the lie that the bloody shirt he waved in Chicago was the one he had worn when he cradled the dying King in his arms, now stands exposed as a pillar of slime. But the reputation of "Dr." King remains intact. Those same "conservative" commentators go all dreamy at the mere mention of his name. Meanwhile, Gore Vidal, a lifelong butt hopper himself, can write with impunity that Washington and Alexander Hamilton were an item.
After a while, the truth comes out. At first, the defenders of Roosevelt vehemently denied that he planned Pearl Harbor. Now that the proof he did stands as tall as Annapurna, they argue that he did it in order to save the country. When Jack Kennedy entertained Fiddle and Faddle in your White House, and hit on any good-looking woman who came within range, the Prostitute National Press knew it, but said nothing. Today, newly befouled by the still extruding sewage of the man who made Oval Office oral sex a national policy, they chuckle about it.
And the same media prostitutes in the pay of the totalitarians now admit and gloss over the incredible sins and crimes King committed, things they should have told us about when the nation was considering the farcical holiday in his name. Even those of King’s supporters who feign objectivity now shake their heads in wonderment that their hero could have done what he did.
What do we know about the "Rev. Dr." Martin Luther King, Jr.? What did the Prostitute National Press conceal? Remember that the media hookers made him the nation’s leading "apostle of nonviolence." But there is a photograph of King listening intently in attendance at a Communist training school in Tennessee, sitting beside Communist Aubrey Williams, chairman of the Southern Conference Educational Fund, a Communist front that financed him.
In front of "Dr." King, close enough to touch, is a gentleman named Abner W. Berry, who just happened to be a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. The photograph is genuine and used to appear on billboards throughout the South. As Communists, these people of course believed in the violent overthrow of the United States government.
King was president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Fred Shuttlesworth was vice president. Fred was also president of the Southern Conference Educational Fund, another Communist outfit, whose field director, Carl Braden, a Communist terrorist, had been convicted of bombing a house in Louisville. Carl’s wife, Anne, was also a member of the Communist Party. In a letter to Anne dated October 7, 1959, Martin Luther King urged her and her husband Carl to become permanently affiliated with King’s SCLC. By then, again, they had become notorious as violent Communists.
Indeed, it is not an exaggeration to say that King’s closest associates in his quest for "nonviolence" were people high up in the violent Communist apparatus. His "secretary" was Bayard Rustin, who spent a lifetime up to his eyeballs in Communist activities. James Dombrowski was another Communist who helped finance King.
There was Hunter Pitts O’Dell, who replaced Bayard Rustin as the man who ran King’s organization, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Hunter Pitts O’Dell was a member of the National Committee of the Communist Party. There wasn’t any mystery about this. Local newspapers exposed him; so, King pretended to fire him, which proved that he knew who and what O’Dell was, except that after King "fired" him O’Dell wound up running another part of King’s apparatus.
Many observers wondered at the time why King’s "nonviolent" demonstrations always turned violent. The answer is that in deference to his Communist bosses, King went into the streets to provoke violence. Violence was the very thing he wanted. You say this would be hard to prove? Yes, it would, had not King said it himself. In the first week of April, 1965, Martin Luther King wrote an article for Saturday Review, in which he explained his four-step program of "nonviolence."
In step one, "nonviolent" demonstrators enter the streets. In step two, "racist" reactionaries attack them. Step three has a wave of sympathy for the "innocent" demonstrators sweep the country. And step four has Congress, under intense pressure, passing the particular legislation King was pushing at the time. Notice again that violence was precisely what King went into the streets to get. Without violence, his "nonviolent" demonstrations would have been pointless.
Why did "racists" attack King’s troops? Because the King’s men had attacked them, in a professional, highly trained campaign of atrocities the prostitute media did not report, a campaign designed to drive normal human beings berserk, including attacks on police horses and urination on the lawn. I saw a version of this myself at the Democrat National Convention in Chicago in 1968, where the Communists attacked the police.
Finally, there was Stanley Levison. Remember that the treasonous war in Vietnam was then in progress. Many observers wondered why King’s speeches at the time increasingly advocated the Communist Party line. What did the war in Vietnam have to do with "civil rights" here at home? The answer is that Martin Luther King was a truly great speaker, but Stanley Levison was the man who wrote his speeches.
Who was Stanley Levison? He was the paymaster in the United States for the Soviet KGB. That’s right, Stanley was so trusted a Communist that the KGB itself, the Soviet secret police, sent umpteen thousands of rubles to him for distribution to the underground Communist apparatus in this country. And Stanley in turn financed and wrote speeches for Martin Luther King, which presumably means King was part of that secret Soviet apparatus.
At the time, the Soviet Union was our formal enemy, to protect ourselves from which we spent hundreds of billions of dollars a year on our military. The Soviets were making war on us in Vietnam. What do you call a man who gives aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States, especially in time of war?
Julia Brown was an undercover agent for the FBI. She and your Intrepid Correspondent were great friends and she stayed in our home. Julia used to have great fun telling people she was my grandmother, which caused some confusion because Julia was black and I couldn’t jump (but I did have a natural sense of rhythm).
Again and again on the lecture platform, Julia told audiences that Martin Luther King "was the hero of America’s Communists. The cells that I was associated with in Cleveland were continually being asked to raise money for Martin Luther King’s activities." She testified before a congressional subcommittee that while she was a Party member, she "knew Martin Luther King to be closely connected with the Communist Party."
Eventually, Julia became a one-woman truth squad. She would get King’s itinerary and speak in towns he had scheduled for racial turmoil, with the result that when King’s troops arrived to agitate the races, the people, now informed, turned them away. One such town was Sandersville, Georgia. My "grandmother" and I spoke there together. By then, the people were so inflamed we had to speak to the whites one night and the blacks another. It would have been dangerous to seat them in the same hall. Apparently it worked, because when the King’s men arrived to foment racial discord, the people, black and white, now aware of who and what King really was, ignored them. Toward the end, King had to cancel appearances.
This is only part of the record of a man a brainwashed nation is now forced to honor as it honors George Washington. Some of it appears in my first book, It’s Very Simple: The True Story of Civil Rights (Boston, Western Islands, 1965), which sold half a million copies. Much of it came out after the book was published. King’s name is still used to perpetuate and perpetrate the scam.
I don’t have room to do more than mention that the "Rev." King was a world-class philanderer, whose utterly unbiblical sexual exploits rival Clinton’s and Kennedy’s; he was also a shameless plagiarist in divinity school, which is the reason that throughout this diatribe I have put the word "Dr." in italics.

Nice try Ahmad, but not good enough. :-P

Ahmad
05-02-2005, 05:53 AM
Thank you very much, this part made my day!

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)

And also this part,

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. . . ." According to King, the apostles made it all up because they loved Him so much.


I was sure of these facts even without reading this about him!

Unfortunately for this Stang guy, he obviously doesn't touch the message of ML.King, why not? this tells me enough about this guy. When you can't debate the message, you attack the person.

I want to ask you just one question Nohope, have you ever listened or read any speech for Martin Luther King, the man you are attacking?

nohope187
05-02-2005, 09:48 AM
MLK jr. was just as fake as all the popes of Rome. Yeah, sure you remember his "I have a dream" speech, but that was just a ruse to hide the skeletons in the closet. Believe as you wish, Ahmad. Obviously I'm not changing your mind anytime soon.

Mynda_Peace
05-02-2005, 08:09 PM
Almost every leader, whether civil or government affilated, got enough bones to fill a graveyard.

Was Alan Stang your one-stop resource on the dark side of MLK? The fact that he was funded by communism is not new to me, but please provide more independent, unbiased sources on this issue. Change my mind.

What provoked you to start a thread on the transgressions of MLK, especially since the "holiday" is well over?

We all need to remember that these communist bastards are working towards a corrupt, unethical agenda. They will use the KKK, NAACP and similar groups against each other by funding all to fuel the racial wars. You can't hate your brother and love Jesus too...

Don't hate MLK, hate the games the communists are playing with our lives.

No man is without sin, no, not ONE. MLK had too many quotes and speeches for me to believe he was a PLAGIARIST! Some of his quotes have as much power today as they did 40 years ago, especially about war.

Mynda

nohope187
05-03-2005, 01:04 PM
just because you turn a blind eye to history, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Draken
05-03-2005, 02:16 PM
I support nohope on this one.

I'm not willing to take the good with the bad. We can't accept the least evil leader because he/she is still evil.
Meaning, that I don't care if MLK held a lot of good, nice, well intended speeches, because what matters in the end is a man's actions, not words. So if he held a nice graduation speech and made everyone cry and bond with eachother in spiritual, universal understanding and think of the Greater Good For Humanity, but after the speech went to a meeting with his Communist comrades, then that effectively cancels out his "good intentions" and in fact counters them, and the result of that is HYPOCRICY.
We all know the Communist modus operandi.

Almost every leader, whether civil or government affilated, got enough bones to fill a graveyard.

That seems to include MLK.

Don't hate MLK, hate the games the communists are playing with our lives.

No man is without sin, no, not ONE.

But let's call an apple an apple and NOT orange, please, because an apple in NOT an orange, it's an apple.

Mynda_Peace
05-03-2005, 11:59 PM
If I turned a blind eye to history, I wouldn't be participating on this site...but you've turned a blind eye to the questions I've asked you.

NH, I'll ask you again...

"Was Alan Stang your one-stop resource on the dark side of MLK?" The FACT that he was funded by COMMUNISM is not new to me...but provoking racial tension is. PLEASE provide more independent, unbiased sources on this issue. I'll be listening, change my mind.

What provoked you to start a thread on the transgressions of MLK, especially since the "holiday" is well over?

MLK wasn't a saint by any means, and JFK had serious bones in the closet. Yet I consider him the last genuine American president. God will reserve proper judgement for both.

Draken,

The lesser of two evils is still evil. Words can be just as profound as anyone's actions, do you read poetry? There is some good in all of us-life is all about choices and what you make of it. God can turn evil intentions into a blessing in disguise.

You cannot hate your brother and love Jesus too.

Mynda

truebeliever
05-04-2005, 03:57 AM
Wow, i sorta agree with everyone here.

His life is wide open for distortion, especially by Hoover who I believe was wearing womens panties at the time.

I've NO doubt their was a huge Communist infiltration of his movement.

But in many ways I agree with Drak... i'm sick of people who talk the talk but fail to walk the walk. If he'd come out openly and stated that his bad habits were wrong and he seeked forgiveness...then there's a great man...

True, there have been many people who contribute so much but who's private life is a mess...but...

On that note...I believe my little hero comes closest...Nicola Tesla - great inventor, lover of the people, truth teller...

Theres also another guy who alledgedly lived and alledgedly was killed and was alledgedly without sin but certain people are working on his reputation and have been for a long time.

Draken
05-04-2005, 04:14 AM
Mynda!

Pointing out a politician's affiliations is not hate.

Action speaks louder than words. Have you ever heard that saying?

I don't need to hear my girlfriend or mother or father say to me "I love you" because I see and feel in their actions that they love me.
Conversely, it doesn't matter how much they say they love me, if I don't see and feel it in their actions.

A person can stay silent all his life and still do good deeds every day, but a person who says a lot of good things and never acts on what he says - who doesn't practice what he preeches - is a hypocrite.

You talk of Jesus, Mynda: have you read and understood what he taught?

21:28 “What do you think? A man had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ 21:29 The boy answered, ‘I will not.’ But later he had a change of heart and went. 21:30 The father went to the other son and said the same thing. This boy answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but did not go. 21:31 Which of the two did his father’s will?” They [the priests] said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, tax collectors and prostitutes will go ahead of you into the kingdom of God! 21:32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him. But the tax collectors and prostitutes believed him. Although you saw this, you did not later change your minds and believe him.” — <a href="http://www.bible.org/netbible/">NET Bible</a>

Draken
05-04-2005, 04:19 AM
truebeliever wrote:
Theres also another guy who alledgedly lived and alledgedly was killed and was alledgedly without sin but certain people are working on his reputation and have been for a long time.

Well, isn't that a coincidence that I just quoted that mysterious man about the same time you were writing your last post, true? :lol:

Mynda_Peace
05-04-2005, 07:06 PM
"I don't need to hear my girlfriend or mother or father say to me "I love you" because I see and feel in their actions that they love me.
Conversely, it doesn't matter how much they say they love me, if I don't see and feel it in their actions."

21:28 “What do you think? A man had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ 21:29 The boy answered, ‘I will not.’ But later he had a change of heart and went. 21:30 The father went to the other son and said the same thing. This boy answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but did not go. 21:31 Which of the two did his father’s will?” They [the priests] said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, tax collectors and prostitutes will go ahead of you into the kingdom of God! 21:32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him. But the tax collectors and prostitutes believed him. Although you saw this, you did not later change your minds and believe him.”

Drake,

I am not the enemy here. I wanted to know if the provoked racial wars story was credible, and I'm supposed to just faithfully believe? I have every right to question the source of information, Mr. Stang has no 'works cited' page on his web site to verify credibility, yet...

NO ONE who has actively posted to this thread has answered my questions concerning MLK.

NO ONE has made an effort to change my mind, only to comment on mutual agreement on the issue.

"Theres also another guy who alledgedly lived and alledgedly was killed and was alledgedly without sin but certain people are working on his reputation and have been for a long time."

I am not here to place MLK on a platform. Every human has some good qualities along with the bad. We all know he had communist ties, so enough on that already. Hate the game the communists are playing.

I will inquire for the last time:

"Was Alan Stang the one-stop resource on the dark side of MLK? The FACT that he was funded by COMMUNISM is not new to me...but provoking racial tension is. PLEASE provide more independent, unbiased sources on this issue."

Any references or replies are welcome.

:-D

Mynda

truebeliever
05-04-2005, 07:59 PM
My reply about Christ was just to show that no one is above a smear campaign.

I believe MLK was sincere.

We would'nt need revoloution or upheavel and Adam Weisenhaupt and Co would'nt need the Illuminati if the conservative establishment treated the people above the level of cattle.

My other comments were purely my frustration for the excuse i hear often about "great men" that it's almost a given that they must be complete tossers in their private lives.

Come on NOHOPE...get up some diverse references hippy.

Draken
05-05-2005, 04:23 AM
Mynda_Peace wrote:
MLK wasn't a saint by any means, and JFK had serious bones in the closet. Yet I consider him the last genuine American president. God will reserve proper judgement for both.

Draken,

The lesser of two evils is still evil. Words can be just as profound as anyone's actions, do you read poetry?

You cannot hate your brother and love Jesus too.

Mynda

I know you're not the enemy, Mynda! I wasn't attacking you, I was questioning what I quote you said in regards to actions v. words. I think you're wrong if you think that words have the same weight as actions. Evil manifests in the ACTIONS of Man, not the WORDS of Man. Words are but a symbol for the real thing.

That's all.

Also, you say you consider JFK to be the last genuine American president. What do you mean "genuine"? He has been "saintified" because he was ritually killed by the Cryptocracy, yet he was a sex addict, drug addict, worked closely with the Italian Mafia - they helped him rig the election in 62 - and belonged to the Illuminati (Kennedy clan).

Check out the list of <a href="http://www.geocities.com/~newgeneration/institut.htm">JFK "interests" and legacy</a>, among others, but the warning signals are these:

<a href="http://www.peacecorps.gov/">United States Peace Corps</a> (Created in the President's first 100 days.)

"The Peace Corps traces its roots and mission to 1960, when then-Senator John F. Kennedy challenged students at the University of Michigan to serve their country in the cause of peace by living and working in developing countries. From that inspiration grew an agency of the federal government devoted to world peace and friendship.

Since that time, more than 178,000 Peace Corps Volunteers have been invited by 138 host countries to work on issues ranging from AIDS education, information technology, and environmental preservation.

Today's Peace Corps is more vital than ever, stepping into new countries like East Timor, working in emerging and essential areas such as information technology and business development, and committing more than 1,000 new Volunteers as a part of President Bush's HIV/AIDS Act of 2003. Peace Corps Volunteers continue to help countless individuals who want to build a better life for themselves, their children, and their communities."

<a href="http://www.wto.org/">World Trade Organization (GATT)</a> (JFK strongly supported GATT.) Check out <a href="http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=105&row=1">Greg Palast's writings on GATT, WTO, IMF</a> and their "benefits".

<a href="http://www.acda.gov/">Arms Control and Disarmament Agency</a> (Established by Pres. Kennedy in September 1961.)

<a href="http://users.aol.com/armysof1/JFKSWC.html">John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School</a> (The Green Berets were started by Pres. Kennedy.)

Like I said, among others.

So my opinion of JFK is that he might have been the last "genuine American" president, if that means corruption, subversion, infiltration, economic and covert warfare, gathering world resources into the hands of the power elite.
Sharing a lot of relatively good qualities with MLK, he might've been the least evil of all American presidents but then America hasn't really had a genuine free choice for some time, now has it?

So then; back to Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.

<a href="http://www.greaterthings.com/Editorial/MartinLuther.htm">Martin Luther King's Communist Connections</a>

August 12, 1993

Dear Editor,

Salt Lake City council's announcement that they are renaming the main boulevard, 600 South, after Martin Luther King (Daily Herald, 8/11/93, p. B-3) is yet one more example of the dangerous trend to make a hero out of one of America's most vociferous traitors.

I am not expressing opinion; but fact; based on documented evidence that Martin Luther King was vigorously promoted by the Soviet-financed CPUSA (Communist Party of the USA) in order to foment a violent polarization of Americans along racial lines (divide and conquer). The subsequent raising of Martin Luther to ever more elevated hero status is only a follow-up of that initial motive. (I do not intend to address the lie that Communism is "dead," other than to merely note that this particular case is yet one more evidence that the subversion of our beloved country is ongoing and alarmingly successful.)

Here is a sample of the documented evidence of which I speak. I am referring to an essay by Evans-Raymond Pierre, a native black of New York City who earned a degree in political science and history at the University of Vermont. In it he quotes from a member (FBI plant) of the CPUSA who testified before a Senate Judiciary Committee in 1979 that "the [communist] cells that I was associated with in Cleveland were continually being asked to raise money for Martin Luther King's activities and to support his movement.... While I was in the Communist Party, as a loyal American Negro, I knew Martin Luther King to be closely connected with the Communist Party...."

Another example of M.L. King's Communist support and ties documented by Pierre was his close association with Stanley David Levison, who "assisted King in organization matters and political strategy, wrote some of his speeches, and advised in hiring personnel to staff King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference." At the time, Levison was "knowingly being used as a conduit for the Soviet funds" to the CPUSA, and also "assisted in managing the secret party coffers."

'Yet one more example of calling evil, good. Let's see if we can't convince the city council to reverse this decision.

Anyone desiring to peruse further evidence of M.L. King's close connections with the CPUSA is invited to request free (if you order within a month) reprints of Pierre's essay from The New American, P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI 54913. (January 13, 1986.)

Sincerely,

Sterling D. Allan, Fountain Green, UT
and Brian Gibson, Provo, Utah

-------------------------
-------------------------

<a href="http://crimemagazine.com/Assassinations/who.htm">Who Shot Martin Luther King? by J. J. Maloney</a>

-------------------------
-------------------------

I have to point out that I consider Joel Skousen and World Affairs Brief to be a very competent and well-informed analyst of global affairs.

<a href="http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com/keytopics/MLK.shtml">Government Cover-ups: Martin Luther King Jr.
From the World Affairs Brief</a>:

Martin Luther King was another public figure that was assassinated for the martyr effect. As the evidence below shows, the evidence of King's corruption, womanizing and Communist sympathies, we was becoming more a liability to the Civil Rights agenda than an asset. It was only a matter of time before King's reputation would self-destruct. By engineering his death and blaming it on a supposed racist, the Powers That Be could turn MLK into a hero. With the assistance of controlled judges, they could have his records sealed and make sure the public would not have access to the real Martin Luther King.



MARTIN LUTHER KING--THE MAN BEHIND THE MEDIA MASK

Every year America endures the same propaganda media-blitz on Martin Luther King day--the false portrayal of the “Reverend” King as an American hero; a saintly, self-sacrificing religious martyr for the cause of civil rights. He was everything but that and certainly no hero that any American should look up to. I have written extensively about the defense of true civil rights, no one can accuse me of hating the cause. I say this be way of introduction in anticipation of the fury my remarks will generate among the media attempting to perpetrate this growing myth upon American culture. Everything about Martin Luther King is a fraud. Here are the real facts.



1) NAME CHANGE: MLK is really Michael King, Jr. His father was a minister and arbitrarily decided to rename himself and his son, Martin Luther King Sr. and Jr.



2) PLAGIARISM IN HIS DOCTORAL THESIS: The most complete analysis of King’s chronic plagiarism in his academic career was done by Gerry Harbison, professor of Chemistry at University of Nebraska: “In 1988, the Martin Luther King Jr. Papers Project made a discovery that shocked it to its core. The Project, a group of academics and students, had been entrusted by Coretta Scott King with the task of editing King's papers for publication. As they examined King's student essays and his dissertation, they gradually became aware that King was guilty of massive plagiarism - that is, he had copied the words of other authors word-for-word, without making it clear that what he was writing was not his own. The Project spent years uncovering the full extent of King's plagiarism. In November 1990, word leaked to the press, and they had to go public. The revelations caused a minor scandal and then were promptly forgotten.” Suppressed would be a more accurate description. The National Endowment for the Humanities actively suppressed the story in preparation for celebrating King. Its then director was Lynne Cheney, wife of the current Vice President. For the full story see Prof. Harbison’s website: http://chem-gharbison.unl.edu/mlk/plagiarism.html



3) COMMUNIST BACKGROUND AND CONTACTS: It appears that King established an early liaison with the American Communist Party and sought to create civil unrest in support of the revolution. His own biographer, David J. Garrow admitted that king once privately “described himself as a Marxist.” King constantly surrounded himself with Communists, hired them, and even went to great lengths to keep them on through secret relationships. King’s personal secretary in the 1950s was communist and homosexual Bayard Rustin. According to Sen. Jesse Helms, “King was repeatedly warned about his associations with known Communists by friendly elements in the Kennedy Administration and the Department of Justice [DOJ] (including strong and explicit warning from President Kennedy himself). King took perfunctory and deceptive measures to separate himself from the Communists [Stanley David Levison and Hunter Pitts O’Dell ] against whom he was warned. He continued to have close and secret contacts with at least some of them after being informed and warned of their background, and he violated a commitment to sever his relationships with identified Communists.”



4) IMMORAL AND ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR: Dr. King had an ample reputation as a philanderer and abuser of women of ill repute. The FBI under J. Edgar Hoover had run surveillance on King and his entourage for years attempting to gather data on his Communist connections. While the Bureau did surveill King’s attendance at Communist meetings, but most of the surveillance records show an extreme preoccupation after hours with illicit sex. In deference to King’s usefulness in promoting a national holiday for civil rights, US Federal judge John Lewis Smith, Jr. ordered all the FBI records sealed up in the National Archives for 50 years (till 2027). When I was Executive Editor of Conservative Digest, I called retired Acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray and asked him what was in the evidence locked away. His answer surprised me. He said there were approximately 15 file cabinets of evidence on King--14 of them were full of recordings and transcripts of his illicit relationships with prostitutes. Only one file cabinet contained evidence of his Communist relationships.



Even former co-workers have blown the whistle on King’s scurrilous conduct. The Rev. Ralph Abernathy, in his book, And the Wall Came Tumbling Down, King spent his last night in the motel having an immoral liason with three women and then beat one of the woman in the morning before he was shot. Assistant Director of the FBI Charles D. Brennan wrote a letter to Sen. John P. East (R-NC) in which he stated that King's conduct consisted of "orgiastic and adulterous escapades, some of which indicated that King could be bestial in his sexual abuse of women." The FBI surveillance records covering his first night in Stockholm, Sweden, where he was to receive the Noble Peace Prize, document that his only interest was how to secure prostitutes for he and his entourage. An orgy followed. King’s surveillance and wiretaps were personally authorized by then Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy. If these allegations are true, this man should never have been put forward as a national hero. Yes, I am aware that other national heroes have had there weaknesses, but King’s conduct borders on a Clinton-like sexual addiction.

--------------------
--------------------

Excerpt from <a href="http://www.martinlutherking.org/thebeast.html">The Beast as Saint:
The Truth About "Martin Luther King, Jr."

by Kevin Alfred Strom</a>


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. ("King's Plagiarism: Imitation, Insecurity and Transformation," The Journal of American History, June 1991, p. 87)

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 somewhat remarkable...."

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 name.

--------------------
--------------------

And in conclusion, once again, Michael A. Hoffman II, another researcher I consider very intelligent and knowledgable.

<a href="http://www.revisionisthistory.org/revisionist9.html">Michael A. Hoffman II on MLK in passing</a>:

"It was Bonzo [Ronald Reagan] who made Martin Luther King's birthday a national holiday, while privately admitting to his associates that he knew King was a Marxist and an adulterer."

Ahmad
05-05-2005, 08:05 AM
John 8

5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

11 "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

---------------------------------------------------
Peace,

Do you know why Jesus didn't condemn her? because he knew that the people are not interested in straightening her or the society but their only aim was to humiliate the sinner!

Is any of you free of sin? is Jesus himself infallible?

God is the Most Merciful, as for us the human beings we are mean, we like to see people humiliated and destroyed! how many people were destroyed because of a past they regret? what if a prostitute lived a life of sin, yet oneday she conquered her devils and became a righteous person? why do you people like to condemn and erase others from the world because of some sins they did?

Whatever sins we do, God if the Forgiver, He knows who is sinning while in a continous struggle to control himself and who is willingly sinning. God forgives those who haven't surrendered yet to their devils.

As for Martin, i see all these people who are condemning him wronging their own souls, they focus on anything but his MESSAGE, why?

Maybe they can't see it!

Afterall why don't you give him the benefit of doubt! what if he was connecting different parts of truth (which belongs to God alone, the truth has no copyrights) and came up with a brilliant paper that earned him a Ph.d!, have you read the paper for yourself to say it's worthless? have you listened to the alleged tapes of his misconduct? and overall have you ever bothered to check his MESSAGE?

How sorry is the people's condition!!

-------------------------------------------
http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIIb.htm
In any event, the FBI has stated that at no time did it have any evidence that Dr. King himself was a communist or connected with the Communist Party. Dr. King repeatedly criticized Marxist philosophies in his writing and speeches. The present Deputy Associate Director of the FBI's Domestic Intelligence Division, when asked by the Committee if the FBI ever concluded that Dr. King was a communist, testified, "No, sir, we did not."

Allegations of communist influence on Dr. King's organization must not divert attention from the fact that, as the FBI now states, its activities were unjustified and improper. In light of the Bureau's remarks about Dr. King, its reactions to his criticisms, the viciousness of its campaign to destroy him, and its failure to take comparable measures against the Advisers that it believed were communists, it is highly questionable whether the FBI's stated motivation was valid. It was certainly not justification for continuing the investigation of Dr. King for over six years, or for carrying out the attempts to destroy him."

truebeliever
05-05-2005, 10:28 AM
Just on that note Ahmed..."was Christ infallible"?

Well yes...thats the point of him.

There's enough around to say that King was a Pole Cat extraordinaire...

My little hero Carl Jung was also a great man. A man who was an adulter, ethically dispicable at times and probing more than his mind in certain places.

They both should have had the guts to admit their foibles. King never had the chance apparently and Jung was just too full of himself whether sincere truth seeker or not.

Thats why in the end i ended back with Christ. So far he seems the only "idol" i can rely on not to let me down...of course people are working on that.

I dont mean you Ahmed. Your reasons for doubting Christ are at least sincere.

nohope187
05-05-2005, 03:37 PM
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 plastic god.

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 King" had 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 of
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 somewhat remarkable...."

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 name.

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, 1964.

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 known.

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 1964 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 White
Americans.

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 Committee.

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 hadáseen 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 degenerate.

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.


to all doubting Thomas's, I have more on the way. :-P

Draken
05-05-2005, 04:06 PM
Hi Ahmad and welcome back!;-)

Afterall why don't you give him the benefit of doubt!

You mean MLK.

There is no doubt and therefore I can't give the benefit of it to him: he was a useful idiot at best, or a knowing Communist at worst.

Communists are siding with Satan, knowingly or not.

I don't know of anyone who reached God through Communism. In my book it's impossible since Communism is anti-God and anti-religion.

Like I and many others have said before: I don't judge. But please, let me call an apple an apple and don't make me say it's an orange because then you would force me to lie.

Among the modus operandi of Marxist-Leninists is to LIE IF IT SUITS THEIR AGENDA.

nohope187
05-05-2005, 04:12 PM
I have a dream - but if you strip-search me you'll find three more.
Plagiarism and the Culture War: The Writings of Martin Luther King Jr. and Other Prominent Americans
Theodore Pappas
(Hallberg, 1998)
Reviewed By Gavan Tredoux
The news has been out since the late 1980s that Martin Luther King Jr., the American Civil Rights icon, was a serial plagiarist. Not only did he plagiarize at least half of his doctoral thesis; many of his speeches, including the most famous, were plagiarized too. Nor was this a recent development in his career - he had been plagiarizing material since he was a teenager.
This is a fascinating story. There is the delicious irony that Luther King Jr. has been universally feted and embalmed with saintly oils. More interesting still, the story has been suppressed. Most Americans have not heard about the plagiarism and perhaps never will. The editors of his papers did their utmost to prevent the story from spreading. Boston University delayed, denied and obfuscated as long as possible -- and then some. The press, including the major newsmagazines, quashed coverage until the story had emerged elsewhere, and then buried it in the inside pages, entombing it in layers of qualification, special pleading and distraction. Now that the plagiarism has become incontestable, many academics continue to cover for the plagiarist, insisting that he was merely being an African American!
Pappas struggled for years to find a publisher and effective distribution for his own groundbreaking account of all this. Despite that, the first printing sold out. Now he has completely revised and expanded the first edition, but don't expect a bookstore in your area to carry it. Instead, point your web browser at amazon.com or the Internet retailer of your choice, and have it delivered.
Pappas has no trouble establishing the principal case against Luther King Jr., since a few lengthy excerpts from his doctoral thesis and an uncannily similar work at the same college, by the deliciously-named Jack Boozer, more than suffices. Luther King Jr. copied vast tracts of text from Boozer, even repeating citation errors in the original. It is especially poignant that this was work conducted in divinity.
The author fails to do justice to the astounding coincidence that these theses shared an examiner. This may explain part of the obvious embarrassment felt by Boston University, who are forced to choose between explanations ranging from incompetence to conspiracy to commit fraud. This may provide satisfaction to those who have long suspected that nobody really reads doctoral theses anyway, least of all the examiners, and certainly not in the theology faculties.
The plagiarism did not begin or end with the doctoral thesis, so much so that the Collected Papers of Luther King Jr. apparently devotes at least as much time to "uncited sources" as it does to his own work, if that is the correct description. Even the much celebrated "I have a dream" speech of 1963 was plagiarized. By a peculiar turn of events, the source King raided for this was a speech given to the Republican National convention of 1952, by a black preacher named Archibald Carey.
The trail leads all the way back through Luther King Jr.'s undergraduate days to his teenage years - the earliest known instance is apparently an essay written at age 15. It seems to be harder to find something that that was incontestably original and not plagiarized. Hence much of Pappas' book is devoted to the events surrounding the discovery of the plagiarism, and the widespread cover-up that has followed. Not that this was a conspiracy - these are really quite rare and very hard to execute.
The people and institutions controlling the commanding heights of opinion formation in the United States obviously share an acute embarrassment about this whole affair. Martin Luther King Jr. has been converted into an icon and assiduously promoted to the American public and the world at large as a heroic figure. An annual national holiday has been declared to honor him. Streets and institutions across the country have been named after him. He has assumed the proportions of a black George Washington, and his surviving family resembles the Kennedy clan, at least as much in behavior as in status. It is hard to find anybody in mainstream American society who has an unkind word for Martin Luther King Jr., liberal or conservative. It is often said of figures like these that they would have to be invented if they did not exist, and although Pappas does not remark on or pursue this, "Martin Luther King Jr." was partly invented. Mostly a creation of white liberals, he has subsequently been annexed by conservatives too.
The flip side of King's plagiarism was his unsuitableness for the roles and positions he had been promoted to. He had been selected for the doctoral program at Boston despite his inferior grades, not because of his academic potential but because he was well liked by his fellow students and the staff. Lacking the requisite ability, he got by on plagiarism. He had been cast as the Great (Liberal) Black Hope of politics, a Gerry Cooney of ideas. It is hard to believe that throughout his high school and college career nobody noticed that he was proceeding largely by imitation and appropriation of the work of others.
Part of the reason why King got away with dishonesty while alive, and still does posthumously, is the indulgence that he enjoyed as a favourite of his instructors and examiners. At the very least, this indulgence shielded him from the critical and detached consideration that the average student was subjected to - or ought to have been. King was a favourite because he represented an opportunity for the institutions he proceeded through to influence not just black society, but white society too, through a cooperative vehicle. The vehicle might not have been the brightest or most able student, but he was affable and eager to please. As it turned out, he exceeded the expectations of his promoters. Indeed, the politics represented by King had a more profound effect on white society than black society. Among blacks King was rapidly out-radicalized by Malcolm X, the Panthers and other extremists. Whatever white hostility King at first faced faded remarkably over the years, to the extent that he now represents the black face of white liberals. Not just for liberals, since conservatives have now embraced King as the embodiment of non-racialism in their anti-preference rhetoric, a symptom of the total conquest by liberals of the race issue.
Given this across the board sponsorship of King and his legacy, it is not surprising that the media in the US were not only slow to pick up on the first hints of plagiarism but deliberately scotched nascent investigations by reporters. Hints at the plagiarism had emerged in the late 1980s as King's papers were being edited for publication under a government grant, and surfaced in 1989 in a British newspaper. It would be nearly a year before the story made print in the US, not only because reporters were reluctant to cover the story and editors reluctant to publish it, but also because the editors of the King papers deliberately stonewalled inquiries, as they later admitted quite cheerfully. Boston University turned away inquiries with categorical denials of any improprieties, a mixture of outright mendacity and bluster. Boston University has also refused to withdraw the doctorate, despite the overwhelming weight of evidence that it was stolen from the work of others.
Pappas was instrumental in breaking the story in the US, as the editor of the periodical Chronicles, which published the first details in late 1990, closely followed by The Wall Street Journal (though one should note that the first reports emerged in early 1990 from a handful of conservative organizations). This remarkable scoop for Pappas was due to courage only, since most other papers (including at least Dan Balz at the Washington Post, the editor of the New York Times book review section, and the Atlanta Journal/Constitution) and newsmagazines had already known of the story for months. Later, The New Republic would publish a mea culpa, bemoaning their own decision to kill the story, but others were not as forthcoming. Now that the story could no longer be contained, various newspapers eventually reported it in a low-key manner, smothered with qualifications and a Maginot Line of 'explanatory' editorials.
Gradually the story has made its way through the US media, never prominently featured and safely buried. If one looks for it, it can be found, but very few know the full story or the sheer extent of King's plagiarism. The only place where the 'full monty' can be obtained is Pappas' book, and that makes it essential reading - even if Pappas sugars his bitter pill with the suggestion that Luther King should have his doctorate replaced by an honorary one. The last suggestion is an elegant demonstration of the invention, and reinvention, of Martin Luther King Jr.

Draken
05-05-2005, 04:12 PM
Hey nohope, don't you read my posts?!?! I'm hurt and horrified!!! :pint: :pint: :pint: 8-) :-o :-D

Draken
05-05-2005, 04:28 PM
I just have to point out that this proves yet again that the NWO controls both "saints" and "sinners" in the public arena and too many times we find out that the one we thought was a saint actually was a sinner and the one they wanted us to think was a sinner actually was a saint.

Most of the time though, the genuine saints are totally unknown or appear under such unbelievable circumstances from such unlikely places that we simply dismiss them as madmen.

And they are never politicians. :-x ;-)

nohope187
05-05-2005, 05:26 PM
Oops, sorry Drak. Didn't notice you already posted that one"Beast as a Saint".

I found a couple more, though.
DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING...
AND HIS COMMUNIST CONNECTIONS

By: Chuck Morse
America maintains a longstanding tradition of analyzing the political beliefs of its leaders. Indeed, the founders protected this inalienable right with the first amendment to the Constitution. Such examinations were viewed as essential to the preservation of freedom and democracy. This is why an examination of the career of the late Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King is necessary. His influence was and continues to be immense. Anything less constitutes a dangerous abrogation of responsibility.
That King maintained communist connections are an undisputed matter of public record. This is no less significant, I would contend, than if King had maintained Nazi connections. His actions and utterances influenced generations of Americans yet we tremble with fear over discussing his beliefs because doing so means running the risk of being smeared as a racist. The irony, lost on most, is that those hurling this dastardly charge are often themselves racist by any definition of the term. But as the legendary broadcaster Edward R. Murrow was reported to have said to Fred Friendly, his TV producer, regarding their fear of broadcasting a segment on Joe McCarthy in 1956, "If the fear is in this room, lets do it."
While Martin Luther King was by no means a hard-left witting participant in the international communist conspiracy, he nevertheless surrounded himself with hard-core communists and fellow travelers and embraced a philosophy that could be described as cultural Marxism. This embrace by King would influence generations of African-Americans much to their detriment.
The Kennedy Administration, including President John F. Kennedy himself, warned King to dis-associate himself from Communists. He responded by doing so publicly while continuing the relationships covertly. The belief that King was being used as a tool for communist manipulation of the civil rights movement led Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy to order the F.B.I. to conduct wiretaps. These wiretaps would reveal the extremely active extramarital sex life of King, a Baptist Minister, but that is not germane to our subject. Perhaps the reluctance of the Kennedy Administration to get behind the civil rights movement was due to its concern over the possibility of communist infiltration.
King was close, both personally and professionally, to New York Lawyer Stanley D. Levison who was identified by highly placed communist informant Jack Childs as having been a chief conduit of Soviet funds to be dispersed to the Communist Party USA. Levison was involved in the financial, organizational, and public relations aspects of Dr. King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference. According to F.B.I. wiretaps, Levison prepared King's May 1962 speech before the United Packing House Workers Convention, and his responses to questions from a Los Angeles radio station regarding the 1965 Los Angeles race riots.
According to David J. Garrow, in his book "The FBI and Martin Luther King Jr., published by Yale University Press, Levison assisted King in writing his book "Stride Toward Freedom," as well as contributions to SCLC, and recruitment of SCLC employees. Levison refused King’s offer of compensation for his services writing, "The liberation struggle [i.e., the civil rights movement] is the most positive and rewarding area of work anyone could experience."
In June 1962, Levison recommended Hunter Pitts O'Dell for executive assistant at SCLC. According to Congressional testimony, O’Dell pled the Fifth when asked if he was a member of the CPUSA in a hearing before the House Committee on Un-American Activities on July 30, 1958. According to the FBI, O'Dell was an elected member of the National Committee of the CPUSA. It is reasonable to assume, based on conventional knowledge of the MO of the communists at the time, that Levison and O’Dell were Martin Luther King’s Soviet handlers.
Reams of documents, much of which remains classified, discuss King’s communist connections. I will end with a discussion of a speech King delivered at the Riverside Church in New York, April 4, 1967, a few days prior to the beginning of "Vietnam Week" because of the light it sheds on his philosophy. CPUSA member Bettina Aptheker, daughter of CPUSA member Herbert Aptheker, had devised "Vietnam Week" at a December 1966 conference at the University of Chicago. The HCUA found that the U of C conference "was instigated and dominated by the CPUSA and the W.E.B. DuBois Clubs of America," and was described by Attorney General Katzenbach as "substantially directed, dominated and controlled by the Communist Party."
In his speech, King portrayed U.S. troops in Vietnam as foreign conquerors and oppressors, and he compared the United States to Nazi Germany. He stated "we herd them [the South Vietnamese people] off the land of their fathers into concentration camps where minimal social needs are rarely met.... So far we may have killed a million of them-mostly children. What do they think as we test out our latest weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe."
King spoke of U.S. government as "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today." He portrayed the Communist dictator Ho Chi Minh as the victim of American aggression: "Perhaps only his [Ho Chi Minh's] sense of humor and of irony can save him when he hears the most powerful nation of the world speaking of aggression as it drops thousands of bombs on a poor weak nation more than 8,000 miles away from its shores." King portrayed American policy in Vietnam and in general as motivated by a "need to maintain social stability for our investments" and saw "individual capitalists of the West 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."
Whether or not this communist agitprop was spoon fed to King by Levison or other handlers is beside the point. King said nothing against the brutal North Vietnamese or for that matter a world Communist movement that was murdering over 100 million people. Life magazine (April 21, 1967) described King's speech as "a demagogic slander that sounded like a script for Radio Hanoi." His opposition to the war was clearly not motivated by concern for the best interests of the US but by a desire for the victory of North Vietnam. His anti-capitalist sentiments and his pro-totalitarian tendencies have been destructive to African-Americans ever since.

THIS NEXT ONE PROVES MLK JR. DAMNED SURE AIN'T NO CHRISTIAN, CUZ HE PREACHED A DIFFERENT DOCTRINE.

THE LEGACY OF DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.
by Rev. Kit Ketcham, January 16, 2000
What was your first experience with racism? The first time you realized that being a different color or nationality could be a handicap?
As a young girl growing up in Umatilla County, I went to school with girls and boys of the Cayuse, Yakama, and Umatilla Indian nations. We admired their ethnicity, a bit envious that our friends Belva and Joyce Hoptowit were princesses in the Pendleton Roundup festivities, fabulous in their white deerskin dresses, feathers, quills, and beaded jewelry. Belva and Joyce got to ride horses anytime they wanted to, quite a privilege, we thought. And they rode in all the parades all over the Northwest, representing the Cayuse Nation.
I had a terrific crush on Jimmy and Joey Quaempts, whose basketball prowess and chiseled good looks wowed all the girls in my tiny high school.
But I couldn’t reconcile the obvious discrepancy between the achievement and glory of my high school Indian friends and a couple of bothersome other things.
Twenty miles away, in Walla Walla, Washington, there is a historical site called the Whitman Massacre Memorial. This is, as you probably know, the preserved ruin of an old mission, where Narcissa and Marcus Whitman, Presbyterian missionaries, had been killed, along with several other white missionaries, by Cayuse warriors.
The legend, at that time, was that the defenseless Whitmans had only been trying to help the pagan Cayuse and were murdered for their efforts. Little mention was made of the disease and cultural change which accompanied the Whitmans and thousands of white settlers to Cayuse territory.
I didn’t know what to think about my Cayuse friends and their apparently murderous ancestors; I was inclined to think that the Cayuse had been pushed beyond endurance by white invasion of their lands and their customs, but this was not a popular opinion in the 50’s, and I kept it to myself.
In addition to the puzzle of the Whitman Massacre, I was well aware of the fate of many Native American adults. Alcoholism and poverty seemed to be the lot of most adult Native Americans; the nearby reservation was ugly and barren, homes were dilapidated trailers or shacks. I couldn’t imagine beautiful Belva and Joyce or handsome Joey and Jimmy living out their adult lives in such squalor, but I knew that Indian princesses and basketball stars couldn’t stay young forever, and their prospects beyond high school seemed dim.
During my college years, I was fortunate to have many classmates of other ethnicities. Black and Asian students were in most of my courses and participated in the same activities I enjoyed. Prejudice seemed to be nonexistent in that small community. But during the summer before my senior year, I got a call from the Dean of Women, who asked if I would be willing to share my single dorm room with my sorority sister Millie.
Millie had been planning to room with Judy, but Judy’s parents had thrown a fit when they found out Millie was black. They refused to allow Judy to room with a black student. Would I room with Millie? I wasn’t excited about giving up my solitude, but I liked Millie and I was appalled by Judy’s parents’ attitude. So Millie and I became roommates for our senior year at Linfield College, and I realized that the specter of racial prejudice loomed even in that protected environment.
I graduated in June of 1963. In August of 1963, several of my Linfield friends participated in the March on Washington, where Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his memorable “I Have a Dream” speech, and the Civil Rights era was born. Suddenly my budding racial conscience surged. I began to understand that the woes of my Native American friends and my black college roommate were connected. I began to dimly see that my whiteness gave me privileges and opportunities that they did not have. I became uncomfortably aware that there were huge differences between me and my Indian and black friends.
I wasn’t yet aware enough to understand those differences. I did not immediately see that I unconsciously took advantage of those differences. I was not overtly prejudiced, but I did not let myself consider the meaning of the differences in our lives. I did feel drawn to work with people of other races, and as a home missionary in the ghettos of Denver, I spent my days with adults and children of many ethnicities: Indian, Hispanic, Black, Asian, mixed race. I enjoyed my work and felt accepted by my colleagues and clients. But mine was one of a very few Anglo faces at the Denver Christian Center in 1965.
Martin Luther King, Jr., had by this time become a hero and challenger of the national conscience. I was in awe of this man and puzzled by his message. We were both Baptist, but whereas I had been trained to believe that my message as a Christian and as a Baptist was supposed to be conversion, saving souls for Christ, Dr. King’s message was that human beings should treat one another with love and respect.
Dr. King wasn’t sticking to the script, I noticed. Since I didn’t like the saving souls for Christ script myself, I was relieved to learn that others believed that there were religious principles beyond taking Jesus as one’s personal savior. Dr. King had obviously moved beyond that simplistic notion of personal salvation to a concept of human salvation that certainly superseded what I’d heard in church.
My boss, the Rev. George Turner, also Black, didn’t preach taking Jesus as personal savior either. He preached justice. He preached mercy. He preached equal rights for all humankind.
Gradually, I began to see that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was more than a minister, more than a Baptist Christian. He had set aside these roles and these principles in favor of a higher purpose, that of bringing Americans, both black and white, to an understanding and love and respect for one another that would eliminate violence and injustice.
When Dr. King was assassinated, in April of l968, it felt as though justice and mercy had also been assassinated. Efforts by such politicians as J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI, attempted to discredit Dr. King as a liar, a womanizer, a Communist. Though these efforts largely failed, and Dr. King’s birthday has become a national holiday, hope in the African American community plummeted.
Riots and destructive retaliation surged in the United States. Black Power advocates began to proclaim their message, that non-violence didn’t work, that Dr. King, though admirable, had been wrong, that it was necessary for Blacks to seize the power they had so long been denied--by violence, if necessary.
America trembled at the idea that racial bloodshed might become commonplace in our land, and riot squads and national guards trained to quell such uprisings. Some scholars saw in this movement a repeat of the terror of the prospect of slave uprisings. The lines were drawn in the sand. Though civil rights laws had been enacted, old jim crow laws had been struck down, and overt discrimination had been legislated out of fashion, the evil of injustice had not been eliminated.
Instead of the improved self-esteem that Black Power advocates had promised, despair increased among Black youth. Confused by laws that promised safety yet subtly harassed on all sides by suspicion and neglect, many Black young men turned to gangs for a sense of belonging, becoming the bully instead of the bullied. Black young women, looking for love and acceptance, might find themselves pregnant and alone, with poverty as a constant companion.
These despairing behaviors were not only common to African American youth; they were also cropping up in the younger population of the Hispanic, Native American, and Asian communities. It began to become clear that racism and poverty were producing communities that were frighteningly similar and dangerous.
As a counselor in predominantly white suburban schools, I saw daily the effects of the gulf between Anglo and non-Anglo kids. Hateful words whispered in the hallways, parents forbidding contact with certain kids, brown faces more often in the principal’s office, the suspicion that seemed to dog students of color, the uneasiness when groups of Hispanic or Black kids banded together in friendship, the wariness about colors and styles which might signify gang relationships. Anglo kids “got away” with stuff; non-Anglo kids usually did not.
My efforts to supply a healthy outlet for the 35 “ethnic minority” kids at Oberon Middle School in Arvada, Colorado, met with a good deal of resistance. The administration did not want to appear racist, but they were n ervous about minority kids getting together in a “Cultural Diversity” group. They expected trouble.
A moment ago, I mentioned that MLK was not your orthodox Baptist minister. MLK saw beyond Baptist doctrine to the deeper religious issues of love and justice. This was his message, not the orthodox message of Jesus as personal savior. I’ve come to believe that much of our rhetoric around racial issues today is orthodox. We are inclined to believe that the American dream is the same for everyone, just as our fundamentalist neighbors believe that their doctrine is right for everyone.
This is not true. The American dream is not the same for all. For people of color, and others who are at the mercy of our systems and institutions, the American dream has more to do with not being afraid than with making lots of money. Not being afraid of being judged and persecuted for one’s skin color, one’s name, one’s sexual orientation, one’s gender, one’s size, one’s age, one’s abilities.
The orthodox view is that everyone has the same chance. The more informed view is that there are subtle systems and invisible barriers that create fear and prevent progress. Most people do not take time to think through and let themselves become aware of the subtle, insidious power of racism and white privilege. They believe our politicians when they say that we don’t need affirmative action any more, or that civil rights laws have created a level playing field for all, regardless of color, religion, or sexual orientation.
Listen to MLK’s words as he describes the effects of racism which go beyond overt discrimination. His words portray the sense of despair and defeat that is often the daily bread of a person of color, but we could substitute the words “gay”, “poor”, “homeless”, “disabled”, among others. To understand racism, classism, ableism, heterosexism, and any of the many negative “isms” that cripple other humans, we need to feel it from this point of view.
“Being a Negro in America is not a comfortable existence. It means being a part of the company of the bruised, the battered, the scarred, and the defeated. Being a Negro in America means trying to smile when you want to cry. It means trying to hold on to physical life amid psychological death. It means the pain of watching your children grow up with clouds of inferiority in their mental skies. It means having your legs cut off, and then being condemned for being a cripple. It means seeing your mother and father spiritually murdered by the slings and arrows of daily exploitation, and then being hated for being an orphan. Being a Negro in America means listening to suburban politicians talk eloquently against open housing while arguing in the same breath that they are not racists. It means being harried by day and haunted by night by a nagging sense of nobodiness and constantly fighting to be saved from the poison of bitterness. It means the ache and anguish of living in so many situations where hopes unborn have died.”
Racism, as we are coming to understand it, is the misused power of institutions and systems plus race prejudice. Privilege is what I have because I am a member of the dominant group. I don’t have to worry about losing a job or being suspected of a crime because of my color or sexual orientation or age or economic status. Many others do not have this privilege.
There is a sinister relationship between racism, sexism, classism, homophobia, and other types of oppression. When human beings are violated at the deepest levels of their identity, when people are insulted or under constant suspicion because of their race, when people are raped, when children are abused, when gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered persons are denied jobs or homes, all because of a fundamental piece of their being, something which is so crucial to their identity, something happens to the human psyche.
Despair makes people self-destructive, whether that is evidenced by suicidal feelings, angry violence toward others, stress-related illnesses, alcohol and drug abuse, and a host of other masochistic behaviors. Despair makes people strike out at one another. Despair makes people fear and hate one another. And despair is a vicious cycle. Our despair, our lack of hope and sense of belonging to life, leads us to cause others to feel despair and hopelessness.
What are we as Unitarian Universalists doing about racism and white privilege? What have we learned from Martin Luther King’s life and death?
We have not always been very committed and aware. In the early days of Unitarian Universalism as a merged denomination, our religious association was inclined to believe the orthodox position, that integration and an end to active discrimination were the answers to the “race question”. We did not see that integration implied assimilation, required giving up a basic sense of identity, insisted that fitting into the dominant paradigm was the answer to racial tension.
Through a number of events involving Black UUs who pushed our denomination’s leadership into a crisis of decision, we gradually learned that true equality meant shared power. It meant that Blacks did not have to agree to act white, that the UUA could not make empty promises about funding racial justice programs, that tokenism in granting leadership positions was an inadequate response to the idea of shared power.
This was confusing stuff to white liberals who had always considered themselves equality-minded. It took a long time for Unitarian Universalists to understand that there was more going on than active discrimination, that the underlying attitudes of unconscious white privilege and institutional, passive discrimination created a far greater problem than overt prejudice.
With overt prejudice, at least people knew what to expect. With privilege and institutional racism, there was always a question--is it my color that caused me to be laid off? is it my race that caused me to be denied a loan? And it was easy for the power structure to deny because it was so hard to prove and because often they were not even conscious of having done it.
In order to overcome existing racism, the insidious racism of white privilege and Black self-doubt, both parties had to acknowledge that deeply-imbedded attitudes and assumptions had to be rooted out and dismantled.
This was no easy task, but the UUA has begun that process, with an extensive program of anti-racism offered to congregations, helping Unitarian Universalists come to grips with white privilege, understanding how we take advantage of it without even wanting to, and how to equalize the privilege, so that all have what they need.
What do we, here at Wy’east Unitarian Universalist Congregation, need to do to dismantle the racism inherent in most institutional settings? How do we exhibit to the larger community that we are a welcoming congregation in the broadest sense of the term, that we welcome all to our sanctuary, that here all are equally privileged, that here we really mean it when we affirm and promote the inherent worth and dignity of every person, that here we work toward justice, equity and compassion in human relations, that here, all voices are heard in the spirit of true democracy, that our goal is world community, and that we understand that unless all are free, we are not free either.
White guilt doesn’t do anybody any good. We need not beat ourselves up for our lapses and our lack of understanding. We just need to get busy, busy about the work of understanding the meaning of equality, which is our legacy from the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Let’s have a few moments of silent reflection and prayer. hahahahahhahaaaaaaaaaaaa! :-P

nohope187
05-05-2005, 05:33 PM
Mynda_Peace wrote:
"
NO ONE who has actively posted to this thread has answered my questions concerning MLK.

NO ONE has made an effort to change my mind, only to comment on mutual agreement on the issue.

""Was Alan Stang the one-stop resource on the dark side of MLK?
:-D

Mynda

You can eat those words now. :-P

Ahmad
05-06-2005, 05:48 AM
You know what Draken, what you are saying is either ignorance or arrogance!

You have not checked first hand any evidence connecting him with the communits, that's for one, secondly you have ignored the clear confirmation of the FBI that they found NO EVIDENCE AT ALL against MLK!

So now what is this confidence you are speaking in? what makes you so sure that these writers are not exagerating or accusing MLK unjustly? how are you gonna answer to God on the day of judgment? what's wrong with your logic!!

As for you truebeliever, you seem to need an idol to worship instead of God, it's like "Get me an infallible man and i will fall prostrate before him" !

Do you really think there are infallibles on earth? i challenge you that there were, are and will never be human beings who are not fallible.

I imagine that if you think deeply about your relationships with the people, you will find alot of idolworship, Yeoshua said it right "Never below you, never above you, always equal" if you understand this, you will finally find the true god, and will earn a ticket to Heaven, if not then you have reserved a place in Hell.

As for you nohope who are spreading hearsay without any first hand evidence, repent if you believe in God or does your name fit?

P.s: a challenge for you all who are pasting pages of worthless accusations, get me a clear passage from his writings, speeches or any part of his MESSAGE that proves without doubt your false accusations, begin here if you dare:

http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/papers/

Draken
05-06-2005, 06:05 AM
You're right, Ahmad, I didn't check first hand sources, I have to go on other peoples' research and I decide if I think they are reliable or accurate according to MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCES.

BTW, I don't need any religious leader to tell me about God, God will lead me to Him without "help". Why do you defend MLK so much?

Re FBI: you mean to say, Ahmad, that you trust the FBI?

How have YOU met the questions concerning your "Submission" founder, Khalifa?

By saying it's hearsay, disinfo, character assassination. But what about the FACTS, Ahmad? The rape case, the dodgy affiliations to fake religion like the Baha'i faith?

I haven't seen ANY reasonable explanation from you regarding these questions, since I asked them.

Until you do give me anything substantial, I can't take you seriously, Ahmad.

And if you, on top of it all - with all the first hand sources available - STILL don't realize the Communist global threat and their Satanic agenda, then I'm suspicious of YOUR agenda.

Finally, I could be wrong about MLK, but to me all the questions taken together points towards the fact that, if he wasn't a Communist agent of influence, he was still TOTALLY compromised and that rules him out in my books as a worthy, respectable religious leader.

But then again, YOU might be wrong about the number 19 miracle, even though you are TOTALLY convinced you're right... ;-)

truebeliever
05-06-2005, 06:37 AM
Ahemd, i've been pretty reasonable with you.

You have insulted MY religious beleifs since you got here...constantly.

Thats O.K. I mean you're words on a monitor.

It's funny that you seem the most intolerent here at times while at other times you say good things.

I guess you are not infallible.

As for me needing an idol to worship? I worship God quite well without the image of Christ on my mind. In fact i speak with God regularly.

I fear it is you Ahmed who needs to re-read the Quaran and perhaps the N.T even.

I dont claim to be a holy man sent to preach the word of God...you do..so maybe you need to start living up to the status you equate yourself.

You have a great love for the idiot who actually has the nerve to call himself Yeoshua...i prefer FMB...a more apt description of his inablity to stand alone before God but instead beg allegience to a secret society.

Perhaps you 2 should get together?

You are a thinking person Ahmed. You are not much of a feeling person. You prefer an intellectual argument...hence your desire to find truth through a number...a most fundamentalist fault.

The Quaran is definately a thinking persons religion. Solid rules set in a nice order. I like it.

However the unending compassion of Christ is what works for me as well as his intellectual capacity. A far more well rounded combination.

Peace to YOU Ahmed. I hope you find whatever surety you're looking for. Sincerely.

Ahmad
05-06-2005, 07:31 AM
Just listen to yourselves guys!

Alot of generalizing, stereotyping, broad judgments....WHY?

Where is fairness? where is compassion? where is MERCY?

So Draken thinks i am attacking him so he turns the table and bring up another false accusation against Rashad Khalifa!? again and again, have you ANYTHING against his MESSAGE? or "let's forget about the message and discuss his love affairs" !! how relevant is it? true or not, it's not the issue!

If your son, daughter or wife or even your parents did a grave mistake, would you give up on them COMPLETELY ?

Why are you so excited to condemn a man who wrote against communism? what makes you so sure!

BTW, I don't need any religious leader to tell me about God, God will lead me to Him without "help". Why do you defend MLK so much?

How arrogant of you Draken! it's like you are in the middle of a flood and refuse the hand of the recue worker! maybe you will then say "I don't need your help, i am waiting for God's help" well, what if this rescue team were sent by God to HELP YOU?

you mean to say, Ahmad, that you trust the FBI?

It's you who trust the FBI! and that's why i drew your attention to the fact that the same FBI NEVER found any solid evidence against him. Or would you tell me who brought the accusation of communism that you now uphold?

By saying it's hearsay, disinfo, character assassination. But what about the FACTS, Ahmad? The rape case, the dodgy affiliations to fake religion like the Baha'i faith?

the RAPE case? has he ver been charged of anything? eventhough it's totally evil to ignore the message and focus on other issues, i told you before that the Sunni muslims of Tuscon are said to have schemed this plot against, it was not easy for someone to come and say "You are worshipping Muhammad, you are not real muslims" so they did it and eventually murdered him.

Now you are joining his killers, you embrace vicious lies WITHOUT any solid evidence! why again? is it too late for you, or is the message what bothering you so you turn to character assasination to debunk it!

Until you do give me anything substantial, I can't take you seriously, Ahmad.

Well i am not a guardian over you, i just deliver to you the MESSAGE and it's YOUR responsbility to verify that MESSAGE by yourself, if you don't then don't say i didn't warn you of the consequences on the day of judgment, bear witness that i am a Submitter to God alone, i believe in his messengers, proofs and messages.

Truebliever:

As for me needing an idol to worship? I worship God quite well without the image of Christ on my mind. In fact i speak with God regularly.

Just listen to yourself, "Jesus is infallible", "He is God incarnate"..etc

Do you think it's my hobby to point fingers! i just advise you, perhaps you don't like advisors.

I dont claim to be a holy man sent to preach the word of God...you do..so maybe you need to start living up to the status you equate yourself.

I never claimed to be a holy man, i am a human being same like you! i have my mistakes too!!. Why is it hard for you to understand that it is a satanic idea to think that there are holy, infallible, untouchable saints around!

You have a great love for the idiot who actually has the nerve to call himself Yeoshua...i prefer FMB...a more apt description of his inablity to stand alone before God but instead beg allegience to a secret society.

How ignorant are you both, you generalize and put the people in one basket. There are million reasons for somebody to join the freemasons, just joining doesn't mean he is evil!. I have a good idea for you both trubeliever and Draken, perhaps Submission is a communist front! or better a freemason secret satanic dark occult terrorist moloch worshipper, new age CULT ???!!!

What is this exactly? do you think the false accusations are an easy thing? why don't you value your words, and think twice before condemning people? would the Germans, the Japanese, the Americans have done all the atrocities if they reverenced their Lord and were carefull before accusing, killing and torturing people? or what about the Jews and Jesus? if you both lived in those times, i wonder which side would you have taken!

Draken
05-06-2005, 07:49 AM
I said:

BTW, I don't need any religious leader to tell me about God, God will lead me to Him without "help". Why do you defend MLK so much?



You said: How arrogant of you Draken! it's like you are in the middle of a flood and refuse the hand of the recue worker! maybe you will then say "I don't need your help, i am waiting for God's help" well, what if this rescue team were sent by God to HELP YOU?


Only I might NOT be in the middle of a flood and don't want to take the hand of the one who wants to pull me into it.

How do you know if I read and in that case what I read? You have no idea! You just assume I haven't understood anything. Not very humble, Ahmad. I had a lot of time for you, you know that. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and gave you ALL THE OPPORTUNITIES to convince me in serious, honest discussion. All you gave as the BEST explanation was "19", as if THAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT MESSAGE IN THE Q'URAN!!!

If you can't do better than THAT, Ahmad, then you're not the Messenger you so selfindulgently believe you are.

Can't you just accept that I have my convictions and reasons for saying what I say, like you? I will NEVER let myself be talked into or bullied - as it starts to feel - into anything that does not harmonize with my personal experience, Ahmad.

The more you talk of "redemption", "consequences", "day of jugdement" and put me in the same box as killers and murderers, the more I resist you and what you say. It doesn't help your mission of Messenger of God, in fact, you're counterproductive, in which case I start to doubt your motives.

I'm past caring that YOU call me evil. Ok, I'm evil. I'm the devil himself, Ahmad. You're right.

I will NEVER follow Submission, how's that?

I'll stick to the proven Paths to God, thank you very much.

truebeliever
05-06-2005, 08:12 AM
Ahmed...you really, really, really, really need to read up on the origens and REAL philosophy of freemasonry.

The Coffin Cheaters are a drug dealing bikie gang here in Perth...there are some REALYY nice people in it...they still belong to a drug dealing bikie gang.

I sincerely equate Freemasonry with organised criminal behaviour.

My reasons are quite specific.


For this I really, really, really recommend Bill Stills "NWO: Ancient Plan Of Secret SOcieties".

A great primer.

Ahmad
05-06-2005, 08:25 AM
Draken,

I had a lot of time for you, you know that. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and gave you ALL THE OPPORTUNITIES to convince me in serious, honest discussion.

You make it sound like i am begging you to believe! do you really think it's about me? forget about me, think about the message itself, one god alone, not revering or loving anything or anyone more than God, looking for a righteous meaning before doing anything, dedicating your whole life to the truth and God alone, what about that? or is it too difficult for you? will your idols help you on the DAY OF JUDGEMENT ? will evola or the Yogis do you any good? it seems that you are seeking the truth at everybody but God.

I'll stick to the proven Paths to God, thank you very much.

So if 19 is not a proof, where is your proof?

Forget about me, think about the message of Quran, one god alone, that's if you really care about your eternal future.

Draken
05-06-2005, 09:51 AM
Will you stop nagging, please?;-) How many times and how many ways will I have to tell you, you have NO IDEA WHAT I THINK ABOUT?
You are becoming more comical with every post you keep going on about me thinking about the message.

What will convince you I think about The Message, Ahmad?

I'll tell you what: NOTHING.

I could also keep nagging you about all sorts of issues, but I don't because if you didn't want to listen the first time, why would you listen the 51st time?

Obviously, you're not able or interested in addressing the problems with your faith, which seems to me to resemble more and more NWO/New Age/perverted Muslim kind of degeneration.

So please, let's get back to the original topics, Ahmad - you seem to have subverted this thread as well, like so many other threads.

And get off my back.

We will ALL have to answer eventually for our individual actions. Think about yours and I'll think about mine, OK?

Draken
05-06-2005, 10:57 AM
Just one more thing, Ahmad.

You ask where my proof is.

How about thousands of years of Vedic wisdom?

How about thousands of years of Norse wisdom?

How about thousands of years of shamanic wisdom from all over the world, like the Lapps of Northern Sweden, the Red Indians of North and South America, or the Siberian nomads, not to mention the Magyar shamans?

How about 1400 years of Sufi Muslim wisdom?

How about 2000 years of esoteric Christian wisdom, (not the mainstream subversion)?

And you are trying to convince me of the "legacy" and primacy and superiority of "Submission" founded in 1974 by a highly dubious character, living in the very End of Kali Yuga, the Age characterized by destruction, disintegration, degeneration, corruption and allout deception?

nohope187
05-06-2005, 01:47 PM
So I'm going to the fire am I, Ahmad? You make me laugh.
Go ahead and tell me some more bullshit out of your Quran. This is fun. :-P

Draken
05-06-2005, 01:59 PM
And actually, you DO sound like you're begging me to believe, Ahmad, because you ARE, and you manage it all by yourself, I just point it out for everyone to see.
So it looks like you really don't care about me (I'm so sad), you care about another feather in your hat.

nohope187
05-06-2005, 02:23 PM
Because you're such a good sport in posting argument Ahmad, I decided to graciously give you some more insult to injury. It's interesting you talk of judgement. Somewhere in the book of Matthew, Christ says, "People will come to me and say, 'Lord, Lord, we have preached and done many great things in your name.' and I will say unto them, "Who are you? I do not know any of you. Turn away from me you workers of iniquity."

But wait, Christ is just an idol, right Ahmad? Muhahhahahahahaaaaaaaaaa! :-P

truebeliever
05-07-2005, 06:32 AM
Some history worth remembering on the birthday of Martin Luther King...
A Forgotten Black-Jewish Alliance
by Dr. Rafael Medoff *
Reprinted from Arutz Sheva (Israel national News)

For many in the American Jewish community, Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday is an occasion to recall the important role that Jews played in the civil rights movement of the 1950s-1960s. But few remember the earlier alliance between Jews and prominent African-Americans, in the 1940s, on the issues of rescuing Jews from the Holocaust and creating a Jewish state.

This forgotten Black-Jewish alliance was connected to a series of political action campaigns undertaken in the 1940s by an activist group led by Peter Bergson, a Zionist emissary from Jerusalem. The group's efforts won the support of a wide array of members of Congress, Hollywood celebrities and intellectuals, including numerous prominent African-Americans.

The Bergson group was initially known as the Committee for a Jewish Army. From 1940 to 1943, it sought the creation of a Jewish armed force that would fight alongside the Allies against the Nazis. Black labor union leader A. Philip Randolph, president of the International Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, was an early backer of Bergson's Jewish army effort. So was W. E. B. DuBois, the leading African-American intellectual of his era.

Eventually, the British agreed to establish the 5,000-man force, known as the Jewish Brigade. It fought with distinction on the European battlefield in 1945, and many of its veterans later took part in Israel's 1948 War of Independence.

When news of the mass murder of Europe's Jews reached the West in 1942-1943, Bergson created the Emergency Committee to Save the Jewish People of Europe, to press the Roosevelt administration to rescue Jewish refugees.

Two of the most famous African-American authors of that period, Langston Hughes and Zora Neale Hurston, were sponsors of the Bergson group's July 1943 Emergency Conference to Save the Jewish People of Europe. The conference, which was held in New York City, sought to counter the Roosevelt administration's claim that rescuing Jews from Hitler was physically impossible. More than 1,500 delegates listened to panels of experts on transportation, relief methods, military affairs and other fields, discussing specific, practical ways to save Jews from the Holocaust. One of the speakers was Walter White, executive director of the NAACP.

In addition, the famous Black singer, actor and political activist Paul Robeson was one of the stars of a Madison Square Garden "Show of Shows" organized by Bergson in 1944 to raise money for his campaign to rescue Jewish refugees.

The Emergency Committee's dramatic tactics included full-page newspaper ads, a march by over 400 rabbis to the White House just before Yom Kippur and a Congressional resolution urging the creation of a US government agency to rescue refugees. These efforts embarrassed the administration and compelled FDR to establish the War Refugee Board, which helped save an estimated 220,000 lives during the final fifteen months of the Holocaust.

After the war, Bergson turned his attention to the cause of creating a Jewish national homeland. He established the Hebrew Committee of National Liberation and the American League for a Free Palestine, which played an important role in mobilizing American public support for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine.

Canada Lee, one of the most prominent Black actors of the 1940s, and Congressman Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., of Harlem -- the first African-American to represent New York in the US House of Representatives -- were supporters of Bergson's Jewish statehood campaign. At one Bergson group rally in 1948, Rev. Powell and the Irish-American lawyer Paul O'Dwyer stood backstage and watched while an ineffective speaker sought vainly to raise funds for Jewish statehood.

"Powell became impatient," O'Dwyer later recalled, "and whispered to me, 'This guy is blowing it. Paul, I think this calls for a Baptist minister and an Irish revolutionary. You handle that microphone over there and I'll handle this one.' In unison we rose and in unison we took the microphones gently away from [the speaker]. We collected $75,000 from the crowd that night."

During that same period, Walter White and the NAACP worked closely with the Bergson group to help bring about the desegregation of theaters in Baltimore, which restricted African-Americans to less desirable seats. In 1946, Bergson ally Ben Hecht, one of the most prominent screenwriters in Hollywood, authored a Broadway play called "A Flag is Born", to rally American public sympathy for the Jewish rebels battling the British for control of Palestine. On the eve of the staging of "Flag" at the Maryland Theater in Baltimore, the Bergson group and the NAACP joined hands to pressure the theater management to abandon its discriminatory seating policy -- "a tradition-shattering victory," as White called it.

A decade before the famous Black-Jewish alliance in the civil rights movement, prominent Blacks and Jews joined hands to support the Bergson group's campaigns to create a Jewish army, rescue Holocaust refugees, and establish a Jewish state -- and, in the process, helped desegregate Baltimore's theaters.

On the occasion of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday, that early collaboration between Jewish Americans and African-Americans is worth remembering.

Original URL: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=4672

* Dr. Medoff is director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, which focuses on issues related to America’s response to the Holocaust.

================================================== =====

Comments
by Jared Israel

================================================== ======

A couple of thoughts about Dr. Medoff's article, reprinted from Arutz Sheva, the Zionist website.

First, one of the much-repeated allegations against Israel is that the Zionists betrayed the European Jews in the hope that a slaughter would help build support for Israel. But as Dr. Medoff correctly states, in the US it was the Bergson brothers, two members of the (very) Zionist Irgun, who mobilized the coalition that pressured Roosevelt to change the US policy of letting Hitler finish off the European Jews. From my own research, I can add that the Bergsons created the movement described by Dr. Medoff in the face of resistance from the mainstream Jewish organizations, which were far less Zionist. (This research will be posted soon.)

Second, supporters of the PLO have rewritten the history of the 1940s so that the Arab League appears as a progressive force resisting Jewish colonialism. But in fact, while Hajj Amin al-Husseini, whose movement forged the current Palestinian leadership, was organizing Waffen SS divisions to fight in Bosnia and Stalingrad for Hitler, who like all modern racists, loathed Black people and Jews in equal measure, the militantly Zionist Bergsons were working with eminent Black leaders (including leftists like Paul Robeson and W. E. B Dubois) to defend the Jews from Hitler's murderers, create the state of Israel, and oppose segregation in the US.

Third, the alliance of Black people and Jews was rooted not only in resistance to Hitler, but also in the fight against the home-grown racism of the Eugenics movement, sponsored by the US establishment. One of the first steps in making the Holocaust possible was the Johnson-Reed Immigration act of 1924, which essentially eliminated the US as a haven of escape for persecuted European Jews. That act was past based on the 'evidence' of lies fabricated by the founders of IQ testing and disseminated by them and by the Eugenics movement, according to which Black people, poor whites, and South and East European immigrants - particularly Jews - were mentally defective and prone to crime. The effect of that propaganda was to encourage a climate of tolerance towards Hitler's murder of the Jews, to shut off the immigration escape route, and to 'justify' the violent discrimination against Black people, known as segregation.

There is now an attempt to resurrect the 'ideas' of the eugenics movement. This attempt is discussed and the ideas are refuted in the book, "Resurrecting Racism: The current attack on Black people using phony science," being posted on Emperor's Clothes.
http://www.tenc.net/#contents

Jared Israel
Editor, Emperor's Clothes

Ahmad
05-07-2005, 08:36 AM
Well Draken,

you answered yourself by yourself. There is no argument between you and me.

If you cannot see the message nor its proof, i really can't help you any further.

Obviously nobody took the challenge of finding even a single evidence of the accusations in Martin's own WORDS, this proves alot.

By the way nohope, the quote you posted was of God, Jesus was just a prophet delivering God's own words.

Sura 109, The Disbelievers (Al-Kaaferoon)

[109:0] In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

[109:1] Say, "O you disbelievers.

[109:2] "I do not worship what you worship.

[109:3] "Nor do you worship what I worship.

[109:4] "Nor will I ever worship what you worship.

[109:5] "Nor will you ever worship what I worship.

[109:6] "To you is your religion, and to me is my religion."

Draken
05-07-2005, 11:37 AM
There never was an argument between us, Ahmad, that's what I've been trying to tell you all this time! I'm glad you finally see my point. :-)

nomad
05-07-2005, 04:08 PM
my 2 shekles in all this

... as a Hebrew I thank G-d for his G-d given

language which is the source of ALL languages ...

and thanks to his holy language the Hebrews

NEVER had any confusion regarding

these matters simple because the word " religion "

does NOT exist in his vocabulary. Why ? Because

if the Hebrew does not have it, there is NO need

for it. In other words the only thing that matters

is T-R-U-T-H.

nohope187
05-07-2005, 05:24 PM
Ahmad wrote:
By the way nohope, the quote you posted was of God, Jesus was just a prophet delivering God's own words.


If that makes you FEEL good, so be it. :-P