Club Conspiracy Forums

Club Conspiracy Forums (
-   Alternate History (
-   -   Martin Luther King Jr.- Communist Fraud (

nohope187 04-30-2005 05:17 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 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,, 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 :-P

Ahmad 05-01-2005 05:17 AM

Re: Martin Luther King Jr.- Communist Fraud (Hearsay?)
All quotes from: Final Report of the select committe to study Governmental operations with respect to intelligence activities (United States Senate)

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.

[img align=right][/img]

nohope187 05-01-2005 02:43 PM

Martin Luther King Jr. Pagan, Plagiarist, Sexual Predator
Hearsay? you jest! :-P

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 03:08 PM

Re: Martin Luther King Jr. the Amerikan 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 04:53 AM

Re: Martin Luther King Jr. the Amerikan Traitor
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 08:48 AM

Re: Martin Luther King Jr. the Amerikan Traitor
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 07:09 PM

Re: Martin Luther King Jr. the Amerikan Traitor
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.


nohope187 05-03-2005 12:04 PM

Re: Martin Luther King Jr. the Amerikan Traitor
just because you turn a blind eye to history, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Draken 05-03-2005 01:16 PM

Re: Martin Luther King Jr. the Amerikan Traitor
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 10:59 PM

Re: Martin Luther King Jr. the Amerikan Traitor
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.


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.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:29 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.