Vanguard News Network

Myths of Martin Luther King
by Marcus Epstein

There is probably no greater sacred cow in America than Martin Luther King Jr. The slightest criticism of him or even suggesting that he isn’t deserving of a national holiday leads to the usual accusations of racist, fascism, and the rest of the usual left-wing epithets not only from liberals, but also from many ostensible conservatives and libertarians.

This is amazing because during the 50s and 60s, the Right almost unanimously opposed the civil rights movement. Contrary to the claims of many neocons, the opposition was not limited to the John Birch Society and southern conservatives. It was made by politicians like Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, and in the pages of Modern Age, Human Events, National Review, and the Freeman.

Today, the official conservative and libertarian movement portrays King as someone on our side who would be fighting Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton if he were alive. Most all conservative publications and websites have articles around this time of the year praising King and discussing how today’s civil rights leaders are betraying his legacy. Jim Powell’s otherwise excellent The Triumph of Liberty rates King next to Ludwig von Mises and Albert J. Nock as a libertarian hero. Attend any IHS seminar, and you’ll read “A letter from a Birmingham Jail” as a great piece of anti-statist wisdom. The Heritage Foundation regularly has lectures and symposiums honoring his legacy. There are nearly a half dozen neocon and left-libertarian think tanks and legal foundations with names such as “The Center for Equal Opportunity” and the “American Civil Rights Institute” which claim to model themselves after King.

Why is a man once reviled by the Right now celebrated by it as a hero? The answer partly lies in the fact that the mainstream Right has gradually moved to the left since King’s death. The influx of many neoconservative intellectuals, many of whom were involved in the civil rights movement, into the conservative movement also contributes to the King phenomenon. This does not fully explain the picture, because on many issues King was far to the left of even the neoconservatives, and many King admirers even claim to adhere to principles like freedom of association and federalism. The main reason is that they have created a mythical Martin Luther King Jr., that they constructed solely from one line in his “I Have a Dream” speech.

In this article, I will try to dispel the major myths that the conservative movement has about King. I found a good deal of the information for this piece in I May Not Get There With You: The True Martin Luther King by black leftist Michael Eric Dyson. Dyson shows that King supported black power, reparations, affirmative action, and socialism. He believes this made King even more admirable. He also deals frankly with King’s philandering and plagiarism, though he excuses them. If you don’t mind reading his long discussions about gangsta rap and the like, I strongly recommend this book.

Myth #1: King wanted only equal rights, not special privileges and would have opposed affirmative action, quotas, reparations, and the other policies pursued by today’s civil rights leadership.

This is probably the most repeated myth about King. Writing on National Review Online, There Heritage Foundation’s Matthew Spalding wrote a piece entitled “Martin Luther King’s Conservative Mind,” where he wrote, “An agenda that advocates quotas, counting by race and set-asides takes us away from King’s vision.”

The problem with this view is that King openly advocated quotas and racial set-asides. He wrote that the “Negro today is not struggling for some abstract, vague rights, but for concrete improvement in his way of life.” When equal opportunity laws failed to achieve this, King looked for other ways. In his book Where Do We Go From Here, he suggested that “A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis.” To do this he expressed support for quotas. In a 1968 Playboy interview, he said, “If a city has a 30% Negro population, then it is logical to assume that Negroes should have at least 30% of the jobs in any particular company, and jobs in all categories rather than only in menial areas.” King was more than just talk in this regard. Working through his Operation Breadbasket, King threatened boycotts of businesses that did not hire blacks in proportion to their population.

King was even an early proponent of reparations. In his 1964 book, Why We Can’t Wait, he wrote,
No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down through the centuries…Yet a price can be placed on unpaid wages. The ancient common law has always provided a remedy for the appropriation of a the labor of one human being by another. This law should be made to apply for American Negroes. The payment should be in the form of a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures which could be regarded as a settlement in accordance with the accepted practice of common law.
Predicting that critics would note that many whites were equally disadvantaged, King claimed that his program, which he called the “Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged” would help poor whites as well. This is because once the blacks received reparations, the poor whites would realize that their real enemy was rich whites.
Myth # 2: King was an American patriot, who tried to get Americans to live up to their founding ideals.

In National Review, Roger Clegg wrote that “There may have been a brief moment when there existed something of a national consensus – a shared vision eloquently articulated in Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech, with deep roots in the American Creed, distilled in our national motto, E pluribus unum. Most Americans still share it, but by no means all.” Many other conservatives have embraced this idea of an American Creed that built upon Jefferson and Lincoln, and was then fulfilled by King and libertarians like Clint Bolick and neocons like Bill Bennett.

Despite his constant invocations of the Declaration of Independence, King did not have much pride in America’s founding. He believed “our nation was born in genocide,” and claimed that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were meaningless for blacks because they were written by slave owners.

Myth # 3: King was a Christian activist whose struggle for civil rights is similar to the battles fought by the Christian Right today.

Ralph Reed claims that King’s “indispensable genius” provided “the vision and leadership that renewed and made crystal clear the vital connection between religion and politics.” He proudly admitted that the Christian Coalition “adopted many elements of King’s style and tactics.” The pro-life group, Operation Rescue, often compared their struggle against abortion to King’s struggle against segregation. In a speech entitled The Conservative Virtues of Dr. Martin Luther King, Bill Bennet described King, as “not primarily a social activist, he was primarily a minister of the Christian faith, whose faith informed and directed his political beliefs.”

Both King’s public stands and personal behavior makes the comparison between King and the Religious Right questionable.

FBI surveillance showed that King had dozens of extramarital affairs. Although many of the pertinent records are sealed, several agents who watched observed him engage in many questionable acts including buying prostitutes with SCLC money. Ralph Abernathy, who King called “the best friend I have in the world,” substantiated many of these charges in his autobiography, And the Walls Came Tumbling Down. It is true that a man’s private life is mostly his business. However, most conservatives vehemently condemned Jesse Jackson when news of his illegitimate son came out, and claimed he was unfit to be a minister.

King also took stands that most in the Christian Right would disagree with. When asked about the Supreme Court’s decision to ban school prayer, King responded,

I endorse it. I think it was correct. Contrary to what many have said, it sought to outlaw neither prayer nor belief in god. In a pluralistic society such as ours, who is to determine what prayer shall be spoken and by whom? Legally, constitutionally or otherwise, the state certainly has no such right.

While King died before the Roe vs. Wade decision, and, to the best of my knowledge, made no comments on abortion, he was an ardent supporter of Planned Parenthood. He even won their Margaret Sanger Award in 1966 and had his wife give a speech entitled Family Planning – A Special and Urgent Concern which he wrote. In the speech, he did not compare the civil rights movement to the struggle of Christian Conservatives, but he did say “there is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger’s early efforts.”

Myth # 4: King was an anti-communist.

In another article about Martin Luther King, Roger Clegg of National Review applauds King for speaking out against the “oppression of communism!” To gain the support of many liberal whites, in the early years, King did make a few mild denunciations of communism. He also claimed in a 1965 Playboy that there “are as many Communists in this freedom movement as there are Eskimos in Florida.” This was a bald-faced lie. Though King was never a Communist and was always critical of the Soviet Union, he had knowingly surrounded himself with Communists. His closest advisor Stanley Levison was a Communist, as was his assistant Jack O’Dell. Robert and later John F. Kennedy repeatedly warned him to stop associating himself with such subversives, but he never did. He frequently spoke before Communist front groups such as the National Lawyers Guild and Lawyers for Democratic Action. King even attended seminars at The Highlander Folk School, another Communist front, which taught Communist tactics, which he later employed.

King’s sympathy for communism may have contributed to his opposition to the Vietnam War, which he characterized as a racist, imperialistic, and unjust war. King claimed that America “had committed more war crimes than any nation in the world.” While he acknowledged the NLF “may not be paragons of virtue,” he never criticized them. However, he was rather harsh on Diem and the South. He denied that the NLF was communist, and believed that Ho Chi Minh should have been the legitimate ruler of Vietnam. As a committed globalist, he believed that “our loyalties must transcend our race, our tribe, our class, and our nation. This means we must develop a world perspective.”

Many of King’s conservative admirers have no problem calling anyone who questions American foreign policy a “fifth columnist.” While I personally agree with King on some of his stands on Vietnam, it is hypocritical for those who are still trying to get Jane Fonda tried for sedition to applaud King.

Myth # 5: King supported the free market.

OK, you don’t hear this too often, but it happens. For example, Father Robert A. Sirico delivered a paper to the Acton Institute entitled Civil Rights and Social Cooperation. In it, he wrote,

A freer economy would take us closer to the ideals of the pioneers in this country’s civil rights movement. Martin Luther King, Jr. recognized this when he wrote: “With the growth of industry the folkways of white supremacy will gradually pass away,” and he predicted that such growth would “Increase the purchasing power of the Negro [which in turn] will result in improved medical care, greater educational opportunities, and more adequate housing. Each of these developments will result in a further weakening of segregation.”

King of course was a great opponent of the free economy. In a speech in front of his staff in 1966 he said,

You can’t talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can’t talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You’re really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry… Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong…with capitalism… There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a Democratic Socialism.

King called for “totally restructuring the system” in a way that was not capitalist or “the antithesis of communist.” For more information on King’s economic views, see Lew Rockwell’s The Economics of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Myth # 6: King was a conservative.

As all the previous myths show, King’s views were hardly conservative. If this was not enough, it is worth noting what King said about the two most prominent postwar American conservative politicians, Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater.

King accused Barry Goldwater of “Hitlerism.” He believed that Goldwater advocated a “narrow nationalism, a crippling isolationism, and a trigger-happy attitude.” On domestic issues he felt that “Mr. Goldwater represented an unrealistic conservatism that was totally out of touch with the realities of the twentieth century.” King said that Goldwater’s positions on civil rights were “morally indefensible and socially suicidal.”

King said of Reagan, “When a Hollywood performer, lacking distinction even as an actor, can become a leading war hawk candidate for the presidency, only the irrationalities induced by war psychosis can explain such a turn of events.”

Despite King’s harsh criticisms of those men, both supported the King holiday. Goldwater even fought to keep King’s FBI files, which contained information about his adulterous sex life and Communist connections, sealed.

Myth # 7: King wasn’t a plagiarist.

OK, even most of the neocons won’t deny this, but it is still worth bringing up, because they all ignore it. King started plagiarizing as an undergraduate. When Boston University founded a commission to look into it, they found that that 45 percent of the first part and 21 percent of the second part of his dissertation was stolen, but they insisted that “no thought should be given to revocation of Dr. King’s doctoral degree.” In addition to his dissertation many of his major speeches, such as “I Have a Dream,” were plagiarized, as were many of his books and writings. For more information on King’s plagiarism, The Martin Luther King Plagiarism Page and Theodore Pappas’ Plagiarism and the Culture War are excellent resources.

When faced with these facts, most of King’s conservative and libertarian fans either say they weren’t part of his main philosophy, or usually they simply ignore them. Slightly before the King Holiday was signed into law, Governor Meldrim Thompson of New Hampshire wrote a letter to Ronald Reagan expressing concerns about King’s morality and Communist connections. Ronald Reagan responded, “I have the reservations you have, but here the perception of too many people is based on an image, not reality. Indeed, to them the perception is reality.”

Far too many on the Right are worshipping that perception. Rather than face the truth about King’s views, they create a man based upon a few lines about judging men “by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin” – something we are not supposed to do in his case, of course – while ignoring everything else he said and did. If King is truly an admirable figure, they are doing his legacy a disservice by using his name to promote an agenda he clearly would not have supported.

January 18, 2003

Marcus Epstein [send him mail] is an undergraduate at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, VA, where he is president of the college libertarians and editor of the conservative newspaper, The Remnant. A selection of his articles can be seen here.

Copyright © 2003 LewRockwell.com

Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page

Michael King

a.k.a. Martin Luther King, Plagiarism Page

MLK is no hero and certainly was no martyr–he was always a LIE and has ALWAYS been the worst enemy of both blacks and Whites. Since this bigoted communist pervert marched on our nation’s capitol, Washington, DC:

Black family purchasing power plunged two thirds.

The percent of blacks imprisoned prior to age 32 increased 5 fold (from “only” 16% to 79%).

The percent of black children growing up fatherless increased 6 fold (from “only” 15% to 81%).

Three times as many blacks are prison inmates than were ever slaves (1.2 million vs. 400,000 at the height of slavery).

Michael King (aka Martin Luther King, Jr.) is a first class plagiarist.
Boston University: “No thought should be given to the revocation of Dr. King’s doctoral degree” (even though we KNOW he cheated his way to a degree?).
Michael King, the known communist.
Kevin Alfred Strom on MLK’s communist connections.
Michael Eric Dyson: MLK’s plagiarism was justified?
Boycott Hewlett Packard for replacing Easter with MLK Day.

None of the following articles make the obvious connection between the jewish control of the American “mainstream media” and an intentional effort to denigrate Martin Luther by promoting a black criminal with the phony name of “Martin Luther King”. And none of them note that the very best education in the world offered to presumably the best qualified black man in the world produced nothing but a colossal government fraud that was used to undermine the rights of all Americans, including and especially black Americans. It was MLK who was used as the excuse to pass the “Civil Rights Act” of 1964 which the entire world understood would turn the entire US Constitution upside down. If Hubert Humphrey was alive today, he would be busy eating 800 pages of legislation in order to fulfil his promise that he would eat every page of it if it led to racial quotas [read: affirmative action].

Never in human history has such a successful culture done such a great job of using its own success to execute itself.

The government micromanagement of American lives, businesses, families, and personal possessions which followed created the most totalitarian government on the planet. The concurrent development of the computer age made it possible to document and preserve for antiquity each and every thought of each and every citizen which their own government would twist into pretzels. Where “free exercise of religion” meant “free exercise of religion”, it suddenly meant the government could ban spoken Christian prayers in public schools. Where “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” prohibited even one gun control law for 188 years, it suddenly meant 22,000 expensive and ineffective gun control laws.

Where “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated” enabled the US to create one of the highest standard of livings the world had ever witnessed, it suddenly meant that the evil White man’s property was completely up for grabs using the “legal system” to grab it.

Schlochkley

Martin Luther King Pop Quiz

How much do you really know?

Here’s a little MLK quiz to coincide with MLK month.
Enjoy.

Many Americans don’t know enough about MLK. After taking this quiz, you will see how little the schools, news media and political establishment have told you about the only American with his own
holiday.

1) Name the judge who has sealed King’s FBI surveillance file until the year 2027.

Answer: The Honorable John Lewis Smith, Jr.

2) According to whose 1989 biography did King spend his last night on
earth in an adulterous liaison?

Answer: Reverend Ralph Abernathy. “And the Walls Came Tumbling Down”

3) According to whose 1989 biography did King spend his last morning
on earth physically beating a woman?

Answer: Reverend Ralph Abernathy. “And the Walls Came Tumbling Down”

4) Who was the U.S. Attorney General who ordered the FBI to wiretap
King?

Answer: Robert F. Kennedy

5) Who was the Assistant Director of the FBI who wrote a letter to
Sen. John P. East (R-NC) describing King’s conduct of “orgiastic and
adulterous escapades, some of which indicated that King could be
bestial in his sexual abuse of women.”

Answer: Charles D. Brennan

6) Who called King a “hypocrite preacher.”

Answer: President Lyndon B. Johnson

7) What U.S. newspaper reported that King had plagiarized his
doctoral thesis at Boston University.

Answer: The Wall Street Journal

8) Whom did King plagiarize in more than 50 complete sentences in his
doctoral thesis?

Answer: Dr. Jack Boozer

9) Who was the Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities
who purposely suppressed knowledge of King’s plagiarism of his
doctoral thesis?

Answer: Lynne Cheney, wife of Vice President Richard Cheney

10) What was Martin Luther King’s real name?

Answer: Michael King, Jr. In 1935 his father, Michael King, declared to his congregation that he wound henceforth be known as Martin Luther King and his son would be known as Martin Luther King, Jr.

11) In his first public sermon at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in 1947
who did King plagiarize?

Answer: Harry Emerson Fosdick

12) Name the man who served as King’s personal secretary from 1955 to
1960, had joined the Young Communists League at New York City College
in 1936, went to prison for draft evasion in 1944, and in 1953 was
sentenced to 60 days in jail in California “lewd vagrancy and
homosexual perversion.”

Answer: Bayard Rustin

13) According to whom had King “privately described himself as a Marxist.”

Answer: His biographer, David J. Garrow

14) Who edited King’s book Stride Toward Freedom?

Answer: Communist Stanley Levison

15) Who made the following speech?

That’s exactly what we mean– from every mountain side, let freedom
ring.Not only from the Green Mountains and White Mountains of Vermont
and New Hampshire; not only from the Catskills of New York; but from
the Ozarks in Arkansas, from Stone Mountain in Georgia, from the Blue
Ridge Mountains of Virginia –let it ring not only for the minorities
of the United States, but for the disinherited of all the earth–from
every mountainside, LET FREEDOM RING!

Answer: Archibald Carey, 1952

——————————

If you got no questions correct it means that you are exactly the kind of ignorant citizen your government desires.

1-3 questions correct means you could be dangerous.

4-6 questions correct means you must read to much.

7-10 questions correct means you must value historical correctness instead of political correctness. Congratulations! !

11 or more questions correct means you’ve been reading this website and learned the truth.

Now it’s up to you to tell others the truth.

Plagiarism and the Culture War: The Writings of Martin Luther King Jr. and Other Prominent Americans

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.

Note: Not only his writings, but his name. “Martin Luther King Jr” was named Michael King by his father, he assumed his father’s name as an alias, ie. he never took the trouble to legally change it. Even his name was a lie!

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.

http://mlking.org/thebeast.html

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, 1963.

Bayard Rustin’s replacement in 1961 as secretary and advisor to King was Jack O’Dell, also known as Hunter Pitts O’Dell. According to official records, in 1962 Jack O’Dell was a member of the National Committee of the Communist Party, USA. He had been listed as a Communist Party member as early as 1956. O’Dell was also given the job of acting executive director for SCLC activities for the entire Southeast, according to the St. Louis “Globe-Democrat – -of October 26, 1962. At that time, there were still some patriots in the press corps, and word of O’Dell’s party membership became 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 1963 march on Washington, Williams successfully urged Mao Tse-Tung to speak out on behalf of King’s movement. Mr. Williams was also around this time maintaining his primary residence in Cuba, from which he made regular broadcasts to the southern US, three times a week, from high-power AM transmitters in Havana under the title “Radio Free Dixie.” In these broadcasts, he urged violent attacks by Blacks against 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.

The Martin Luther King Jr. Plagiarism page
In response to the University of Nebraska’s proposal to make Martin Luther King’s birthday an official University holiday, we here present the MLK plagiarism page, on which we’ll be documenting MLK’s long career of misrepresenting other writers’ work as his own.

The page is still under construction. When it is complete, it will compare in detail excerpts of King’s works with those of previous authors, showing how King lifted sentences, phrases and entire paragraphs from texts like Paul Ramsey’s ‘Basic Christian Ethics’ (sheesh!). It will show how whole chunks of MLK’s doctoral thesis were copied from the thesis of another student, and from the works of eminent theologians. It will show how his early graduate and even undergraduate student papers were filched, and how King’s plagiarism extended into his later career, and the works he wrote after he became famous.

A chronology of the discovery of King’s plagiarism
King’s plagiarized works
Student essays
Dissertation
Books
Sermons, speeches and miscellania
In the meantime, you might like to check out these links

The University of British Columbia policy on plagiarism, which uses a MLK student paper as an example of the most serious kind of plagiarism, complete or near-complete transcription of another author’s work
University of Nebraska’s Philosophy Department’s policy on plagiarism . Somehow they left out the caveat “If you become a cultural icon, none of this counts”.
My Daily Nebraskan column on the King Holiday… ..
…and a reply by John L. Harris , Special Assistant to the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs.
The UNL PC crowd’s King web page. Not much about King, but lots of stuff about the PC crowd…

ABOLISH THE KING HOLIDAY

King’ Record Has Been Sealed by Court Order Until The Year 2027

WHY???????

By Dr. Ed Fields

Martin Luther King was affiliated with 60 Communist Fronts. He openly incited violence under the banner of “non-violence”. King led a bizarre sex life which included acts of shocking perversion. On Jan. 31, 1977 Coretta Scott King obtained a federal court order sealing for 50 years 845 pages of FBI records about her husband, “because its release would destroy his reputation!” Still a cowardly, spineless Congress voted to make King’s birthday a national holiday. This is the outrage of the century! Until now we had holidays honoring Jesus Christ, Christopher Columbus and George Washington. We must not allow Marxist liberals to elevate King to their level. The King holiday must be repealed! The life story of Martin Luther King is shocking and disgraceful from beginning to end. He was born with the name of Michael King on Jan. 15, 1929. In 1935 his preacher father, “Daddy” King, decided to name himself after the great Protestant reformer Martin Luther. He announced to his congregation that henceforth he was to be called Martin Luther King and his son Martin Luther King Jr. “Daddy” King never bothered to have this act legalized in court. Thus, his son’s real name is Michael King. The holiday should actually be called “Michael King Day!” It is not some “right winger” who had King’s office and hotel rooms bugged. This order was signed by then U.S. Attorney General Bobby Kennedy on Oct. 10, 1963. Evidence proved that King was under the direct orders of Soviet spies and financed by the Communist Party. The Kennedy tapings continued for 5 years and also developed shocking revelations regarding King’s sexual practices.

KING’S COMMUNIST CONNECTIONS

Negro Bayard Rustin is a former organizer for the Young Communist League. He spent 60 days in a California jail on a 1953 conviction for performing leud homosexual acts in public. He also served 28 months in prison for draft evasion. Today Rustin is paid by Jewish organizations for the use of his name as a “signer” of ads urging “Black-Jewish Unity.” He was King’s secretary and advisor from 1956 to 1960. During this period Rustin attended the National Convention of the Communist party in 1957 as an “honored observer.” King called him “a brilliant, efficient, and dedicated organizer.” It was Rustin who introduced King to a Soviet spy named Stanley D. Levinson. He was a New York Lawyer and vice-president of the N.Y. council of American Jewish Congress. Levinson’s job was to launder the $1,000,000 subsidy Soviet Russia gave to finance the U.S. Communist Party. Levinson provided important financial, organizational and public relations services for King. After King’s death his wife, Coretta Scott King described Levinson’s role as, “always working in the background, his contribution has been indispensable.” Levinson wrote an obituary for King and described America as “a nation tenaciously racist…sick with violence…and corrosive with alienation. The civil rights liberation struggle is the most positive and rewarding area of work anyone could experience.” The money which the Soviet Union funnelled to Levinson came from a Jew named Isidore G. Needleman. He was a KGB secret police agent who fronted as an officer of AMTORG, the trading company in New York city which buys U.S. goods for shipment to Russia. There are so many Jews in the Communist Party the FBI hired two Jewish brothers, Morris Childs, and Jack Childs as spies planted inside the Communist Party for 30 years. Morris Childs was formerly a member of the National Committee of the Communist Party and once served as editor of The Daily Worker. Childs reported that after the death of the Jew William Weiner, who was treasurer of the Communist party, it was Stanley Levinson who took over this vital post.

KING SABOTAGED THE VIETNAM WAR EFFORT

Soviet spy Stanley Levinson instructed King to support the “Student Strike Against the Vietnam War” on Dec. 30, 1966. In a major speech delivered at the Riverside Church in New York City on April 7, 1967 King attacked the U.S. troops as foreign conquerors and oppressors, describing them as, “like Nazis!” King called the U.S. Government, “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today” and South Vietnam leader Diem as “one of the most vicious modern dictators.” King urged American boys to refuse to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces in Vietnam. Even the liberal Life Magazine of April 21, 1967 described King’s speech as “a dangerous slander that sounded like a script for Radio Hanoi!”

FAMOUS PHOTO OF KING AT COMMUNIST PARTY TRAINING SCHOOL

On this page is a photo [pictured in the booklet from which this material was taken from] taken Sept. 2, 1957 of King attending the Highlander Folk School which the Communist Party operated in Monteagle, Tenn. Identified in the picture is, No. 1 King, No. 2 Abner Berry. member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party and writer for the “daily Worker.” No. 3, Aubrey Williams, Communist Party agent and president of the Southern Conference Educational Fund (SCEF) a red front organizing blacks in southern states. No. 4, Miles Horton, head of the Highlander Folk School. King was listed on the school’s letterhead as a “sponsor.” The Highlander School was financed by the Julius Rosenwald fund. At one time the Jew Rosenwald headed Sears, Roebucks Co. He spent $22 million financing civil rights groups. His daughter Edith Stern continued to give money to the SCEF and Highlander Folk School after her father’s death. Her husband, Alfred Stern of New Orleans, fled to Russia just before he was to be arrested on spy charges.

KING PICTURED WITH THREE REDS

The next photo [in the booklet this material was taken from] is extremely important as it identifies King with Carl and Ann Braden. They are life-long Communist Party activists who operate out of Louisville, Ky. Both were leaders in the SCEF. Carl Braden was convicted of criminal sedition in 1954. He and his wife purchased a home for blacks in a White neighborhood to incite racial violence. Later they were charged with bombing the same house to win sympathy for their cause and to raise money. Ann Braden today is a founder of the Atlanta based “Center For Democratic Renewal” which smears Conservative Patriots. Carl Braden is now dead but his wife Ann is still very active. On the right in the photo is Dr. James Dombrowski, a director of the SCEF and a Communist organizer. Also note photostat of SCEF check signed by Dombrowski and Benjamin Smith, who is a registered Foreign Agent for Fidel Castro. [ caption under photo of check states: Evidence that King accepted money from communists is this check from an official Red Front. It was obtained after a raid on the SCEF offices in New Orleans by agents of the Louisiana Legislative Committee on UnAmerican Activities. The signatures on the check are those of James Dombrowski and Benjamin Smith, both are Communist agents. Note the check says this is for “New York expenses.”]

COMMUNISTS PROMOTED KING

A number of communists who left the party have reported they were ordered to do all within their power to support King’s activities. A black woman, Julia Brown, was a Communist in Cleveland for nine years. She said: “We were told to promote King, to unite Negroes and Whites behind him, and to turn him into a sort of national hero. We were to look to King as the leader in this struggle, the Communists said, because he was on our side. While in the party I learned that King attended a communist training school, that several of his aides were communists and that he received funds from Communists and took directions from them. He was one of their biggest heroes.” U.S. Congressional Record of March 30, 1965 quotes Karl Prussion, an FBI counterspy inside the Communist Party as swearing: “At all of these (Communist party) meetings Rev. Martin Luther King was always set forth as the individual to whom Communists should rally around…King has either been a member of, or wittingly accepted support from over 60 Communist fronts.”

KING’S VIOLENCE CALLED “NON-VIOLENCE”

The FBI wire taps record Levinson as promising King that he could raise the money needed “to finance a civil rights revolution in the South.” Another FBI wire tap in 1959 quotes Levinson as instructing King to begin, “civil disobedience disturbances and get yourself arrested as this will cause the liberal media to be sympathetic with our cause!” King was the master of the art of “doubletalk.” Wherever King went violence followed. King incited riots in Birmingham, Montgomery, St. Augustine, Cleveland, Chicago, Albany, etc, etc. On July 28, 1967, King said, “I can’t recommend burning down anyone else and our businesses get burned.” In Birmingham, on May 4, 1963, King stated: “I have a deep commitment to non- violence.” It took dogs and fire hoses to quell rioting black youths. King’s “non-violence” talks were part of his BIG Lie technique. Violence was referred to as a “direct action program” which is described in his book, “Why We Can’t Wait.” King wrote: “The purpose of our direct action program is to create a crisis-packed situation. We who engage in non-violent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive.” In August of that year he said: “Negroes will be mentally healthier if they do not suppress rage but vent it constructively and its energy peacefully but forcefully cripple an oppressive society.” Birmingham in the fall of 1961, King threatened violence if Congress did not approve a Civil Rights Bill. He declared, “if the Civil Rights public accommodations bill does not pass Negroes will have to engage in massive civil disobedience.” Chicago riots broke out when King marched his mobs into an all White neighborhood. He explained that this brought out the hatred in Whites for the world to see. That night he spoke before the West Side Club under a sign which read: “Burn Baby Burn-Boycott Baby Boycott.” That night roving bands of black youths broke windows, looted stores, stoned police cars, etc.

QUOTES FROM FAMOUS MEN ON MARTIN LUTHER KING

J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the FBI called King, “the most notorious liar in the country.” He also said: “King is a tom cat with obsessive degenerate urges.” Later he told then Attorney General Bobby Kennedy, “The civil rights movement is headed by Communists and moral degenerates who pose a danger to the nation!” President Lyndon Johnson after listening to the FBI tapes of King’s sex orgies, “G-D damn it, if only you could hear what that hypocritical preacher does sexually!” President John F. Kennedy warned King, (but to no avail), that: “You must take care not to lose your cause because Levinson and O’Dell are Communists-you’ve got to get rid of them! If some of the FBI’s friends in Congress expose their background it will harm, not just you Martin, but the entire movement and my civil rights bill.”

KING PRACTICED BIZARRE SEX ACTS

The FBI wired King’s office and hotel rooms from 1963 to 1968. These tapes not only recorded his transactions with Communist agents but also wild interracial sex orgies which included acts of perversion. King’s aides would use SCLC, (tax exempt) money, to hire White prostitutes to perform sexual acts with him. King often would use two prostitutes at the same time. These shocking tapes were ordered sealed for 50 years by U.S. Federal Judge John Smith Jr. on Jan. 31, 1977. In other words we will not be able to learn all the gory details until the year 2027. Some 90 Congressmen, led by the late Rep. Larry McDonald, urged Congress to find out what was in these tapes before they approved the disgraceful King Holiday Bill. A cowardly and spineless Congress voted 338 to 90 approving the King Holiday. Still, we have been able to learn some of the shocking incidents recorded on the King tapes. Washington’s old Willard Hotel was the scene of King forcing White women to drink “Black Russians” and preforming sexual acts upon him. In Las Vagas King’s aides paid $100 each to prostitutes to join him in orgies. In New York City King got drunk and threatened a young White girl working for civil rights to submit to his strange sexual tastes or he would jump from the 13th floor window. She succumbed to prove her loyalty to King. In Norway, King was nude when stopped by police while chasing a woman down a hotel corridor. In Los Angeles a dentist supporter of King was outraged when he discovered his wife engaged in weird sexual acts with the civil rights leader. King was forced to flee the city after the dentist threatened to kill him. This escapade was taped on Feb. 20, 1968. The following April someone else would shoot King. Is this the kind of man we want to hold up before our children to be honored as a national hero???

KING SUPPORTED INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE

The New York Post of July 1, 1958, interviewed King who stated: “I’m sure that integration will lead to intermarriage.” This is a part of the Communist scheme to weaken America. Mongrelized nations have never been racially strong enough to defend themselves from dictatorships. William Z. Foster head of the Communist Party in the 1040’s stated in his book, “Toward a Soviet America,” “The American Soviet will, of course, abolish all restrictions upon racial intermarriage…The revolution will only hasten this progress of integration, already proceeding throughout the world with increasing speed” (Pages 305-306) The only way we can expose King’s dream for a Communist America is to reach enough people with his true life story. The National Education Association (NEA) of left wing teachers is now sponsoring school study programs with 42 pro-King projects.

Was Martin Luther King a Communist? Chuckmorse.com | Jan. 19, 2002 | Chuck Morse

Was Martin Luther King a Communist? This writer does not question that the late, great Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was deservedly one of the most monumental and pivotal figures of the 20th century. King’s inspirational leadership, oratory, and profession of non- violence may have very well saved this nation from a race war. I am grateful that the Rev. Dr. King emerged as the most visible and influential leader of the civil rights movement as opposed to an advocate of violence such as Malcolm X or a radical communist.

No, the Rev. Dr. King was not a communist, however, he did business with communists and was influenced by them. While this is a delicate subject to broach, especially given the martyrdom and lionization of Dr. King to virtual sainthood status, the subject must nevertheless be broached for a better understanding of some of the darker forces that infiltrated and sabotaged an organically pro American, conservative, and Christian civil rights movement.

Martin Luther King surrounded himself with communists from the beginning of his career. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference, formed in 1957 and led by Dr. King, also had as its vice president Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth who was at the same time president of the Southern Conference Education Fund, an identified communist front according to the Legislative Committee on un-American Activities, Louisiana (Report April 13, 1964 pp. 31-38). The field director of SCEF was Carl Braden, a known communist agitator who also sponsored the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, which counted as a member Lee Harvey Oswald, the communist assassin of President Kennedy. Dr. King maintained correspondence with Carl Braden. Also on the board of SCLC was Bayard Rustin, a known communist.

In 1957, Dr. King addressed the Highlander Folk School in Monteagle, Tenn. which was originally called Commonwealth College until it was sited by the House Committee on un-American Activities as being a communist front (April 27, 1949). The committee found that Commonwealth, later the Highlander Folk School, was using religion as a way to infiltrate the African- American community by, among other techniques, comparing the texts of the New Testament to those of Karl Marx. Dr. King knew many of the known communists associated with the Highlander school.

In 1960, Dr. King hired Hunter Pitts O’Dell, a communist official to work at SCLC. According to the St Louis Globe Democrat (Oct. 26, 1962) “A Communist has infiltrated the top administrative post in the Rev. Martin Luther King’s SCLC. He is Jack H. O’Dell, acting executive director of conference activities in the southeastern states including Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana.” Dr. King fired O’Dell when this information emerged but re-hired him as head of the SCLC New York office.

Dr. King was praised by communists and promoted by fellow travelers. Communist official Benjamin J. Davis, in the Worker (Nov. 10, 1963) describes Dr. King as “a brilliant and practical leader who articulates the philosophy of the Negro people, for direct non- violent mass action.” The Worker article goes on to describe Dr. King as “The foremost advocate of the solution of social problems through non-violent methods of mass action.”

In his own words, Martin Luther King expresses a communist outlook in his book “Stride Toward Freedom.” He states that “in spite of the shortcomings of his analysis, Marx had raised some basic questions. I was deeply concerned from my early teen days about the gulf between superfluous wealth and abject poverty, and my reading of Marx made me even more conscious of this gulf. Although modern American capitalism has greatly reduced the gap through social reforms, there was still need for a better distribution of wealth. Moreover, Marx had revealed the danger of the profit motive as the sole basis of an economic system.”

It’s strikes me as sad that Dr. King, the most influential leader of the civil rights movement wasn’t an advocate of the capitalism that was already leading to such great economic strides amongst African- Americans in his day. By advocating a “better distribution of wealth” he meant state control over the economy. He sneered at “the profit motive” without explaining why African- Americans shouldn’t seek to profit to the best of their ability. These ideas would later on open the floodgates to radical African- American leaders such as Stokley Carmichael, H. Rap Brown, the Black Panthers, and the burning and looting of African-American neighborhoods, the institutionalizing of welfare programs, the perpetuation of poverty, the destruction of the African-American family, drugs, violence, racism, and crime.

In “Stride Toward Freedom” Dr. King states that “In short, I read Marx as I read all of the influential historical thinkers – from a dialectical point of view, combining a partial yea and a partial no. My readings of Marx convinced me that truth is found neither in Marxism nor in traditional capitalism. Each represents a partial truth. Historically capitalism failed to see truth in collective enterprise and Marxism failed to see the truth in individual enterprise. The Kingdom of G-d is neither the thesis of individual enterprise nor the antithesis of collective enterprise, but a synthesis which reconciles the truths of both.”

By stating that he views things “from a dialectical point of view” Dr. King is thinking like communists such as Marx, Lenin, or Stalin. The dialectic always and can only lead to authoritarianism. Man cannot, for example, be half free and half slave, either he is free or he is a slave. Dr. King’s imperious stand toward his own people would stand in contrast to an advocacy of genuine freedom, the development of self- rule, self-sufficiency, private ownership, and the accumulation of capital resulting from achievement. Dr. King was not advocating the American system of free market capitalism. Instead, he stood for a system that has stunted the growth of African- Americans as well as the rest of us.

Much remains to be said regarding the communist infiltration of the civil rights movement as a whole. The communists sought to use African-Americans as cannon fodder in their revolution by stoking hatred and racial division. Much blood and suffering is on the hands of these communist agitators. The story of how the left-wing predominantly white establishment promoted communists in the African-American community as a means of continuing an informal system of oppression also cries out to be told.

Chuck Morse Is the author of the upcoming book “The Difference between Us and Them” http://www.chuckmorse.com

http://www.cycad.com/cgi-bin/pinc/apr2000/books/gt_plagiarism.html

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.

—–Original Message—–
From: Andy [mailto:[email protected]]

MICHAEL KING, A.K.A. M. L. KING, JR.: PLAGIARIST
Martin Luther King was born Michael King.

http://www.dclibrary.org/mlk/mlk-about.html

He never did have his name legally changed. He took his father’s name.

He received his Ph.D. from Boston University, where he plagiarized his doctoral dissertation. He also plagiarized sections of STRIDE TOWARD FREEDOM. This was his practice throughout his academic career. He regarded other men’s words just as he regarded other men’s wives: as ripe for the taking.

His plagiarism has been known for a decade. It is discussed in detail by Theodore Pappas, who wrote a book about it: THE MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., PLAGIARISM STORY (Rockford, Illinois: Rockford Institute, 1994).

http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/cm/reviews/cm11_rev_sins.html

Pappas has published examples of this in the book he edited,

PLAGIARISM AND THE CULTURE WAR: THE WRITINGS OF MARTIN LUTHER KING AND
OTHER PROMINENT AMERICANS (Halberg, 1998).

http://www.cycad.com

Thank God you guys are doing MLK Monday like it should be done.
What a bunch of bullshit this made up “holiday” is. By the way,
thanks for the coplimentary PHD. Thanks-Dawn & Glen Landry

Yeah Andrei….. YOU RULE! Thanks for the ammo.

“Come on over here, you big black motherfucker, and let me suck your dick.”

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030502.html

Considering how he was vilified while he was alive, Martin Luther King, Jr. has gotten off easy since his death, despite some embarrassing posthumous revelations. Partly that’s because he’s been embraced by conservatives, who now point to him as a symbol of moderation and self-reliance, in contrast to the likes of Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton. Still, as you say, certain questions arise.

As every reasonable [sic] observer has commented, neither King’s sexual wanderings nor his scholarly misdeeds detract from his core achievement…. [blah blah blah jew/liberal lies blah blah blah]

Everyone here is missing the point of this sacred day. We are supposed to be honoring a man who changed history, a man who saw something wrong with America and tried his hardest to fix the injustices he saw, A man who has gone down as an American hero, a man who had a dream. Today I honor James Earl Ray! without him some of us wouldn’t have today off. I dedicate all of my actions today to James and the sacrifice he made.

MICHAEL KING’S GREATEST (MLK) QUOTES: “I HAVE A DREAM” “I’M NOT A NEGRO TONIGHT” “I’M FUCKING FOR JESUS” “COME OVER HERE, YOU BIG BLACK MOTHERFUCKER & LET ME SUCK YOUR DICK”

Martin Looter Bling.

FBI files on Levison (over 11,000 pages):

http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/levison.htm

A good show with Linder, and some comments:

Thanks to all for an excellent job.

One, when Yankee Jim returns for FTL Monday, perhaps they can invited Mrs. Kevin Alfred Strom to call in, and discuss some issues she has brought to our attention regarding her husband, Kevin Alfred Strom.

In particular, they might want to ask her OTPTT’s Five Questions, which are certainly relevant to the issue; like King, Kevin was “monitored.”

Just for easy reference, here are the Five Questions for Mrs. Kevin Alfred Strom:

Elisha I have a couple of questions that only you can answer and that will go a long way in putting to rest any alleged “theories” surrounding the KAS situation.

You will remember attending Alex’s arraignment in Knoxville last summer. Alex told me that he was “surprised at your presence at that particular proceeding” and wasn’t sure how to interpret your being there at all.

You will also remember that we went to the Riverside Restaurant where we had coffee and the like and spent at least two hours there talking that afternoon. During the course of this conversation you said something that caught my immediate attention based upon my extensive study of law over the preceding 16 years in addition to my own personal experience in various capacities as a party to several civil and criminal cases.

You stated, “I copied files from Kevin’s computer and gave them to my lawyer for safe keeping.”

Since the trial is over and you are at liberty to discuss the case now I would like to ask you the following questions:

1. What was the nature of these files that you copied from Kevin’s computer and gave to your lawyer on a CD almost a full year before Kevin’s arrest?

a) Were they images of children engaged in sexual activity with either adults or other children?

b) If the answer to question 1(a) is in the negative were they images of nude children?

c) If the answer to questions 1(a) and 1(b) is in the negative were they Photoshoped images wherein the head of a minor was placed upon the body of a nude adult?

2. You clearly had access to Kevin’s computer. Did you every place any files of any type on his computer without his knowledge?

3. Who approached you regarding the wiring and placing in your home a hidden camera system?

a) What was the stated purpose of this hidden camera system?

b) What information and video\audio was recorded by this hidden camera system that you consented to having embedded in your home without Kevin’s knowledge?

4. Since you and the police apparently had those files that you copied from Kevin’s computer almost a full year before his arrest why was a hidden camera surveillance system necessary?

5. Did Kevin know that the sessions that he attended were being audio recorded and would be used against him by you or anyone else in the future?

a) Who actually audio recorded the privileged therapy sessions that Kevin attended with a psychologist?

b) Did you turn these privileged audio recordings between Kevin and his therapist over to any law enforcement agency at any time before Kevin’s arrest? Is so did you do so under the authority of a warrant or did you do so with Kevin’s express written consent?

c) Did Kevin give his signed, explicit authorization for the recording of those therapy sessions and if so can that authorization be found in Kevin’s medical records now?

Perhaps Mrs. Kevin Alfred Strom’s response to OTPTT’s Five Question will be Terrible Tommy Metzger’s Five Words…

Still, make the offer, just in the name of being “fair and balanced.”

Two, Linder addressed the need for action to take place before something happens in the Real World. True, then, as it was in the GoyFire on 20 mar 07. Chain’s response in the GoyFire was certainly unfeigned, and might well be the same, today.

Why not mend bridges, and bring him back?

While we can…

Three, Linder spoke of the issue of what VNN COULD be, given time, and resources. A model for this can be seen in Bill White’s ANSWP, where Open Books and total disclosure is the rule, and projects are discussed in terms of their costs.

We already have a model, why not take advantage of Bill White’s painfully gained experience, and ask him what should be done in terms of forming an effective organization?

While we can…

Four, Harold Covington has done us the greatest favor imaginable; his Northwest Republic Analytical Model provides the overarching Framework to answer, and answers, all of the questions about “What do we do now?”

As well, Covington’s Northwest Republic Analytical Model defines WHAT we are fighting FOR in concrete terms, that can be explained to anyone who we wish to approach about White Nationalism.

The Foundation of Family is universally accepted; the Issue of “Where Do We Go From Here, and Why,” is universally answered in the Northwest Republic Analytical Framework.

My Ideas, of course, are in one of the two Open Threads…

New America

An Idea Whose Time Is HERE!

I notice no one has bothered to even address, much less rebut, my assertions concerning Kevin Alfred Strom in this or the other Kevin Alfred Strom thread, so I will assume that is a problem solved.

I will address another critically important issue that was dealt with in this program.

In a prior VNN FTL Friday, Briseis mentioned something of great importance, in a peripheral manner. As Bud White had just been pulled over by the rollies, more important issues were discussed. This issue is of much greater importance than we have given it, and I suspect this is so because far too many of us are not willing to face the most elementary implications of it.

Too late.

In this VNN FTL, Linder addressed several important issues, but the one of most importance to us is what Linder called a “double clutch,” some kind of “glitch” that stops us from seeing correctly, or acting on what we see.

The correct phrase is “double-bind,” and was defined by the anthropologist Gregory Bateson as part of his analysis of schizophrenia – remember, “schizophrenia” means “double-minded.” A good phrase to describe the double-bind state of Mind is paradoxical communications.

Covington asked the obvious question: “Why do we, as a Family, a Race, a Nation, choose to stay in Hell, when better awaits?”

The answer could have been framed as cowardice, or some variation of fear, and that would have been correct, as far as it went.

It didn’t go far enough.

The demonic Jews have been studying us as predators study prey, as herders study cattle, slowly breeding out the unwanted traits, and breeding in the wanted traits.

An example of this manipulation is found in the little-discussed work of Pavlov, who taught a dog to go to the left, when a bell was rung (or face a beating), or go to the right, when a buzzer was buzzed (or face a beating).

He then rang the bell, and buzzed the buzzer, simultaneously.

The dog went to the middle, and fell down, whining, helpless, and shaking in abject fear.

That pretty much describes, to one degree or another, most of us; this, in part, is why more than two-thirds of us are on prescription tranquilizers…

As for the hook-nosed demons outbreeding the unwanted traits, and inbreeding the desired traits, this was done, not genetically (YET!), but culturally, through their control of the systems of Mass Communication, and Mass Indoctrination; the Lamestream Media, and the public fool system.

The human mind is a Symbol Processor; it processes all manner of Symbols, but the most powerful are Pictures, and Words.

By insuring we see what they want us to see, they shape our Creative powers of Consciousness to serve them.

By insuring we use the Words THEY choose, they enforce a de facto policy of Wordism, a system whereby intellectually developed beliefs are of greater value than the organic foundation of Society. The best reference to Wordism in practice is found at http://nationalsalvation.net/wordism.html where Bob Whitaker’s ideas and analysis are discussed.

We have accepted THEIR Dreams for ours, and THEIR pictures for our Reality, and their WORDS to describe our Reality.

And they have lied to us, laughing at us all the while…

The learned helplessness we feel leads to anger, yet this anger is unfocused, and tends, all too often, to be displaced internally, where it is diagnosed as “depression.”

And, again, this, in part, is why more than two-thirds of us are on prescription tranquilizers…

These serve to mask the symptoms of anger, and allow us to avoid facing the deep spiritual lessons we need to resolve the conflict between what we are TOLD is true, and what we KNOW is true, and further, what we know MUST be true.

The paradoxical communications requires sheer force of WILL to overcome, and the source of the energy needed to release the WILL – as a TOOL, as a WEAPON – is ANGER.

Yes, it is true.

Violence solves everything; anger is the key to unleashing the Creative Energies of the Shadow of our Persona through accepting violence, and working with it as a tool. (Yes, I’m a Jungian.)

The key to overcoming the paradoxical communication system, the double-bind, is to see that you are implicitly offered two choices, and BOTH CHOICES ARE FALSE, to one degree, or another.

That leads us to Harold Covington, and the Northwest Republic Analytical Model.

We are correct to focus on the horrific attacks on our Race, and all of Civilization, by the hook-nosed demons known as Jews, as our destruction is pretty much their preoccupation, as well as the source of profitable occupations, for them.

Yet, they offer us the double-mind trap, and we should address it in the most appropriate answer.

The offered answer, to us, is the political equivalent of the choice Pavlov’s dog faced; left OR right.

The CORRECT answer is neither left, nor right; it is RIGHT, or WRONG, for our Family, our Race, and our Nation.

The correct answer is UP, away from their system, UP, to the Stars – and AWAY, to a place where WE can choose to form the Racially explicit foundation for a Racial Homeland.

Again, Metzger’s famous Soliloquy of 2 apr 07 was right.

Parasites are simply doing what they do, and that is thrive in the presence of death; to be more precise, thrive in the absence of the best of our Race, when it is doing what only our Race can do, which is build Civilization, and consciously create a better Civilization.

The positive solution is to build the pathway to the Stars, starting with the Northwest Republic Analytical Model.

From that, the economic issues addressed by Briseis will be solved, to our benefit, and to our satisfaction…

For a welcome change.

PS: I would tell Pavlov’s dog to get off his ass and fight, but he couldn’t.

Fortunately, we can, and we should.

While we can…

New America

An Idea Whose Time Is HERE!

Folks, war has been declared on the white man.We have lost what General George Washington and proud white men fought for:THE FIRST AMENDMENT!! Just look at Stan Sikorski’s recent post about teen being prosecuted on fed. charges for a peice of fucking rope.
The zionist jew wants to kill us…..one by one by one,and hes using savage negro beasts as weapons.Are jews traing cops and the fbi to hate us ? YES.Arresting a boy for hanging a peice of rope on his truck?BULLSHIT!
Paul Fromm said,”When words are worth nothig,out comes the sword”!