There are five important aspects of Martin Luther King’s career: 1) his Communist Party activities; 2) the violence that always erupted in a King demonstration; 3) his plagiarism; 4) his sexual pathology; 5) his pagan beliefs.
Martin Luther King attended a Communist training school in Tennessee. A famous picture shows him enjoying a lecture in the company of Communist Aubrey Williams and Abner W. Berry, a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. Rosa Parks, who helped King launch the Montgomery Bus Boycott, learned how to do it at the same Communist training school.
…Suddenly, King started to make speeches about the war in Vietnam. Well-meaning Americans scratched their heads. The war took him far afield from “civil rights,” and his speeches started sounding like enemy propaganda cooked up in Hanoi. The reason was that Stanley Levison was writing those speeches. So who was Stanley Levison?
Stanley was the paymaster in this country for the KGB, the Soviet secret police. The KGB routinely sent Levison the rubles to pay for all Soviet activities in the United States, and he would distribute the money. How high up in the Soviet apparatus would you have to be – how much would the KGB have to trust you – to get that job? Stanley Levison, of the KGB, financed King and wrote his speeches. That is correct: the Soviet secret police financed Martin Luther King and put the words in his mouth.
King was said to be “heroic” because he was an apostle of Mohandas K. Gandhi’s non-violence in India. For that reason, many Americans at the time wondered why it was that, wherever King went, violence erupted. Why the paradox? King explained it himself, in a piece he wrote for Saturday Review, April 3, 1965 (“Behind the Selma March,” pp. 16-17, 57), in which he set forth the four steps of his technique:
“1. Nonviolent demonstrators go into the streets to exercise their constitutional rights. 2. Racists resist by unleashing violence against them. 3. Americans of conscience in the name of decency demand federal intervention and legislation. 4. The administration, under mass pressure, initiates measures of immediate intervention and remedial legislation.”
Remember, this is not something we are accusing him of. King wrote this himself. Notice that step two of his formulation calls for violence. The reason violence broke out wherever he went was that violence was what he went into the streets to get. Without the necessary violence, his schemes would fall flat. So, in King’s scenario, why would “racists” attack “nonviolent” demonstrators?
Drue Lackey was Montgomery, Alabama Chief of Police. In a speech in October, 2006, he explained that in the famous confrontation of 1965, “non-violent” demonstrators tried to provoke his policemen to react, by throwing “non-violent” bottles and bricks, and bedecking them with gobs of spit, while other “non-violent” demonstrators waited nearby to take pictures…
On December 3, 1989, Frank Johnson revealed in the British Sunday Telegraph, that Ralph Luker, associate editor of the King Papers Project, said King had “borrowed” heavily from the thesis of Jack Boozer, fellow Boston University theology student and later Professor of Religion at Emory. While Boozer was away in the military, King stole his work. In September, 1990, Thomas Fleming wrote in Chronicles that King’s doctorate should be considered a courtesy title, because he had plagiarized his dissertation.
If the truth had leaked, Boston University would have been humiliated. It is a short distance from B.U. to P.U. So, B.U. President Jon Westling sent a letter to Chronicles (published in the January, 1991 issue) denying Fleming’s charge. Westling said King’s dissertation had been “scrupulously examined and reexamined by scholars,” and that “not a single instance of plagiarism of any sort has been identified. . . . not a single reader has ever found any nonattributed or misattributed quotations, misleading paraphrases, or thoughts borrowed without due scholarly reference in any of its 343 pages.” Hey, Jon, how long was your nose after you said all that?
Claiborne Carson was director of the Project. He denied all charges until Waldman said he had a copy of Boozer’s dissertation. Then he caved. The story appeared on the front page of the Wall Street Journal on November 9, 1990. The article quoted Claiborne Carson finally admitting King’s plagiarism, but it calls his thievery “borrowings,” and “voice merging” that derives from the oral traditions of the black church. In other words, he was saying that thievery was a tradition of the black church, an intolerable insult.
The article says that “most of King’s papers had many original thoughts,” but often “borrowed without citing,” According to Waldman, Carson was asking staff members to refrain from use of the “p” word at work. In short, even the author of the exposé leaned over backward far enough to do an Olympic flip. Compare this treatment to what you know would be done to anyone else – black, white or whatever – who commits misrepresentation as outrageous as King’s. He would be stripped of his degree. Look for instance at the case of Clifford Irving’s phony “biography” of Howard Hughes.
Gerry Harbison was a professor of chemistry at the University of Nebraska. He was certainly not a “right-wing wacko.” He was full of praise for the “civil rights movement.” Professor Harbison is worth quoting at length: “Like most graduate students, King spent the first half of his doctoral work taking courses in his degree area, theology. His surviving papers from that period show that from the very beginning he was transcribing articles by eminent theologians, often word for word, and representing them as his own work.
“After completing his course work, graduate students usually write a dissertation or thesis, supposedly an independent and original contribution to scholarship. King’s thesis was anything but original. In fact, the sheer extent of his plagiarism is breathtaking. Page after page contains nothing but direct, verbatim transcriptions of the work of others. In 1990, the King Project estimated that less than half of some chapters was actually written by King himself. Since then, even more of his ‘borrowings’ have been traced…
Now let’s look at King’s Christianity. He was a “Reverend.” He had a “doctorate” in theology. The man was as brilliant a theologian as Boston University’s Jack Boozer. Christianity, we are told, was the inspiration for everything he did. What did Martin Luther King believe?
Among the papers with his name on it is one entitled, “What Experiences of Christians Living in the Early Christian Century Led to the Christian Doctrines of the Divine Sonship of Jesus, the Virgin Birth, and the Bodily Resurrection.” The title itself tells us something is wrong. These doctrines came not from anyone’s “experience,” but from history and from what Jesus said. But, “Dr.” King comments, “these doctrines are historically and philosophically untenable.” (sic)
Here is how Jesus got to be divine, according to “Dr.” King: “The first doctrine of our discussion which deals with the divine sonship of Jesus went through a great process of developement. (sic) . . . How then did this doctrine of divine sonship come into being? We may find a partial clue to the actual rise of this doctrine in the spreading of Christianity into the Greco-Roman world. . . . Anything that possessed flesh was always underminded (sic) in Greek thought. And so in order to receive inspiration from Jesus the Greeks had to apotheosize him.
“. . . As Hedley laconically states, ‘the church had found God in Jesus, and so it called Jesus the Christ; and later under the influence of Greek thought-forms, the only begotten Son of God.'” In short, according to King, it was the Greeks who made Jesus “divine.” My guess is that King really did write this, because it is so incompetent. This is the writing of a mediocre high school sophomore, not a man about to receive a doctorate.
Here is King on the virgin birth: “First we must admit that the evidence for the tenability of this doctrine is to (sic) shallow to convince any objective thinker . . . .” Finally, consider that the resurrection is the master doctrine of Christian belief. Catholics believe it. Protestants believe it. Without the resurrection, there is no Christianity; there is just another “wise man.” If you don’t believe in the resurrection, then go your way in peace, but you are not a Christian.
So, what does “Dr.” King believe about the resurrection? “The last doctrine in our discussion deals with the resurrection story. This doctrine, upon which the Easter Faith rests, symbolizes the ultimate Christian conviction: that Christ conquered death. From a literary, historical, and philosophical point of view this doctrine raises many questions. In fact the external evidence for the authenticity of this doctrine is found wanting. . . .” According to King, the apostles made it all up because they loved Him so much.
So, “Dr.” King was not a Christian. Along these lines, King was an ardent supporter of Planned Parenthood, the baby-killing racket, won their Margaret Sanger Award in 1966 and said “there is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger’s early efforts.” Mrs. Sanger’s early efforts included agitation to limit the procreation of the “inferior races” and publishing the work of Nazi propagandists. Were those the early efforts he meant?
Finally, there was King’s career as a sexual predator. We are not just talking about a world-class philanderer like Jack Kennedy. We’re not just talking about Fiddle and Faddle in the White House and Marilyn Monroe. We’re talking about a genuine sexual psychopath. How do we know this? We know it because FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover tapped his telephones and bugged King’s activities. Why did Hoover do that?
He did it because his boss, Attorney General Bobby Kennedy – a certified demigod in the illiberal pantheon – ordered him to. The Kennedys had become aware of King’s Communist activities and were worried. They brought him to the White House, where the President himself warned King that what he was doing could discredit them all. They wanted to know what he was up to, hence the wiretaps and bugs. What did they find out? Because the truth is so putrid, some of it has leaked.
For instance, King was in Norway to accept the Nobel Prize. He spent the night before the ceremony chasing a woman naked down the hallway in his Oslo hotel. King was naked. I don’t know whether the woman was. A story in the Atlanta Journal, dated March 31, 1965, quoted Republican Congressman William Dickinson as saying that King participated in “all night sessions of debauchery” in a church. On the night before he was killed, King participated in another orgy. He hired prostitutes and paid for them with church money. He beat at least one of them up. Again, he wasn’t just a womanizer; he was a predator. He should have been in jail.
At the request of Mrs. King, a court has sequestered all this evidence until the year 2027, long enough to milk everything possible from the myth. We share Mrs. King’s embarrassment. There are over 60,000 censored pages. Some of them have been released under the Freedom of Information Act; the rest has been labeled “obscene.” King’s own son says his father was killed in a “massive conspiracy” because his bizarre behavior, long-term depression and alcohol abuse had become a liability the killers couldn’t afford.