Publisher’s Note: The writing below was received by The Truth from an unknown source and the decision to publish it on this blog is based on its contents related to information on the activities of “Martin Luther” King Jr. that are not covered in the conventional media. The Truth collective is in agreement with the fundamental subject of the writing consisting of exposing the violence and hate he practiced and promoted, while preaching love and non-violence as the basis to have his national holiday repealed. The writing received did not have a conclusion so we wrote one at the end.
Why the “Martin Luther” King Jr. holiday should be repealed
It is generally believed that “Martin Luther” King Jr. [Michael King] was an intelligent Negro leader who promoted peace and harmony between the races. Numerous books about his deeds to promote good will during a time when riots and strife regularly occurred have been written about him, and he is generally regarded as a man of ethics who fought against injustices perpetrated on his people and was even awarded the noble peace prize. However, there is another side of King that no one dares to discuss in today’s “politically correct” times and much of his real and hidden life don’t convey his image of a leader who promoted love and peace. Very few, in particular those who were not alive during the time period he promoted his “brotherhood,” have heard of or know anything about the other side of King. I challenge everything you have been taught about King’s “love” and his “nonviolent” tactics, beliefs and ethics. The hidden side of King needs to be discussed and I feel quite strongly about this. In fact, judging from what I have uncovered about his hidden life that only rarely is mentioned, a petition for the redress of grievances is in order to have the “Martin Luther” King Jr. holiday totally repealed in the United States.
The background of Michael King
On January 15, 1929 a Negro baby boy named Michael was born in Atlanta, Georgia. His father’s name was also Mike. Many friends and relatives called the child “little Mike.” Little Mike’s family was somewhat wealthy despite the poverty surrounding them during the great depression and they lived in a large 13-room house. His father who was often called “daddy” in the community came from several generations of Southern Baptist preachers.
Daddy was married to a woman named Alberta who attended Spellman College in Atlanta for black women and was the daughter of the first president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People [NAACP]. “Little Mike” had a sister named Christine and a brother named Alfred. Daddy was extremely religious and followed the Old Testament teachings word-for-word. He felt that activities such as dancing or playing cards were considered “immoral” and oftentimes whipped his son little Mike for misbehaving. In 1934 after touring Bethlehem and Jerusalem at the expense of the Ebenezer Baptist Church’s congregation, he expressed his wish to rename his son as “Martin Luther” King Jr. He did it because he admired the work of the protestant reformer in Germany Dr. Martin Luther for whom the Lutheran Church is named after. “Martin Luther” King Jr. and Sr. both went by those names during the rest of their lives. Like most children “Martin Luther” King Jr. played with other children. When he was young a white kid with whom he had been friends rejected him. King reacted to this experience and decided every since to “hate every white person.” Because of that he did not socialize much with whites until college. At age 15 he attended Morehouse College in Atlanta. From there he entered The Crosier Seminary in Chester, Pennsylvania. While attending The Crosier Seminary he was introduced to and influenced by the late Dr. Mordecai Johnson president of Harvard University who was a strong believer in Mahatma Gandhi. In 1955 when “Martin Luther” King Jr. was 26 years old he became pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama. It was during that time he first gained public acclaim.
Conquering the castles
On December 1, 1955 the event that led to King’s fame occurred when a bus driver ordered blacks to stand up so that white passengers could sit-down. Rosa Parks was among them but refused to stand up and was arrested. King protested. He felt that the system which allowed sitting privileges to whites on buses was completely intolerable. [Note: At some places in the South during that time blacks although allowed to ride on the same bus as whites were forced to seat in the back]. At that time King was head of the Montgomery Improvement Association boycott against the City bus system. Because he was articulate and unafraid of the City’s leaders he was the natural spokesman against the busing system. On May 2, 1956 his demand for integrated buses was met. He then articulated the rest of his plan: “Two of our original proposals have been met but we are awaiting on the third which is the employment of Negro bus drivers for predominantly Negro routes.”
While no one should be denied a place to sit it seems unnecessary and extreme to force white bus drivers out of their jobs for driving through predominantly Negro areas. King felt that the implementation of preferential treatment for black applicants was a noble idea and one of the special treatments they sought. On July 21, 1963 KTTV in Los Angeles had a show called “The American Experience” where prominent black activists were featured on the show. The following black leaders were interviewed: Wyatt Walker, an aid to King and Malcolm ” X” [Malcolm Little] who was a minister of the Nation of Islam at the time; Allen Morrison, editor of Ebony magazine and James Farmer head of the Congress of Racial Equality [CORE]. In the show Malcolm “X” said that Muslims wanted whites to give Negroes a nation, businesses, houses, et cetera, but far away from white people while others felt somewhat different. Walker, Farmer and Morrison demanded full integration and “compensatory preference” by “coercive force” if necessary. They claimed that mere equality was insufficient and “massive preferential treatment” was required. They demanded that Negroes be paid more for the same jobs whites did and that employers should fire them and replace them with Negroes; that employers should actively go out and find Negroes, provide transportation and hire them, qualified or not; that the Constitution be changed or replaced to enforce these and other demands; that the US should rapidly move towards a socialist system and that violent revolutionary measures would be taken if America failed to do this. Unfortunately, a number of politicians in Congress granted many of the demands despite the protests of many honorable Americans. Whenever King’s demands were not met he used force and intimidation as a method to reach his ends. In February of 1966 he and his men decided to launch an attack on a castle. The castle which they assumed to be “trustee ships” was a six-flat tenement in Chicago. This was done as part of his campaign to gain power among the poor he claimed to represent. King had no legal authority but his “power” actually derived from violent tactics. King felt that his “morality” was more important than the law or property rights and deemed his actions to be “supra legal” [above the law].
On several occasions King preached that Negroes should disobey any “unjust law.” At the time there were communities that did not allow Negroes to vote in full force by imposing certain restrictions on voters. Some communities required that one had to be able to read and write in order to vote but many blacks living in rural areas were illiterate. King said that people who resided in those communities did not have to obey the laws.
In communities where blacks had the right to change the laws by voting King went to the extreme of suggesting that blacks should not obey any laws they disliked. On March 28, 1965 while he was on the television show “meet the press” he stated his opinion regarding laws:
“I do feel there are two types of laws. One is a just law and one is an unjust law. I think we all have moral obligations to disobey unjust laws. I think the distinction here is that when one breaks a law and his conscience tells him is unjust he must do it openly. He must do it cheerfully and lovingly. And he must do it with a willingness to accept the penalty. There may be a community where Negroes have the right to vote but there are still unjust laws. There may be unjust laws in a community where people in large numbers are voting and I think wherever unjust laws exist people on the basis of consciences have a right to disobey them.”
King’s suggestion to disobey “unjust laws” is something that could lead to anarchy. Who would decide what is a just or unjust law? He apparently decided what laws should and should not be obeyed according to his interests. Stokely Carmichael, a well-known black militant who voiced an ideology similar to King’s but much more blatant said once: “to hell with the laws.” Carmichael much like King felt his actions were “supra legal” as if he was obeying a law of his own. When King’s actions of disobeying “unjust laws” landed him in jail he could always count on good Samaritans to bail him out. The late Thurgood Marshall, a Negro who became a member of the Supreme Court was one of those good Samaritans. He was unhappy with the way King gave his bills to the NAACP when he served as the director/counsel for the group. “With Martin Luther King’s group all he did was to dump his legal work on us including the bills” said Marshall. He also said that “it was all right with him so long as he didn’t have to pay the bills.” Because of problems between King and the NAACP of Chicago that chapter eventually and formally split from King’s group. King felt that he could personally decide what was legal and what was not. He felt that rules did not really matter and that he only had to obey what he wanted to obey. Edgar J. Hoover, the former FBI director described how King would break the laws: “Unfortunately some civil rights leaders in the past have condoned what they describe as civil disobedience in civil rights demonstrations.” King for example, after arriving in Chicago during early 1966 in connection with a civil rights drive there commented about the use of civil disobedience in demonstrations and said:
“It may be necessary to engage in such acts as often an individual has to break a particular law in order to obey a higher law. Such a course of action is fraught with danger for if everyone took it upon himself to break any law that he/she believed was morally unjust it is readily apparent there would be complete chaos in this country.“
Due to the turmoil inspired by King and his friends at the 1966 Chicago riots, Congressman Edward Derwinski of Illinois described him and his cohorts as a “professional riot-inciting group.” The City of Chicago held a meeting hoping to avoid marches that were creating animosity and spreading the strength of the police dangerously thin. Residents noted that their attempts to appease the protesters were futile. One resident proclaimed: “Suddenly it dawned on us that the whole meeting was a farce… every time we would make a concession they would move to a new spokesman and push for something more. They never had any intention of calling off the marches.” Trying to appease the unappeasable is an effort in futility as residents quickly learned about the farce of the “peaceful” protest marches. In the Chicago riot of July 1966, Mayor Richard Daley said that “the strife was planned by King’s aides who were in here for no other reason than to bring disorder to the streets of Chicago…” Apparently he was right since King had spoken to numerous gang members prior to the ordeal. King even went to the extent of showing gang members a film of the Watts riots. The Baltimore Sun published an interview with King in which his motives were clearly shown. In the interview King acknowledged that his “end slums” campaign in Chicago was an implementation for the concept “black power” but under a more palatable name. He acknowledged that his presence in Chicago had more far reaching aims than the immediate dramatization of problems in impoverished Negro communities. He spoke at West Side Organization headquarters where a large sign on the wall read: “Burn baby burn.” Roving bands of black youths and adults broke windows, looted stores, stoned police cars and vans. The riot was intense and started when Negro youths numbering more than one hundred stoned a police car. King blamed the riots on Chicago’s Mayor Daley and accused him of refusing to make concessions to the “civil rights” program. “This is his typical style and rarely has King chastised looters, arsonists, and conspirators for violence. He always justifies their actions and directly or indirectly encourages them,” said Congressman John Ashbrook. Governor Kerner of Illinois was forced to use the National Guard because police could not control the rioting that in three nights caused burning, looting, two deaths, over one hundred injuries and large property damages,” noted Congressman Ashbrook. King also had a conversation with Stokely Carmichael in which he recommended to “dislocate the functioning of a City but without destroying it.” These are King’s words of advice to Carmichael: “Dislocating the functioning of the City without destroying it can be longer lasting and more costly to society and it is more difficult for the government to quell it by force. The disruption of cities you want will become much easier.” Unfortunately, King’s followers not only disrupted the City but also almost destroyed a large section of Chicago following his speech. Many Negro religious leaders felt that King was doing more harm than good and asked him to leave. They said that they didn’t want their City disrupted or even destroyed and pleaded King to stop his campaign but it did no good as he continued to foment violence while preaching “peace and love.”
In May of 1961 King spoke at the Southern Baptist Seminary. After his speech three churches in Alabama voted to withhold funds from the seminary. King often warned of impending riots if his demands were not met. In November of 1967 he delivered a speech in Cleveland, Ohio where he warned of “massive winter riots” in Cleveland, Ohio; Gary, Indiana or “in any other ghetto.” King even went to the extent of threatening two mayors suggesting that they would be the “two outstanding targets we have set up as lambs for the slaughter.” King said that he was “very pleased” with certain “victories of creative black power.” The young boy who once swore to “hate every white person” was now a man keeping the promise he made in his youth. King’s violent tactics were commonplace in places he attended. In one instance, King went to Albany, Georgia and threatened to have a new drive for Negro rights. Ten days later, King set a “day of penance” following a night of rioting and destruction in which Negroes were arrested as they marched to City Hall while hooting, laughing, throwing bottles, bricks, and rocks at law officials,” said former Congressman John Ashbrook of Ohio.
When the FBI expanded COINTELPRO [Counter Intelligence Program] in 1967 to include black hate groups and others, King’s Southern Christian Leadership [SCL] was also targeted along with the Nation of Islam. King was probably under that listing because he would often associate with other minorities who hated whites. For instance, he was allied with Cassius Clay [“Muhammad Ali”] a boxer who was a member of the radical anti-American Nation of Islam. King also met with Malcolm “X” and Stokely Carmichael and offered them his help and advice. On February 24, 1966 King met with Elijah Muhammad, the leader of neo-Muslims.
During the National Conference for New Politics which had King listed as a member of its national council he delivered a speech. The people who attended were Vietnam war protesters, “black power” advocates, “civil rights” workers, representatives from a number of leftist organizations and others. The Chicago Tribune edition of September 6, 1967 reported that the convention “turned out to be an assembly of crackpots and innocent do-gooders who meekly did the bidding for a handful of violent black fanatics.” There were marijuana parties during the convention and sex orgies before audiences of delegates. The term “black power” was written on walls, hallways, rooms, and in elevators of the hotel where delegates were staying. The “peaceful” people who came to hear King speaking caused $20 thousand in property damages to the hotel.
The “nonviolent” advocate
Although King spoke of “nonviolence” his actions were designed to elicit violence. King once said that “Negroes will be mentally healthier if they do not suppress rage but vent it constructively and not peacefully but forcefully to cripple the operations of an oppressive society.” Notice how his contradiction is utilized when he told the Negro audience that they should “not suppress rage but vent it constructively to cripple the operations of an oppressive society” yet this “forcefully crippling of society” was to be done “peacefully” and constructively.” What King was proposing was contradicting, illogical and inconceivable. Louis Waldman, a prominent black-labor lawyer described King’s methods as follows: “The philosophy and purpose of King’s program is to produce crisis packed situations and tensions which purpose is the very opposite of nonviolence as this atmosphere of crisis policy leads to violence. To describe such provocation as ‘nonviolent’ is to trifle with the plain meaning of words,” he said. Meanwhile, the government found that King’s actions were causing violence, racial problems, and the destruction of property. The Louisiana Legislative Committee noted that King was “leading Negroes down the road to bloodshed and violence.” Although he often spoke of “nonviolence” his actions could hardly be considered peaceful. He was just using double talk to cover his real intentions. Congressman John Ashbrook of Ohio described the violence that occurred after one of King’s “nonviolent” marches: “On May 4, 1963 police dogs and firehouses were used to quell a demonstration by law breakers in Birmingham, Alabama. There had been violence plain and simple. King and his right hand man Fred L. Shuttles Worth threatened to continue with these type of demonstrations and said that there was “no intention of relaxing pressure.
We negotiate from strength and will consider calling off the demonstrations only after the action.” This was the mood of the well known “nonviolence” of “Martin Luther” King Jr. The big lie technique was clearly used: Repeat “nonviolence” over-and-over so the public will believe it and then practice open violence or the encouraging of it. A Birmingham judge issued an injunction that forbade King from participating in the march there which culminated in the aforementioned riot. King protested the injunction and took it to the Supreme Court. In June of 1967 the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of King and seven others for violating the law. Justice Stewart speaking for the court said:
“The rule of law that Alabama followed in this case reflects a belief that in the fair administration of justice, no man can be judged in his own case however exalted his station, righteous his motives and irrespective of his race, skin color, politics, or religion. This court cannot hold that Martin Luther King Jr. and others were constitutionally free to ignore all the procedures of the law and carry their battle to the streets. Respect for judicial process is a small price to pay for the civilizing hand of law which alone can give abiding meaning to constitutional freedom.”
On the same day the Supreme Court delivered the verdict against King’s inflammatory escapades riots were raging in Tampa, Florida; Montgomery, Alabama; Los Angeles, California; and Cincinnati, Ohio. Giving the impression that he was righteous and the Supreme Court was wrong, King said that the decision would “encourage riots and violence in the sense that Negroes cannot redress their grievances through peaceful measures without facing the kind of decision we face.” How he figured that the measures he took were “peaceful” is something we will never know, but what is known is that the rioting took the lives of people and ransacked the City of Birmingham. Of course King’s diatribe was stated four years after the Birmingham riots which was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court and he probably figured that everyone had a short term memory and would not remember. Whenever police were sent to stop the random violence that King’s followers caused he would scream “police brutality.” It was a simple two step process: 1) King would provoke riots by his comments; 2) when the police came to stop the ensuing violence his followers would resist and then blame any injuries on the police. King’s methodology was very similar to what Fidel Castro used initially to take control of Cuba. Senator James Martin of Alabama stated a distinct similarity between King’s and Castro’s methods:
“In a memorandum circulated in Cuba before the triumph of the Castro revolution the first point in the formula was to discredit the police in every way by causing incidents which will lead to arrests and then claiming police brutality. The program now being carried on inside the United States by ‘Martin Luther’ King Jr. and others is following the Castro formula whether King and those who constantly criticize the police know it or not.”
The riots in Los Angeles in which screaming mobs burned, robbed, and murdered had not even ended before King was charging “police brutality” and demanding the firing of the nation’s finest police chiefs. King claimed there were problems in Montgomery, Alabama and asked President Eisenhower to stop what he called “a reign of terror.” The City’s police commissioner dismissed his claim as false suggesting that it was merely “the ranting of a rabble rousing agitator.” The politicians were all too quick to cave into King’s demands. King also influenced a large number of nonwhite voters. King said: “we will have Negroes so fired up they will withhold their support from candidates who do not respond to their demands.” When King said “fired up” he literally meant it as houses, apartments, and other buildings were burned down after he delivered his inflammatory speeches. King’s antics were designed to elicit violence from both his disciples and opponents. By staging marches in relatively peaceful communities he could either cause his followers to engage in a riot or provoke violence from his adversaries. Either situation worked well for him. If his followers caused a riot it would gain international attention and he would blame it on “racist whites” or on “unjust laws.” If marches generated violence from his adversaries King’s followers would attain victimization status and marchers would generate sympathy from peace-loving Americans. This would force the government to enact more laws to prevent recurring violence and quell the “nonviolent” demonstrators. It appears that King figured out his antics would make his battle seem honorable in the eyes of the masses who would not take time to delve deeply into his hidden methodology. The magazine Newsweek edition of March 22, 1965 described King’s actions: “For weeks ‘Martin Luther’ King Jr. has been escalating his Selma voter registration campaign toward the state he calls ‘creative tension’ as the setting for paroxysm of segregationist violence that can shock the nation to action. There is no question that King’s ‘creative tension’ would definitely shocked the nation especially after causing millions of dollars in damages from riots.” Meanwhile, The New York Times edition of February 24, 1964 had this to say about the method that was utilized: “The Negroes rationale in holding night marches is to provoke the racist element in white communities to show its worst.
It appears that King was attempting to provoke anything but nonviolence.” In the Saturday Review of April 3, 1965 King revealed his methodology:
1) Demonstrators go into the streets to exercise their constitutional rights.
2) Racists resist by unleashing violence against them.
3) Americans of conscience and decency demand federal intervention and legislation.
4) The administration under mass pressure initiates measures of immediate intervention and remedial legislation.
His scheme was brilliant, somewhat iniquitous but nonetheless brilliant. First, he had his followers travel to relatively peaceful towns or places where people were unaccustomed to seeing black power advocates, organized crowds, and the lawless element that antagonize people with signs, marches, sit-ins, and chants. Next, the people residing in those peaceful communities who were unaccustomed to demonstrations and who wanted to maintain a peaceful neighborhood rebelled against the marchers. It seems that King desired that type of conflict to occur which he would blame entirely on “racists” or those whites who resisted his plans. King and his disciples would be viewed as the victims rather than the aggressors in the eyes of some Americans who were unaware of the full scope of King’s activities and those of his colleagues. With this view that portrayed him as the victim he was able to have his demands met by the “remedial legislation” that brought about preferential treatment for blacks. In many cases when King went to big cities rather than small towns his followers rioted. When his followers caused riots he would merely blame the “unjust laws.” After all King claimed that his followers could not be held responsible for their actions and everything was the fault of those evil, bigoted racist whites and not the peaceful, loving, and caring oppressed blacks who looted, burned, and destroyed the City. King’s preference for violence can be summarized by one of his remarks: “A riot is the language of the unheard.” Kink’s attempt to excuse his cohorts and own lawless behavior as being the righteous “language of the unheard” was evil and destructive. Evidently this was one of those things that he also preferred.
The “supralegal” love and the sexually degenerated man
King professed that he loved the world and all those around him. He said it all the time and claimed to be a peaceful, nonviolent, loving citizen of good will. If he had so much love for everyone his behavior should have been validated as true feelings but that was not the case at all.
Although King may not have loved himself he did care for some of his followers and his “love” for people was oftentimes “supralegal.” Demonstrating what could only be defined as “supralegal love” federal agents investigating his life discovered that he had violated criminal laws during the overall pursuit of his goals. For example, they discovered that King had violated the Mann Act related to white slavery. They discovered also that on many occasions King shared his “love” by being sexually involved with two or three different women prostitutes at the same time in one single night with whom the champion and advocate of “nonviolence” became upset during arguments related to his sexual depravity, and then “hit and knocked them across the bed,” according to his close friend the late Rev. Ralph David Abernathy. King’s friends were also of questionable morality. For example, Bayard Rustin who worked five years as an adviser to King was once convicted of sodomy for his perverted “love” with a victim. The Federal Bureau of Investigations [FBI] had recorded many times with hidden microphones all words said during perverted “love” sessions performed by King and his disciples with different women. The FBI had been keeping tabs on King by tapping his phone and bugging his quarters since October 10, 1963. Because of investigations conducted by the late FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover of subversive organizations like the Nation of Islam and the Communist Party he was repeatedly slandered by King and associates. The media were only happy to repeat the slandering probably with the hope of generating attention to themselves and the accompanying money. The FBI has always been targeted in the past by those who have felt that it is “out to get them” but in cases where those involved are criminals they may be right. For instance, Louis Farrakhan threatened to “knock off the head of any undercover FBI agent” found in his organization during his speech called “warning to the government.” There were numerous attempts to defame the late J. Edgar Hoover much of which borders on sheer insanity and the rest of which is an outright licentious rumor by leftist hate mongers. Why would they do that? It is quite simple: By attacking Mr. Hoover with their unproven and insipid jeremiads in an attempt to discredit him, they hoped that all of the evidence found against them would be discredited as well. For instance, there were rumors that Mr. Hoover was a clandestine racist and a closet homosexual but nothing could be further from the truth. At the same time he had left-wing extremists investigated he was doing the same with right-wing extremists as well, and despite the differences he had with King, he was personally responsible for launching a massive investigation to find his killer James Ray which led to his murder conviction.
Mr. Hoover was actually quite impartial and merely went about doing his job but by attacking him the Zionist–sponsored leftists hoped to destroy the FBI’s reputation and credibility. They hoped to discredit the facts uncovered by the government about their leftist hatemonger’s nefarious activities. The leftists in various cases had already destroyed the reputation of some law enforcement agencies as part of their contribution to the Zionist agenda, and were also attempting to destroy anyone in the government who did not approved their opinions as truth. Mr. Hoover was unfairly, maligned and viciously attacked by unsubstantiated allegations the foremost being that he was a closet homosexual. It almost seems ironic that the leftist hate monger’s have accused him of being a fag since many of them engage in or promote its acceptance. Anthony Summers wrote a book about J. Edgar Hoover titled “Official and Confidential: The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover.” In his book he alleges that Mr. Hoover was a closet homosexual and to “prove” his ludicrous allegation he quotes some people. He cites people like Seymour Pollock a friend of mobster Meyer Lansky who said that “the homosexual thing was Hoover’s Achilles heel.” Evidently, we are supposed to believe Pollock who is an individual whose company was the mob against whom Mr. Hoover spent his entire life investigating and maintaining law-and-order. Meanwhile, Curt Gentry in his book titled “Edgar J. Hoover: The Man and the Secrets” reiterates the same baseless rumors as Summers. Contradictory to Gentry’s suggestion that Mr. Hoover may have been a homosexual he admittedly noted that he had once warned former President Richard Nixon that a “ring of hard core homosexuals” surrounded him. Apparently, Gentry cannot even see the contradiction in his own writing for if Mr. Hoover had been a homosexual he certainly would not have cared if homosexuals were in the Nixon’s government. It is time to put an end to the false allegation that Edgar J. Hoover was a homosexual. He was definitely not. He never did approve nor supported homosexuality and made it well known. He didn’t even allowed homosexuals to be members of the FBI which was stated in the internal rules at the time. Meanwhile, Ralph Toledano in his book titled “Edgar J. Hoover: The Man in His Time” described how the baseless and false rumors of Mr. Hoover being a closet homosexual began. It all started in 1964 when one of Lyndon Johnson’s aides and associates was arrested for committing a deprave “homosexual act” in a bathroom at a YMCA center. Johnson’s aide emotionally collapsed after being arrested for the homosexual act and was sent to a hospital in Washington, D.C. The White House kept the lid on the story and did not tell the newspapers. But one of Mr. Hoover’s assistants found out that Johnson’s aide was in the hospital but did not know the reason why.
The FBI assistant sent flowers to Johnson’s aide using Mr. Hoover’s name which was customary. The media hoping to generate headlines were happy to make it known and Mr. Hoover had a difficulty explaining what happened for a couple of reasons which are described in his book: “If Hoover had said that he knew nothing of the homosexual charge he would have admitted that the FBI was not omniscient, but if on the other hand he claimed knowledge, then he would have convicted himself of having a friendship with homosexuals. The Communist Party’s members heard about the incident and decided that it would be in their best interest to use some under handed tactics of their own. They decided to engage in what Mr. Hoover described as a “smear campaign” against him. Their hatred for him was well known so it shouldn’t be surprising. After all Mr. Hoover had kept the Communist Party from attaining social acceptance by releasing information about its nefarious activities. The Communist Party sent a false letter to several government officials which was supposed to have been written by Mr. Hoover himself, and suggested that he was engaging in homosexual affairs as if the man who had fought valiantly against the acceptance of homosexuality into the FBI would engage in such a perverse activity. The letter was described as “scurrilous and putrid” by Senator Bourke Hickenlooper. Mr. Hoover was able to prove that the letter was just another disinformation attempt made up to discredit the FBI by attacking him personally. Though there were many attempts to use disinformation against Mr. Hoover for what the FBI had discovered on King during the course of investigations and bugging, it was simply incredible and certainly mind boggling what they found out about his hidden and perverted activities in addition to his criminal past. This was the reason why they were attacking Mr. Hoover with false accusations related to homosexuality.
The so-called “Martin Luther” King Jr. was certainly not a saint as he is presented in the Zionist-controlled mass media and as so many dupes still think of him. Carl Rowan, a black syndicated columnist was very perturbed when he discovered that King had been bugged by the FBI and in one of his columns, blamed FBI Director Edgar J. Hoover but later discovered that U.S. Attorney General Bobby Kennedy had ordered the investigation and bugging of King’s place. Clyde Tolson who was an FBI associate director revealed in response to one of Rowan’s columns that “the wire tap on ‘Martin Luther’ King Jr. was specifically approved in advance and in writing by the late US Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy. The device was strictly used in the field of internal security and therefore within the provisions laid down by the President of the United States,” he declared. Meanwhile, the FBI reportedly discovered that King had numerous “love” affairs in which violence was used.
The FBI had at least 15 reels of recorded tape containing sexual entertainment activities and conversations between King and Ralph David Abernathy that lead to the firm conclusion that there was definitely a homosexual relationship between the two. In one of the tapes the voice of King is clearly heard saying to Ralph David Abernathy: “Come over here you black mother fucker and let me suck your dick.” During a discussion with an FBI agent, Rowan discovered that there had been sexual intercourse in King’s suite with Ralph David Abernathy. Also, at another time it was reported that there was a homosexual orgy in King’s suite which can be heard in conversations that had been taped by the FBI’s bugs. In addition, the black newspaper writer and television talk show host Tony Brown, mentioned the reported conversation taped by the FBI between King and Abernathy behind closed doors in one of his columns titled “King’s love.”
The cunning plagiarist
Other areas of King’s “ethics” were also questionable especially for a man of “good will” who preached “nonviolence” and “love” while promoting riots and other violence. In the course of King’s endeavors he often plagiarized work from others claiming it as his own and not giving credit where it was due. For a person who seemed accustomed to trickery this was nothing new to him. King would quote some else work verbatim and not give credit to the original authors. In the course of his plagiarism he would occasionally change a few words and would often misspell them. Also, it is known that King was given the “Doctor” degree as a result of pressure by leftists elements linked to Zionists and not because he truly earned it. With his true but hidden background how can King be viewed as an exemplary leader? King only obeyed laws he conveniently deemed just, incited riots, threatened mayors, cheated in school throughout his life, stole other people’s intellectual creations, engaged in homosexual depravity, and more. His “love” extended way beyond his speeches. Different Congressmen felt that the type of King’s “leadership” was not something to be admired. In contradiction to the beliefs held by his misguided followers, Congressman Waggonner told some facts behind King’s actions:
“There is a great deal of concern in every quarter of the nation over the role this professional dowser has recently taken upon himself as a Secretary of State without portfolio. King is a meddler and unqualified to tell others how to run either their government or their personal affairs. The fact that he is a Negro gives him the right in the eyes of the deluded liberals to meddle in any affair in which any Negro is involved. Yet the record shows that wherever his presence is felt there has been bloodshed, strife, and anarchy. His ‘nonviolence’ has bred violence and his ‘leadership’ has turned loose the rampaging mob; his ‘peace’ has fomented hatred at a time when cool heads and reasoning was needed.”
In the latter part of March 1968 before his assassination, King decided to visit a garbage collectors strike in Memphis, Tennessee and organized a demonstration that culminated in a riot. After the traditional burning and looting was completed it was discovered that a 16-year-old was killed in the process. A judge wishing to prevent more outbursts of senseless violence put forth a mandate that made certain there would be no more demonstrations allowed. King felt that it was an “unjust law” and made it perfectly clear that he was not going to obey the law. Had he obeyed the laws or had he decided to “go home” as some congressmen desired, it is quite probable that James Ray would not have eventually killed him. It is an outrage that the Zionist-controlled government declared a day after “Martin Luther” King Jr. There is no doubt that King’s holiday was created to appease politicians representing the interest of those controlling them. There are many outstanding blacks that have served the United States well both in war and in peace and it is inappropriate to give King this undeserved recognition. As for the Nobel Peace Prize he undeservedly received, this may have been conferred by misguided members of the international community who were either unaware of King’s real activities or had feigned blindness. Although it may seem that what has already been mentioned would be enough to warrant a repeal of the King holiday, there is one thing about him that is particularly disturbing and needs to be addressed: King’s belief in communism. King and other “leaders” [Zionist puppets] in the so-called “civil rights movement” accepted the belief because they liked the idea of “redistributing” which is the communist euphemism for stealing other people’s property. In order to fully understand the reasoning for this folly and before delving into King’s involvement with the communist ideology, it is necessary to take a cursory examination of the tenets of socialism and/or communism –and most importantly– who created the theory and why. If you wish to learn the truth about who was behind socialism/communism and for what real purpose, you need to do your own research. I can only briefly tell you that communism or socialism is a Jewish invented theory which Karl Marx [also a Jew] developed after Jewish bankers among them the Rothschild’s, commissioned him to write all the crazy stuff that duped millions throughout the world.
There is no “freedom” in communism. The Russian “revolution” was a business adventure that turned out to be highly profitable at the expense of millions of real Russians who were either murdered or died as a result of hunger or illness. The results of communism can be seen in China, North Korea, Cuba and other places where people are ruthlessly governed by a few privileged who belong to the one party system. Communism is more cruel and oppressive than capitalism.
Eskimos in Florida
Many hard-core communists supported “Martin Luther” King Jr. in his efforts to destroy US society by means of violence and not “love” as he so falsely claimed. Michael Laski who was chairman of the Communist Party USA [CPUSA] noted King’s allegiance and said that he was secretive about his relationship with the CPUSA. On April 13, 1967 Laski told a press conference this: “King knows what’s going on and he’s allowing himself to be utilized by the CPUSA. Gus Hall, a renowned communist said that “the leaders of the CPUSA consult with and advise top Negro leaders in their ‘civil rights’ campaigns.” He also said that members of the CPUSA were very active in all Negro organizations engaged in the “civil rights” struggle. He was right. King vehemently denied to the general public his true ideology while knowing what would happen to his hidden agenda if he were to admit his affiliation with the CPUSA. In one speech he said: “I am sick and tired of people saying that the civil rights movement has been infiltrated by communists and sympathizers. There are as many communists in this freedom movement as there are Eskimos in Florida.” There must have been quite a few Eskimos getting sun burnt on Florida’s beaches at the time of his speech…
When King needed support it came from more than just the NAACP which was discovered to be filled with subversives. A meeting was held by the Emergency Committee to Support Birmingham in an effort to support King’s tactics there. The principal speaker was Rev. Fred Shuttles. Some of the other speakers were James Farmer of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and Malcolm X. What is “CORE”? The purpose of CORE was best summarized by former Senator Eastland: “This organization is the war department of those who sell hate, collect donations, and sow the seeds of discord in this country. Since its inception, its creed has been lawlessness and its tactics have followed the pattern set by communist agitation the world over.” King vehemently denied having ever been a communist just as many others of that cause did. However, his claim did not fool the people in government who were investigating his involvement with them. According to black newspaper columnist Carl Rowan who attended National Security Council meetings and was allowed access to confidential FBI files on King [that have since been sealed by a court order] was known to be a communist. Bill Sullivan diligently working in the FBI determined than that “King was the most dangerous Negro of the future in this nation from the standpoint of communism.” If King’s communist activities were known as early as 1962 a logical question should naturally follow: Why didn’t more people knew about it? The answer is simple: In order to prevent recurring violence a lid was put on King’s sordid actions. The Department of Justice had a “special task force” appointed to determine what to do with King’s FBI files while knowing full well that a King holiday would not be condoned or tolerated by any sensible person after reviewing the evidence amassed by the FBI on him. The special task force articulated this on January 11, 1977:
“The Federal Bureau of Investigations and its surveillance produced tapes and transcripts concerning King and others associated with him. These may be sought by King’s heirs and/or representatives. Worse still they may be sought by members of the public at large under the Freedom of Information Act. Thus we recommend that these tapes and transcripts be sealed and sent to the National Archives and that Congress pass legislation denying anyone access to them, whatever authorizing or directing their total destruction along with the material in reports and any memorandum derived from them.”
Only two weeks after the investigation was concluded by the Department of Justice task force, Federal Judge John Lewis Smith Jr. ordered the FBI “to file with the National Archives all of the tapes and documents produced out of wiretaps, bugging, and other surveillances or investigations on Martin Luther King Jr. and others, and all materials regarding him are not be made public for the next fifty years except by a court order.” Fifty years is a long time to wait and if the current falsehoods surrounding King have been instituted in about two decades, the time between his assassination and now is perturbing considering how much more can be hidden and distorted in a little more than three decades being the time between now and when the ban ends. We are expected to wait for more than 30 years for King’s files to be seen? It is interesting to note that the government felt that things would be “worse” if the public were allowed access to documents that by right people should be allowed to view under the Freedom of Information Act. Whose real interests were being prioritized and protected by this extreme measure?
On whose behalf was Judge John Lewis Smith Jr. acting? Who is behind the sickening campaign to glorify King in exaggerated ways and present him as “saint” while hiding or even denying his criminal and sexually degenerated life style? What powers are behind all of this? It appears as if some people in government were attempting to hide something from their constituents who are the very people they are supposed to serve. Fortunately, the Congressional Record is not sealed so more forthcoming evidence taken from excerpts shall be shown in order to conclusively prove the true agenda of the so-called “Martin Luther” King Jr. It is difficult to tell exactly when King became affiliated with communist subversives but it probably began in his college days or perhaps when he joined the “dialectical society.” While King attended Morehouse College in Atlanta he had a cordial relationship with Benjamin Mays who had an extensive record of supporting communist fronts and causes. Regardless of when King first became affiliated with his communist cohorts, he eventually curtailed membership in or was affiliated with over sixty communist groups before he was killed. That fact was made known by an affidavit issued by Karl Prussion who was an FBI counterspy from 1947 to 1960 and whose statements were inserted into the Congressional Record. Mr. Prussion promulgated that several members of the NAACP and CORE including King were affiliated with communist activities. He declared the following while under oath:
“I Karl Prussion solemnly state that at each and every meeting of five meetings attended sponsored by the US Communist Party, one Ed Beck who is presently the secretary of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People [NAACP] of San Mateo County in California and a member of the Congress of Racial Equality [CORE] presented the directive from the district office of the Communist Party in San Francisco, to the effect that all communists working within the framework of the NAACP are instructed to work for a change of the passive attitude toward a more militant class struggle policy to be expressed in demonstrations, marches or protests for the purpose of transforming the NAACP into an organization for the achievement of the communist objective. I further swear and attest to the fact that at each and every one of the aforementioned meetings Martin Luther King Jr. was always set forth as the individual to whom communists should look and rally around in the communist struggle on the many racial issues. I hereby state also that Martin Luther King Jr. has either been a member of or wittingly accepted support from over sixty communist fronts, individuals, or organizations which give aid to or espouse communist causes.”
Karl Prussion produced a documentary report on King also in which he listed the communists who were his comrades. It is interesting to note that those types of organizations oftentimes attempt to hide their hideous agenda by having a name that sounds respectable as mentioned earlier. The asinine attempts by certain groups to deny that King had been affiliated with communist organizations are contradictory to the evidence. For brevity’s sake all the subversive groups or people who were affiliated with King are not mentioned.
King’s involvement in foreign affairs extended beyond the ideology of communism or talking on behalf of communists and conspiring with them. He was so involved with foreign affairs that he accepted money from shady characters who were citizens of countries not friendly to the US form of government. In other words, King was working against the US government and was paid for it. The Washington Observer disclosed King’s ties to communism noting that an extensive FBI report existed on him. The evidence contained in the report –which the government has kept hidden from the public– had some shocking revelations according to The Washington Observer:
” […] When FBI agents had King under intense close surveillance they observed him meeting a well identified Soviet espionage agent at the Kennedy International Airport in New York. The FBI also secured evidence that King was receiving large sums of money from a well-known American Communist agent who gave him instructions he implicitly obeyed.”
Stanley Levison who was one of King’s colleagues was described by FBI Director Edgar J. Hoover as a Soviet spy and member of the US Communist Party. The late President John F. Kennedy informed King that Levinson was dangerous while hoping that he would stop meeting with him and other communist agents before something happened. During a raid a check was found. The check which had been endorsed by King was from communist James Dombrowski and was made out to King. On the check dated March 7, 1963 there was a note written that told why the money was given: “New York expenses.” Apparently Dombrowski was paying King for expenses incurred during his struggle against the US government. Congressman O. Fisher from Texas complained about King’s moneymaking activities and noted that he “had turned to a crusade in favor communists in Vietnam as a means of raising money.”
Congressman Fisher also said: “King has been both brazen and open in his violations of the law and is joined by more than a score of other sick minds and corrupt souls. The American people have a right to know when is the Department of Justice going to crack down on these disloyal elements in our society? These mercenary crackpots should be shown no mercy; they have gone far beyond the realm of normal dissent as they are openly and actively aiding the communist in Vietnam while violating the laws of this country.”
Congressman Fisher was right. The American people have a right to know when this affront to our liberties will end. Only by standing up and act will the barrage of lies that have been foisted upon us will end. We have a right to see all the FBI files on King that courts suspiciously closed for fifty years. The time has come to demand that right. A stop must be put to the “politically correct” historical revisionists who have distorted history to unprecedented lengths in order to make their motives seem wholesome. This needs to be done for what occurred after King’s death is a national disgrace.
Le roi est mort – Vive le roi!
In France there is an age-old adage that says: “Le roi est mort vive le roi” meaning “the king is dead long live the king.” The saying makes an appropriate title for this chapter for two reasons. One, it was not until after King’s death that only few dared to speak the truth about his nefarious activities. Two, the adage is fitting because of a chant that black eulogizers exclaimed after King was convicted for leading the Montgomery bus boycott: “Behold the King and long live the King.” After his death many tenets he believed and promoted have become accepted living long past his life. After he was killed King’s image changed in that people tend not to speak badly of the dead especially the same ones who were worried about being victimized by all the riots that broke out afterwards. It seems that only very few politicians would discuss King’s activities after his death as they probably did not want to upset the rioters who destroyed cities after his death. Also, some politicians were probably fearful of losing the black vote in the different cities. Although it is conceded that King openly advocated “nonviolence” when he deliberately fomented discord and strife between blacks and whites. Violence followed in his wake wherever he went until he himself fell a victim of violence. King preached compliance only with the laws he personally approved of and thus was in contempt of statutes not to his liking. Hence, he and his followers in a most brazen and flagrant manner flouted the time honored concepts of this nation which is one of laws and not of men.
In one of his last public utterances he openly stated that he intended to violate a solemn court injunction while at the same time he was planning to invade Washington D.C. with a horde of violent evils to disrupt the government. Every sensible person knows as he must have known that such an act would result in property destruction, bloodshed and death. This man trampled upon the laws of our country with impunity and the Stokely Carmichaels and Rap Browns were spawned in the waters of hate agitated by his public utterances. The American flag flew at half-mast to “honor” a man who aided and abetted communists in Vietnam as he publicly supported the draft card burners and sought to undermine and betray our fighting sons in Vietnam. In the avalanche of propaganda, hypocrisy and falsehood that followed the death of King, the President and national figures together with the news media have undertaken to eulogize and commit to martyrdom King who under the guise of “non-violence” caused violence wherever he went. The voice of truth is not being heard and all has been forgiven or forgotten. No one mentions that only one day before his death he openly declared his intention to violate a federal court order. This was nothing new since he had previously done this. We witness in our major cities looting, theft, burglary, arson, robbery and murder, all a fitting tribute to an advocate of violence. I call upon all men and women and the responsible elements in the black community to face the facts, the truth, and to dispel from all minds the falsehood and hypocrisy that have been placed upon us by individuals in and out the government and by the media on behalf of undisclosed powers to whom they are all subordinated. If the men who died in World War II, Korea or Vietnam could return, they would cry out in horror at the eulogizing of a man who aided and abetted the enemies of this nation, preached disobedience of law and incited riots and destruction. I know I write against the tide of overwhelming emotion but let the voice of truth and reason be heard. Then may the black and the white communities join together in a truthful and realistic effort to build a better society based on the truth.
The aftermath of King’s legacy
With all the facts known by people in government it is amazing that they would actually support and advocate King’s birthday bash. Why? In Arizona the first time citizens had an opportunity to vote on the King’s holiday they refused it for two reasons. One, many knew the truth regarding his sordid past; Two, others did not feel it was necessary to have an expensive holiday paid by tax payers. The people of Arizona quickly learned that they would be punished for their decision not to have a King’s holiday. The 1993 Super Bowl was threatened to be taken out of Arizona because of the people’s failure to support the enacting of King’s holiday, while numerous other groups were also considering boycotting the State of Arizona including the National League of Cities and the National Urban League. Below are some of King’s legacy.
Sister Souljah, the militant hip-hop rapper who once suggested that US blacks should kill whites as they do in South Africa, was asked about how she felt about “Doctor” King in an interview with Life magazine. She said that the image of King was not correct. “People who are in power in white America have twisted his image to take out the sting of who he was.” Many others seem to echo her opinion and although she may be wrong about other things she appears to be right about that. Evan Meacham, former governor of Arizona was asked what he thought about King also in Life magazine. He said that the government should not demote George Washington and Abraham Lincoln’s holidays while elevating King’s holiday to absurd levels. He felt that if King had lived he “probably would have gone downhill substantially and without his assassination I doubt he would have ever had credibility.” New Hampshire like Arizona was one of the few States that did not have a King holiday until the “avalanche of mass media propaganda.” In 1993 New Hampshire finally agreed to have a King’s holiday thereby joining Arizona and 48 other States. Barbara Reynolds, a black columnist at USA Today magazine suggested that Americans needed “Kinglogy” that calls for “King’s non-violent moral code of love for others, black pride and human concern.” Also, Lenora Fulani who was running for governor of New York on the New Alliance Party ticket and Al Sharpton pitched tents on Liberty Island forcing the Statue of Liberty to be closed. They did it to commemorate King’s “I have a dream” speech. In a rally at Battery Park City Fulani shared her dreams: “We want to rename New York City by calling it Martin Luther King City,” she said. Besides already having streets, buildings, monuments, holidays and numerous other things or places named after him, Michael King now has a game named after him called “King-O.” Shirley Barnes who is black invented the game and it’s is similar to bingo except there are words used instead of numbers. The words are all noble: “family, home, humble, respect, peace, love, and prize.” Ms. Barnes said that the first word on the list is “love” because “that’s what King was about.” The game even comes with ideas for teachers so that they may use it for history lessons or for “resolving conflicts peacefully.” One have to wonder how students can “resolve conflicts peacefully” by using King’s violent tactics. Numerous organizations have held rallies in which King’s name is revered and used as a call to peace.
This is strange considering the many known instances of him flagrantly disobeying the law. However, many of the rallies end in violence or promote more preferential treatment for blacks and in that respect there is a bit of similarity between King’s ideology and that of his followers. About thirty years after King led the so-called “civil rights” marches in Washington, D.C. his disciples had another one that identifies one of his little known activities. The march which was held by gay “rights” activists, communists, and vagabonds, among others, had Coretta Scott King speak before them. She exclaimed to the unique crowd: “Dr. King’s spirit is with us! The crowd which was estimated at three-hundredths of one percent of America’s population responded to King’s widow: “Free at last! Free at last! Thank God almighty we’re free at last!” Other people of notoriety either spoke or attended the rally. Ben Chavis, who was the president of the NAACP at the time spoke there and shared his demands with the unique crowd. “We want more than fair treatment, we now want a fair share of the economy,” said Chavis reiterating thereby the demands “civil rights” advocates have held for so long. Rosa Parks, Jesse Jackson, and Attorney General Janet Reno also attended the event. In an effort to combat heterosexuals Chavis’s enlisted the help of all homosexuals at NAACP: “Our board approved a stand on gay rights several months ago. It was a unanimous decision,” he said. Chavis is not new to controversy though. After being implicated in the firebombing of Mike’s Grocery Store, him and eight other blacks plus a white woman were sent to prison in 1972. During the trial several blacks testified that he had used a church as “civil rights” headquarters to plan the attack. In 1979 North Carolina Governor Jim Hunt, at the behest of black voters, granted Chavis clemency. After he was released he went to work for the National Alliance Against Racism and Political Repression which was one of many U.S. Communist Party fronts. Charlene Mitchell, a black woman who was the communist party presidential candidate in 1968 served as the co-chairwoman of the group at the time. Since then Chavis befriended many people in his visits to communist nations. Chavis’s wife Martha Rivera was a translator for the Angola communist government when Chavis met her. After Benjamin Chavis became head of the NAACP he swiftly chose Don Rojas as his communications director. Apparently Rojas had the qualifications Chavis had hoped to find. Rojas had worked as Maurice Bishop’s press secretary during the time he headed the Grenada communist government. At one of the NAACP conventions that Chavis attended he raised his clinched fist in a Marxist salute with his good friend Nelson Mandela. It seems that Chavis liked the idea of redistributing people’s money.
However, none of this and more should be surprising when you consider the NAACP’s history as a Zionist front working for the “one world government” since its creation by Jews in 1908. You can be sure that whoever replaces Chavis will have similar “qualifications.” Chavis is hardly the only “civil rights” advocate to support the acceptance of sodomy and other perverted sexual activities.When Zionist pawn Bill Clinton became “president” one of the first things he did was to invite his homosexual friends to participate in the festivities. To make his inaugural party the focal point of deviancy he had the fag and dyke bands of America participate in the party. The video “Gay rights and special rights: Inside the homosexual agenda” shows actual footage of the 1993 march in Washington, DC including the homosexual plans. A militant homosexual began his speech before the assemblage by paraphrasing King in a fitting tribute. Another fag who was at the march had a sign that said: “civil rights or civil war!” Clinton expressed his thanks to the $3.5 million the fags contributed to his campaign via videotape which was shown on a large screen television at homosexuals festivities. He said: “I want to thank the gay and lesbian community for their contribution and courage.” One lesbian commented, “it’s our government now” while another one said: “Clinton is a friend of ours and he’s going to take care of all gay and lesbian rights; he’s going to shake up the country.” During homosexual festivities in Washington, D.C. transvestites did strip shows. As they threw their clothes around in the air the innocent children of homosexuals many of whom were probably adopted, stood there crying with tears running down their cheeks. Members of the “North American Man-Boy Lover Association” which is an internationally known pedophile organization also attended the event. The innocent children of the U.S. are suffering and being prevented the right to a peaceful existence because of this abomination which was born in the so-called “civil rights movement” of which Zionist pawn King was a “leader.” The homosexuals had a list of demands they called “human rights” and wanted them to be added as a Constitutional amendment. The following is a summary of their demands:
1. All forms of sexual expression would be allowed.
2. All laws prohibiting sodomy would be abolished.
3. All laws prohibiting certain types of unusual clothing or lack of would be eliminated.
4. All age of sexual consent laws would be repealed thereby allowing homosexuals to have sex with whatever child they choose.
5. Money from the government’s war department would be diverted to cover the cost of medical expenses for homosexuals with AIDS.
6. Taxes would be used to pay for sex-change operations allowing more homosexuals to parade in their surgical disguise.
7. Homosexuals in all areas would be allowed to adopt children or provide foster care for them which combined with the homosexuals’ fourth desire would allow them to adopt and commit sodomy with any child available for adoption.
8. Homosexual marriages would be permitted in any area.
9. Homosexuals would be accepted in designing education for children in making child care and for providing school counseling in areas in which they are not currently allowed.
10. Contraception devices and abortion would be provided to all people for free regardless of age and in the case of a very young person without parents’ approval.
11. Artificial insemination would be allowed for any bisexual or lesbian woman who wanted to have children so that she could raise them in that type of lifestyle which would allow her to teach the child to hate men.
12. No religious concerns of homosexuality would be allowed with religious institutions losing their tax-exempt status if they did not comply.
13. Private groups like the Boy Scouts must accept homosexuals into their organization.
In Atlanta, Georgia a rally was held for King on January 18, 1993. Jean Bertrand Aristide, the Haiti ousted president, Jesse Jackson, and Coretta Scott King attended the rally along with about one thousand other people. King’s daughter and Rev. Bernice King officiated the ceremony at Ebenezer Baptist Church. In the course of the discussion King’s daughter referred to her father as a “prophet” and said: “It’s time for those of us who have benefited from the message and mission of the prophet King to come together and make his spirit come alive again in our midst.” At other places, similar activities occurred on that cold January day in 1993. In Denver, Colorado some of King’s followers were engaged in a rally that quickly turned into a party. Some of those in attendance smashed a liquor store’s window to get the party supplies while others beat up a white woman until she was unconscious. These and other violent actions expressed their idea of a party. New Hampshire Governor Steve Merrill gave an order that changed the name from “civil rights” day to “King day” for his State. After the Rodney King verdict hundreds of students in Atlanta had a march.
Mayor Maynard Jackson pleaded with students: “Let us not discredit the name of Martin Luther King in his hometown. Please don’t riot in this City.” Although the two sentences were a contradiction since King himself often provoked riots “trying to tear Atlanta up” certainly would not discredit his name and the underlying message to black students was understood: Please do not loot, burn, and destroy the city of Atlanta. The mayor’s begging was an effort in futility. The “Nubians” [another name for blacks] smashed store windows, threw stones and bottles, and assaulted white pedestrians but certainly did not “discredit” King’s name. These along with sexual perversion and more is the King’s legacy that lives on. King’s descendants are still quite active. Michael King III was a bit upset when he ran for office in Georgia hoping to become chairman of the Fulton County Commission in 1993. The newspaper Atlanta Constitution predicted that he would win by a two-to-one margin but another candidate beat him by almost 15 thousand votes which is about 15 % of all votes cast. His mother Coretta Scott King broke down in tears and asked: “How could the people vote down the King?” Indeed, why would “people vote down the King” when there is plenty of pro-King false propaganda disseminating from every corner of America? Even though Martin Luther King III may not be as charismatic and articulate as his father, his name still carries some weight with those who accept falsehoods without question. King III was involved in a problem with the IRS which may have had an effect on the voters’ decision. He reportedly did not pay the IRS taxes which in legal terms is called “tax evasion.” He settled the dispute by borrowing $150 thousand from his mother which he promptly gave to the IRS.
Michael King Jr. has become an internationally celebrated figure. Shortly after his death Congressman John R. Rarick from Louisiana speaking before the House of Representatives said that King was the “United Nations proclaimed messiah.” Rarick could not understand why some of the politicians attended King’s funeral. After all said Rarick, “King was a disloyal American linked with over 60 organizations bent on the destruction of America.” Congressman Rarick had a good reason for calling King the “United Nation proclaimed messiah.” King once said: “I would strengthen a channel already in existence, I would work to bring about universal disarmament and set up a world police force through the United Nations, I would also consider some form of world government.” King was not the only prominent spokesman to promote some type of bizarre “world government” as there have been others that believe the United Nations should be used for things other than resolving disputes among different nations through peaceful means rather than violent conflicts which is why the U.N. was supposedly created.
Some members appear to be power hungry and want to be able to control the actions of different nations thinking that they are some worldly congress instead of mediators. It appears that some U.N. members believe that they can control, encourage, and regulate what people do.
King became an internationally celebrated figure among blacks everywhere. In South Africa blacks there revere him and civil disorder is now commonly associated with his violent past. Just as the U.S. had riots under King’s leadership and still continues to have them sporadic under the guidance of others, South Africa experiences similar violence but in many cases is even worse. During the course of “nonviolence” modeled after King’s tactics in America riots occurred as you might expect. The ANC has a similar history of hate groups that operated in America and the communist party with the ANC worked hand-in-hand in South Africa. However, when the communist party in South Africa was banned its members did not just quit; when the party was outlawed they became exclusive members of the ANC unless otherwise affected. It should come as no surprise that when both the ANC and the communist party were allowed to have rallies violence took place. It should come as no surprise either that Nelson Mandela called Fidel Castro and Moammar el Kaddafi “comrades in arms since they support our struggle to the hilt” Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela [his middle name means “someone who brings trouble upon himself”] was a leader of the “Umkhonto We Sizwe” which is a group that engaged in terrorist attacks against whites in South Africa. The head of the African National Congress Youth League has asked followers to kill former South African President de Klerk. Michael Johns of the Heritage Foundation described Nelson Mandela and the ANC as: “Hitting civilian targets and refusing to renounce the use of violence against civilians for political purposes makes the ANC a terrorist group and Mandela has not distanced himself from that policy even when asked specifically to do so.” So it should come as no surprise that much like King and Bishop, Mandela also received the Nobel Peace Prize even when he [like King] practiced violence while preaching “love” and “nonviolence.” Similar to King, Mandela was quite proficient with double talk tactics. For instance, around the time he gained power he said that his freedom charter was “by no means a blueprint for a socialist state but for redistribution of all wealth and nationalization of land which provides for the take over of mines, banks, and monopoly industry.” In short, his real plans were to take away all wealth and land from owners and redistribute it among his followers.
The very essence of Jewish invented “socialism” which he always denied not to be his real plan. Furthermore, he was quick to point out his foremost goal when he declared this: “The ideological creed of the ANC is and always has been African nationalism.” As the embittered white communists who so foolhardy followed Mandela quickly learned that he had no intentions of allowing them to keep anything they owned and as unfortunate as that is, it included their lives too while he falsely claimed that his policies “will not drive the white man into the sea.” However, we see now that this was not the case as his policies are causing exactly what he said he would not do. It will be interesting to see what happens in South Africa as a very similar history in the US is developing except for one difference: Whites are for now the majority rather than the minority. It appears that Mandela’s views may not differ too much from those of the Nation of Islam. That should not be too surprising since the Nation of Islam with its own newspaper The Final Call with a circulation of approximately one million, recently opened “information centers” in different countries of Africa. In a speech by one of Louis Farrakhan’s aides he told the audience that “black South Africans should kill white people.” And they are now doing exactly that. The aide who changed his name to “Khallid Abdul Muhammad” and has since passed away openly said many times that he wanted blacks in South Africans and everywhere else “to kill every white man, women, and child wherever they are found.” Zionist stooge and former manager of their interest in the white house Bill Clinton, knowing that his fellow communists needed help to carry out their terrorist plans and double the amount given to South Africa to $600 million of U.S. taxpayers’ money to help Mandela and his comrades. The U.S. Democratic Party even sent some of Clinton’s lackeys such as Stanley Greenburg and Frank Creer to assist Mandela and the “African” National Congress.
The influence of King’s actions continue to have an adverse effect on the US and other countries around the globe while many misguided people do not fully understand the ramifications of following his beliefs and continue to believe the foolhardy notion that King was an ethical man of nonviolence. Unfortunately, due to the stupidity called “politically correctness” King has been made into a figurehead that inside the brains of too many people his actions translate into the ridiculous false belief that he was a “prophet.” But when you take a deep look at the real King after sifting through the platitudinous propaganda in the Zionist-controlled mass media, you begin to understand how this nation has been led dangerously astray from the concepts and values that once made it great.
I am only one man and can only do so much by myself but with your help and in unity with others against the lies and falsehoods that have separated this nation from its natural course we can make a difference. It will not be easy and I make no imaginary promises of something that can be accomplished on a weekend or in between breaks in television shows. It may take years or even one or more generations but it is something that must be done. And when it is finally done, all the lies that have been built around this enemy of our nation will be rescinded. So let the veil of lies on “Martin Luther” King Jr. be lifted by all decent people of the United States of America.
Conclusion by The Truth
As you know now after reading the above writing, there are many facts regarding the so-called “Martin Luther” King Jr. that are either unknown totally or known only to a small degree, thanks to a systematic brainwashing that society has been subjected to for the past fifty years produced by the Zionist-controlled mass media. The violence and perverted deeds of King described in the above writing, are only the surface of a much wider and deeper involvement and commitment he had with Zionists to push forward their over-all agenda aimed at destroying not only the United States, but also other countries for the purpose of imposing their vision of the world’s future known as “one world government.” In the United States the Zionists conceived and subsequently created what they conveniently labeled as the “civil rights movement” of which King was chosen to be its most important “leader” due to his background and idiosyncrasy.
The so-called “civil rights” concept was started to be implemented with the creation of the National Association for the Advancement of Color People [NAACP] in 1909. The Zionist-created NAACP was and still is a camouflaged Zionist front disguised as a “civil rights” organization. [See the related piece titled “Barack Obama and the Racial Program for the Twentieth Century” published on this blog] King was a member of that organization naturally since he was a Zionist pawn whose actions served only the interest of those for whom he worked. The so-called “civil rights movement” was perhaps the biggest farce in the history of the United States; it was not a “movement” and did not seek the “freedom” of black people as they made society believe with subliminal psychological effects created by the Zionist-controlled mass media. The so-called “civil rights movement” of the 1960s was a stepping-stone in the Zionist’s quest for global enslavement, and Michael King Jr. was an important tool in the context of the Zionist’s effort to complete their agenda nowadays in advanced stages, thanks to a duped generation that was brainwashed and has spent the last forty years worrying about the “rights” of fags and blacks while ignoring the real reality.
The so-called “Martin Luther” King Jr. betrayed the nation when he subordinated himself to Zionism and their agenda consisting of destroying the United States and enslave its people. This is the true reason why he is honored so much and even presented as “saint” or called a “prophet” by duped idiots.