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