Mahadev Desai (left) and Gandhi meet with other Indian nationalists in 1939

by Kevin Alfred Strom

THIS WEEK Google replaced their normal search page graphic with one depicting Mohandas K. Gandhi, also known as Mahatma (Sanskrit for “Great Soul”) Gandhi, in recognition of his birthday, which is now celebrated as the International Day of Non-Violence. Gandhi’s movement of civil disobedience was a significant factor in India’s successful quest for self-determination and the ultimate withdrawal of Britain from the Indian subcontinent.

Barack Obama praised Gandhi on Friday, saying “Gandhi’s teachings and ideals, shared with Martin Luther King Jr. on his 1959 pilgrimage to India, transformed American society through our civil rights movement. The America of today has its roots in the India of Mahatma Gandhi and the nonviolent social action movement for Indian independence which he led. We must renew our commitment to live his ideals and to celebrate the dignity of all human beings.”

Many people, Obama included if he’s sincere, see Gandhi and his movement in very simplistic and essentially mythological terms: Gandhi’s movement, they believe, was a “struggle for equality” within a multiracial paradigm. Actually it was the opposite of that.

Mohandas Gandhi wanted his people, the native people of the Indian subcontinent, to be free of the British Empire. He wanted his people to have their own country. He wanted them to have their own government, answerable to no other people. He wanted self-determination for his folk: their own territory, their own leaders. And he looked at this situation in explicitly racial terms.

Though there was much greatness in it to be sure, the British Empire outside the Anglo-Saxon dominions like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, was a multiracialist empire which forced differing peoples together against their will, crushing their self-determination and freedom largely for crass economic reasons. Sound familiar?

What Gandhi was most emphatically not doing was seeking “equality” under the Empire. He was not saying “We are all the same. Therefore give us equal incomes, equal schooling, equal housing and we will all live in harmony and brotherhood as one people.” That is what representatives of the new world empire, like Obama, his handlers, and the billionaire moguls who long preceded them, wish he had said.

What Gandhi was saying was that his people were unique and worthy of survival — and in order to secure their survival they must rule themselves and possess their own territory. Hence his two-word slogan for his movement — his command to the British Empire — “Quit India.” His was no M.L. King-like quest for a chimerical “fairness” enforced by central authority in an equally chimerical race-blind society. Quite the opposite! He said in essence that this land belongs to me and my people — and you, your race, your bureaucracy, and your Empire should just get out.  Ultimately, they did exactly that.

Gandhi’s parallels in the Black community are Robert Brock and Marcus Garvey and Sharity Ross-Petit — not King.

Gandhi expressly stated his belief in maintaining the purity of not only his race, but all races, when he gently chided White nationalists who only cared about their own racial integrity and who crudely lumped all non-Whites together. He wrote in 1903:

“We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they do, only we believe that they would best serve these interests, which are as dear to us as to them, by advocating the purity of all races, and not one alone.”

Gandhi also stated in his Indian Opinion newspaper, referring to a then-current issue in multiracial South Africa :

“The petition dwells upon ‘the co-mingling of the colored and white races.’ May we inform the members of the Conference that so far as British Indians are concerned, such a thing is particularly unknown. If there is one thing which the Indian cherishes more than any other, it is the purity of type.”

Greater India, even after the British left, was an artificial construct encompassing several peoples, and it’s not clear to me to what extent Gandhi recognized that further partitions would be necessary. But that’s a subject for another day.

Empires — from the ancient Assyrians in Palestine, to Tito’s Yugoslavia, to the Communist Chinese in Tibet — invariably say that they force differing peoples under one rule — their rule — “for their own good”… to “bring peace”… to make everyone “equal.”

And they invariably condemn any person who wants his people to be free of the empire’s rule — whether Gandhi or Jefferson or the Dalai Lama — as a “troublemaker,” a “hater,” a “terrorist,” or the like:

How dare Gandhi advocate breaking the King’s laws! We’re all subjects of the Crown, Indian and Briton, and Gandhi is a hooligan and criminal!

How dare the Dalai Lama insist that Tibetans should have their own territory and their own government, answerable only to Tibetans! How dare he call for an end to the mass importation of Chinese into Tibet! That’s anti-Chinese — that’s racist! (Of course, once you understand the Maxim of Self-Determination, you can easily see it’s nothing of the kind. The Maxim reads “Every people which considers itself to be a people should, to the maximum extent possible, live under its own government.”)

There is much to be learned from Gandhi and his efforts to gain self-determination for his folk. But we must see that struggle for what it was — a distinct people’s fight for a separate, distinct nation — before we can even begin to learn.

“THE BEAST AS SAINT” IN SLOVAK: The Slovak-language Web site Hlavu Hore has recently translated my article on “Martin Luther” King and published it on their Web site. Thanks from me for spreading the word about one of the most misrepresented figures in modern history!

WHAT WOULD YOU SAY if a Liberal “social scientist” told you to jump into a pool filled with five hundred ravenous piranhas?

If you valued your life, you’d certainly refuse the invitation.

But what if the Liberal “social scientist” tried to convince you to go ahead and jump in, with the argument that “not all of the piranhas are aggressive. Some of them probably just want to make friends with you, and really aren’t hungry either. To say that a piranha is going to attack you, just because he’s a piranha, is a wicked stereotype, and probably contributes to the piranhas’ negative feelings about you.”

If that argument was made to you, would you then jump into the pool filled with piranhas? I don’t think so. You’d probably reason, quite logically, that even if there were one or two or even a dozen piranhas that by chance or due to a recent meal decided not to attack you, that certainly wouldn’t change the bloodthirsty behavior of the other 488.

And it certainly wouldn’t change the outcome of any foolish foray into the pool.

But let’s say you were foolish enough to listen to the Liberal “social scientist,” and you did jump into the pool filled with piranhas. You somehow managed to survive. You made it to the other side of the pool, where you jumped out, but you were seriously injured in the process. After you got out of the hospital, where your wounds were stitched up and your lost blood was replaced, you were paid a visit by your old “friend,” the Liberal “social scientist.”

Needless to say, you weren’t too happy to see him, but before you could say a word, he started talking.

“I’m awfully sorry to see how you’ve been hurt,” he said, “but it isn’t my fault at all, you see.”

You replied, “You mean, oh great and wise social scientist, that you can finally see that those piranhas are vicious and I don’t belong in the pool with them?”

“No, I don’t mean that at all,” answered the Liberal “social scientist,” “It’s not the piranhas’ fault that you almost got eaten alive. It’s not the poor piranhas’ fault at all! It’s your fault!”

“My fault!” you exclaimed, “How the Hell could it be my fault?”

“Ah, how little you bourgeois middle Americans understand,” sighed our Liberal genius, “Don’t you see that what happened to you only happened because those poor piranhas were underprivileged and hungry? If you’d given them enough food and a decent chance at life, then they wouldn’t have attacked you like they did. When was the last time you helped a piranha? They’ve been struggling for centuries while your kind lived in luxury. Don’t you think it’s time the tables were turned? And not only that, but you ordinary Americans have caused the poor innocent piranhas to feel left out in your society. Naturally they harbor negative feelings about you, when you never want to have anything to do with them. You should understand that we all hate what we don’t know. We must integrate piranhas into our society, keep them in our swimming pools and bathtubs and introduce them into all our rivers, mountain streams, and lakes. By associating with piranhas every day, and by feeding them as much as they want to eat, eventually a spirit of brotherhood will emerge and we and the piranhas will live together in peace, harmony, and joyous diversity evermore.

“But you, Mr. Ordinary American” — and here the Liberal “social scientist” thrust his flabby little finger into your face — “you are going to have to change your evil ways before we can have that happy world!”

“You’re out of your mind!” you replied. “Piranhas may be fine in the Amazon jungle, but you’re crazy if you think we can live and associate with them every day. We and they just don’t belong together — and if you’re so in love with piranhas, why don’t you go on a little swim with them? And if you think I’m going to waste my money and time feeding them and helping them multiply just so they can eat me and my family alive at some time in the future, Mr. Genius social scientist, then you’ve got another think coming!” With that you kicked his delicate carcass downstairs.

Still smarting from his fall, and rapidly retreating backwards, the Liberal “social scientist” shook his spindly fist and called back to you, “Your generation is hopeless. You’ll never understand the need to integrate with and support piranhas. But your children will. Our ‘brotherhood’ program at the elementary school will teach them that it’s their duty to live with and help the poor piranhas. They’ll be swimming with them every day at the school’s pool. And that’s just the first step! There’s nothing you can do about it!”

Gradually the voice of your former friend the Liberal faded away, but he certainly gave you something to think about, didn’t he?

The ‘Liberal Social Scientist’ Returns

Now it seems Mr. Social Scientist has become a bird lover. He’s still smarting from the last time you kicked him downstairs, but just to show you that there are no hard feelings, he has decided to invite you to a meeting of an organization he’s working with called the “Bird Benevolent Society.” Since you’ve always been a bird watcher and animal lover, and since you foolishly believe that the Liberal Social Scientist has learned a lesson, you agree that you’ll go.

On the appointed day you show up at the meeting hall, and find several hundred other people, some obviously drawn from the dregs of society by their appearance, but also mixed with a strong contingent of the empty-headed wealthy, whom you’ve seen at various charitable and “world-improving” functions in town. There’s the usual collection of “homeless advocates,” pervert agitators, “Feed the Africans” charity types, and a motley collection of minority activists and “Rainbow Coalition” idiots.

All the conversations in the room stop when our learned humanitarian friend, the Liberal Social Scientist, strides past his international banker and tax-exempt foundation friends up to the podium to address the group.

He clears his throat and begins speaking:

“Welcome dear friends and friends of progress,” he says, “to this meeting of the Bird Benevolent Society. I know that we are all united in our love for our feathered friends, the birds, and I know that we all yearn to bring them into the coming new millennium of progress and unity and global cooperation and peace. But the birds of this world are being held back by evil ideas and outmoded traditions that border on fascism. It will be the mission of the Bird Benevolent Society to enlighten the birds and help them to change their ways, assisted by you people of goodwill, and of course by government grants of taxpayer money and the behind-the-scenes help of my banker and foundation friends here beside me on the dais.

“We look at the world of the birds with dismay and sadness. Everywhere we find disunity, strife, misunderstanding, and conflict. We see the sparrows off in one corner among themselves, eating seeds and singing their songs; while off in another far corner are the eagles, fishing in the sea and singing an altogether different song. Every species and variety of bird seems to have its own place, its own territory, and this leads to conflict among birds. Every species of bird has its own habits and behavior and language and this leads to misunderstanding among our feathered friends. It leads to further and further separation and isolation among the different types of birds and we all must of course agree that this simply won’t do in this modern age of global unity, peace, and understanding. I call all this separation and misunderstanding ‘bird racism.’

“We must conquer these problems. What we will do is this: We will gather all the birds of the world together, and teach them a new way of living, all for their own good, of course. The eagle will nest with the sparrow, the chicken with the crows, and the cardinal with the chickadee. By close association, they will eventually come to love each other, aided by our extensive program of re-education which will replace the old bird-racist ways taught to the young birds by their parents. After a few generations of enforced togetherness, the birds will forget their evil old ways and will never know that they were separate species once upon a time. We will call this bird-paradise the ‘United Birds.’

“And then, my friends,” and here our Liberal Social Scientist’s eyes begin to gleam, “we will begin the final phase of our plan, which is really the ultimate solution to all the problems of the birds. We will teach the birds that it is virtuous and desirable for them to choose mates who are not of their own species. Black birds will mate with white birds, and red with yellow, and so forth. Our educational programs will teach them that it is the worst kind of wickedness and evil to oppose this. Of course, we know that this goes against the instincts of the birds, and so we might have some trouble with it. But within the structure of the United Birds, we will have complete control over all education and information received by the birds. Even their recreational activities will be under our guidance. So we are confident that, in time, our efforts to encourage cross-species mating will be successful, and there will be a new kind of bird in the world — one kind of bird — a one-world bird — a true citizen of the United Birds, with its mind and behavior molded by our scientific guidance, totally free of the old ways of separation and conflict.”

A huge wave of applause fills the meeting hall, and the wealthy members of the audience begin to pull out their checkbooks to make donations to the Bird Benevolent Society. But you’ve sat there politely listening to this nonsense long enough. You leap up onto the dais, grab the microphone, and begin speaking:

“You people are crazy to give money to this outfit! Bird Benevolent Society, indeed! This organization must be run by people who hate birds, not love them! Different species’ different habits and ways are the result of thousands and thousands of years of natural selection. Each is particularly suited to its environment, both in its physical appearance and in its mental makeup and behavior. That’s what makes a blue jay not only look different from a cardinal, but act different, too. The difference in external appearance is just a sign of the inner difference in genetic makeup, which determines how they act, what they eat, how they choose a mate and build a nest, raise their young and every other thing they do. If you force them to live together and to give up their different modes of living, you’ll just end up causing conflict, violence, confusion and misery for them instead of the paradise you’re promising! Their natural, inborn differences are what make our feathered friends what they are! Can’t you see that? Can’t you see that you’ll be destroying all that by making them all mix together, that you’ll literally be killing them? How dare you try to tear down all that Nature has taken millennia to build up! How dare you claim you are doing this for the ‘good’ of the birds! How dare you call yourselves bird lovers! And let me ask you this question, what the Hell good does it do for you to set up this United Birds nonsense? Why can’t you just leave the birds alone to live as they always have, just as Nature intended?”

At this point, your old friend the Liberal Social Scientist motions to a couple of burly men in dark uniforms, who proceed to remove you from the stage and into a back room, where you are roughed up enough to keep you quiet for a while. Then the Liberal Social Scientist enters the room and gives you a little lecture:

“My friend, my friend, you have so much to learn — and to unlearn — here in the New World Order. I can’t have you doing foolish things and wrecking our well-laid plans. But you have drive and energy that we may be able to use someday, once you learn the rules. So I will be happy to explain what we are doing in, ah, a bit more detail. Have you caught your breath enough to ask me some questions?

“Ah, well, I see you’re in no condition to speak at the moment. Here’s my handkerchief, wipe that horrid blood away. I hope you’ve learned your lesson and your place. I think I can anticipate your questions anyway.

“Look out that window on your left, and you’ll see our construction crews putting the finishing touches on our latest building project. You see they’re not working in wood or brick. Because they’re not building a headquarters for the Bird Benevolent Society. No indeed, they’re working in wire mesh, building a great dome, just one of many great wire mesh domes we are building, within which will be the United Birds itself. We’ve found that the poor birds don’t know what’s good for them, and are constantly trying to find a way to fly away from us, so we’re building these new homes for them, where our great social experiment can take place. Oh, it’s true, some have called them cages, but we prefer to call them planned housing projects. And of course, there are many birds outside the domes still living in the old ways, but soon we will have enough of the United Birds in our peace-keeping forces trained to attack their fellows who refuse to submit to our beneficent rule, and I can confidently predict that within a few years the United Birds will encompass all birds and there will simply be no place to fly to that isn’t already under our central administration. Then we can go on to the final stage of our glorious plan.

“Oh, and I almost forgot your final impertinent question. You wanted to know what we got out of it, what our personal motivation was for this plan for social change among the birds. I seem to recall you even questioned our right to call ourselves ‘bird lovers.’ Well we are bird lovers — of a kind. We want a world of peaceful birds, just as we said. Peaceful and docile. We want a world of well-educated birds, just as we promise. Educated — by us — to do what we want them to do. We want a world of birds which has forgotten their own separate and traditional ways, since those old ways might get in the way of our plans and might form the basis of loyalty and cohesion among some birds. We don’t want that. We want their loyalty to be only to us, only to the United Birds.”

And at this point he turns to face you directly, with his hooked nose only an inch in front of yours, and he concludes his little lecture:

“Then it will be much easier for us to practice our love of birds. We did it all for the love of birds!”

And as he leers menacingly into your face you can detect the smell of raw flesh upon his breath, and you can see on his throbbing lower lip a thick drop of blood in which is suspended a tiny white feather.

*    *    *

These “Bird Lovers” Say They Love You, Too

I have little to add to this fable of the Liberal Social Scientist and the Bird Benevolent Society, except to say that the same kind of people who claim here to be bird lovers also say they’re just overflowing with love for you, too.

And if you can’t see through their nonsense about “world government” and “world law” and “peace-keeping forces” and “racial diversity” and the “democratic community of nations” and all the rest of it, then you and your family are nothing but food on the tables of your rulers, and you will deserve exactly what you get.

*    *    *

The illustrations used here were created by the Swedish Folktribunen.

WHEN THE COMMUNISTS TOOK OVER a country, one of the first things that they did was to confiscate all the privately-held weapons, to deny the people the physical ability to resist tyranny. But even more insidious than the theft of the people’s weapons was the theft of their history. Official Communist “historians” rewrote history to fit the current party line. In many countries, revered national heroes were excised from the history books, or their real deeds were distorted to fit Communist ideology, and Communist killers and criminals were converted into official “saints.” Holidays were declared in honor of the beasts who murdered countless nations. Did you know that much the same process has occurred right here in America?

Every January, the media go into a kind of almost spastic frenzy of adulation for the so-called “Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr.” King has even had a national holiday declared in his honor, an honor accorded to no other American, not Washington, not Jefferson, not Lincoln. (Washington and Lincoln no longer have holidays — they share the generic-sounding “President’s Day.”) A liberal judge has sealed the FBI files on King until the year 2027. What are they hiding? Let’s take a look at this modern-day plastic god.

Born in 1929, King was the son of a Black preacher known at the time only as “Daddy King.” “Daddy King” named his son Michael. In 1935, “Daddy King” had an inspiration to name himself after the Protestant reformer Martin Luther. He declared to his congregation that henceforth they were to refer to him as “Martin Luther King” and to his son as “Martin Luther King, Jr.” None of this name changing was ever legalized in court. “Daddy” King’s son’s real name is to this day Michael King.

King’s Brazen Cheating

We read in Michael Hoffman’s Holiday for a Cheater:

The first public sermon that King ever gave, in 1947 at the Ebenezer Baptist Church, was plagiarized from a homily by Protestant clergyman Harry Emerson Fosdick entitled “Life is What You Make It,” according to the testimony of King’s best friend of that time, Reverend Larry H. Williams. The first book that King wrote, Stride Toward Freedom, was plagiarized from numerous sources, all unattributed, according to documentation recently assembled by sympathetic King scholars Keith D. Miller, Ira G. Zepp, Jr., and David J. Garrow. And no less an authoritative source than the four senior editors of The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr. (an official publication of the Martin Luther King Center for Nonviolent Social Change, Inc., whose staff includes King’s widow Coretta), stated of King’s writings at both Boston University and Crozer Theological Seminary: “Judged retroactively by the standards of academic scholarship, [his writings] are tragically flawed by numerous instances of plagiarism…. Appropriated passages are particularly evident in his writings in his major field of graduate study, systematic theology.” King’s essay, “The Place of Reason and Experience in Finding God,” written at Crozer, pirated passages from the work of theologian Edgar S. Brightman, author of The Finding of God. Another of King’s theses, “Contemporary Continental Theology,” written shortly after he entered Boston University, was largely stolen from a book by Walter Marshall Horton. King’s doctoral dissertation, “A Comparison of the Conceptions of God in the Thinking of Paul Tillich and Harry Nelson Wieman,” for which he was awarded a PhD in theology, contains more than fifty complete sentences plagiarized from the PhD dissertation of Dr. Jack Boozer, “The Place of Reason in Paul Tillich’s Concept of God.”

According to The Martin Luther King Papers, in King’s dissertation “only 49 per cent. of sentences in the section on Tillich contain five or more words that were King’s own….”!

In The Journal of American History, June 1991, page 87, David J. Garrow, a leftist academic who is sympathetic to King, says that King’s wife, Coretta Scott King, who also served as his secretary, was an accomplice in his repeated cheating. Reading Garrow’s article, one is led to the inescapable conclusion that King cheated because he had chosen for himself a political role in which a PhD would be useful, and, lacking the intellectual ability to obtain the title fairly, went after it by any means necessary. Why, then, one might ask, did the professors at Crozer Theological Seminary and Boston University grant him passing grades and a PhD? Garrow states on page 89: “King’s academic compositions, especially at Boston University, were almost without exception little more than summary descriptions… and comparisons of other’s writings. Nonetheless, the papers almost always received desirable letter grades, strongly suggesting that King’s professors did not expect more….”

The editors of The Martin Luther King Jr. Papers state that “…the failure of King’s teachers to notice his pattern of textual appropriation is somewhat remarkable….”

But researcher Michael Hoffman tells us “…actually the malfeasance of the professors is not at all remarkable. King was politically correct, he was Black, and he had ambitions. The leftist [professors were] happy to award a doctorate to such a candidate no matter how much fraud was involved. Nor is it any wonder that it has taken forty years for the truth about King’s record of nearly constant intellectual piracy to be made public.”

Supposed scholars, who in reality shared King’s vision of a racially mixed and Marxist America, purposely covered up his cheating for decades. The cover-up still continues. From the New York Times of October 11, 1991, page 15, we learn that on October 10th of that year, a committee of researchers at Boston University admitted that, “There is no question but that Dr. King plagiarized in the dissertation.” However, despite its finding, the committee said that “No thought should be given to the revocation of Dr. King’s doctoral degree,” an action the panel said “would serve no purpose.”

No purpose, indeed! Justice demands that, in light of his willful fraud as a student, the titles “reverend” and the “doctor” should be removed from King’s name.

Communist Beliefs and Connections

Well friends, he is not a legitimate reverend, he is not a bona fide PhD, and his name isn’t really “Martin Luther King, Jr.” What’s left? Just a sexual degenerate, an America-hating Communist, and a criminal betrayer of even the interests of his own people.

On Labor Day, 1957, a special meeting was attended by Martin Luther King and four others at a strange institution called the Highlander Folk School in Monteagle, Tennessee. The Highlander Folk School was a Communist front, having been founded by Myles Horton (Communist Party organizer for Tennessee) and Don West (Communist Party organizer for North Carolina). The leaders of this meeting with King were the aforementioned Horton and West, along with Abner Berry and James Dumbrowski, all open and acknowledged members of the Communist Party, USA. The agenda of the meeting was a plan to tour the Southern states to initiate demonstrations and riots.

From 1955 to 1960, Martin Luther King’s associate, advisor, and personal secretary was one Bayard Rustin. In 1936 Rustin joined the Young Communist League at New York City College. Convicted of draft-dodging, he went to prison for two years in 1944. On January 23, 1953 the Los Angeles Times reported his conviction and sentencing to jail for 60 days for lewd vagrancy and homosexual perversion. Rustin attended the 16th Convention of the Communist Party, USA in February, 1957. One month later, he and King founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, or SCLC for short. The president of the SCLC was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The vice-president of the SCLC was the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth, who was also the president of an identified Communist front known as the Southern Conference Educational Fund, an organization whose field director, a Mr. Carl Braden, was simultaneously a national sponsor of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, of which you may have heard. The program director of the SCLC was the Reverend Andrew Young, in more recent years Jimmy Carter’s ambassador to the UN and mayor of Atlanta. Young, by the way, was trained at the Highlander Folk School, previously mentioned.

Soon after returning from a trip to Moscow in 1958, Rustin organized the first of King’s famous marches on Washington. The official organ of the Communist Party, The Worker, openly declared the march to be a Communist project. Although he left King’s employ as secretary in 1961, Rustin was called upon by King to be second in command of the much larger march on Washington which took place on August 28, 1964.

Bayard Rustin’s replacement in 1961 as secretary and advisor to King was Jack O’Dell, also known as Hunter Pitts O’Dell. According to official records, in 1962 Jack O’Dell was a member of the National Committee of the Communist Party, USA. He had been listed as a Communist Party member as early as 1956. O’Dell was also given the job of acting executive director for SCLC activities for the entire Southeast, according to the St. Louis Globe-Democrat of October 26, 1962. At that time, there were still some patriots in the press corps, and word of O’Dell’s party membership became known.

What did King do? Shortly after the negative news reports, King fired O’Dell with much fanfare. And he then, without the fanfare, immediately hired him again as director of the New York office of the SCLC, as confirmed by the Richmond News-Leader of September 27, 1963.

In 1963 a Black man from Monroe, North Carolina named Robert Williams made a trip to Peking, China. Exactly 20 days before King’s 1964 march on Washington, Williams successfully urged Mao Tse-Tung to speak out on behalf of King’s movement. Mr. Williams was also around this time maintaining his primary residence in Cuba, from which he made regular broadcasts to the southern United States, three times a week, from high-power AM transmitters in Havana under the title “Radio Free Dixie.” In these broadcasts, he urged violent attacks by Blacks against White Americans.

During this period, Williams wrote a book entitled Negroes With Guns. The writer of the foreword for this book? None other than “Martin Luther King, Jr.” It is also interesting to note that the editors and publishers of this book were to a man all supporters of the infamous Fair Play for Cuba Committee.

According to King’s biographer and sympathizer David J. Garrow, “King privately described himself as a Marxist.” In his 1981 book, The FBI and Martin Luther King, Jr., Garrow quotes King as saying in SCLC staff meetings, “…we have moved into a new era, which must be an era of revolution…. The whole structure of American life must be changed…. We are engaged in the class struggle.”

Jewish Communist Stanley Levison can best be described as King’s behind-the-scenes “handler.” Levison, who had for years been in charge of the secret funnelling of Soviet funds to the Communist Party, USA, was King’s mentor and was actually the brains behind many of King’s more successful ploys. It was Levison who edited King’s book, Stride Toward Freedom. It was Levison who arranged for a publisher. Levison even prepared King’s income tax returns! It was Levison who really controlled the fund-raising and agitation activities of the SCLC. Levison wrote many of King’s speeches. King described Levison as one of his “closest friends.”

FBI: King Bought Sex With SCLC Money

The Federal Bureau of Investigation had for many years been aware of Stanley Levison’s Communist activities. It was Levison’s close association with King that brought about the initial FBI interest in King.

Lest you be tempted to believe the controlled media’s lie about “racists” in the FBI being out to “get” King, you should be aware that the man most responsible for the FBI’s probe of King was Assistant Director William C. Sullivan. Sullivan describes himself as a liberal, and says that initially “I was one hundred per cent. for King…because I saw him as an effective and badly needed leader for the Black people in their desire for civil rights.” The probe of King not only confirmed their suspicions about King’s Communist beliefs and associations, but it also revealed King to be a despicable hypocrite, an immoral degenerate, and a worthless charlatan.

According to Assistant Director Sullivan, who had direct access to the surveillance files on King which are denied the American people, King had embezzled or misapplied substantial amounts of money contributed to the “civil rights” movement. King used SCLC funds to pay for liquor, and numerous prostitutes both Black and White, who were brought to his hotel rooms, often two at a time, for drunken sex parties which sometimes lasted for several days. These types of activities were the norm for King’s speaking and organizing tours.

In fact, an outfit called the “National Civil Rights Museum” in Memphis, Tennessee, which is putting on display the two bedrooms from the Lorraine Motel where King stayed the night before he was shot, has declined to depict in any way the occupants of those rooms. That—according to exhibit designer Gerard Eisterhold—would be “close to blasphemy.” The reason? “Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.” spent his last night on Earth having sexual intercourse with two women at the motel and physically beating and abusing a third.

Sullivan also stated that King had alienated the affections of numerous married women. According to Sullivan, who in 30 years with the Bureau had seen everything there was to be seen of the seamy side of life, King was one of only seven people he had ever encountered who was such a total degenerate.

Noting the violence that almost invariably attended King’s supposedly “non-violent” marches, Sullivan’s probe revealed a very different King from the carefully crafted public image. King welcomed members of many different Black groups as members of his SCLC, many of them advocates and practitioners of violence. King’s only admonition on the subject was that they should embrace “tactical nonviolence.”

Sullivan also relates an incident in which King met in a financial conference with Communist Party representatives, not knowing that one of the participants was an infiltrator actually working for the FBI.

J. Edgar Hoover personally saw to it that documented information on King’s Communist connections was provided to the President and to Congress. And conclusive information from FBI files was also provided to major newspapers and news wire services. But were the American people informed of King’s real nature? No, for even in the 1960s, the fix was in—the controlled media and the bought politicians were bound and determined to push their racial mixing program on America. King was their man and nothing was going to get in their way. With a few minor exceptions, these facts have been kept from the American people. The pro-King propaganda machine grinds on, and it is even reported that a serious proposal has been made to add some of King’s writings as a new book in the Bible.

Ladies and gentlemen, the purpose of this radio program is far greater than to prove to you the immorality and subversion of this man called King.

I want you to start to think for yourselves.

I want you to consider this: What are the forces and motivation behind the controlled media’s active promotion of King?

What does it tell you about our politicians when you see them, almost without exception, falling all over themselves to honor King as a national hero?

What does it tell you about our society when any public criticism of this moral leper and Communist functionary is considered grounds for dismissal?

What does it tell you about the controlled media when you see how they have successfully suppressed the truth and held out a picture of King that can only be described as a colossal lie?

You need to think, my fellow Americans. You desperately need to wake up.

__________________

Bibliography

1. Hoffman, Michael A., Holiday for a Cheater, (Wiswell Ruffin House, Dresden, New York, 1992)

2. Steffgen, Kent H., Bondage of the Free, (Vanguard Books, Berkeley, California, 1966)

3. Garrow, David J., The FBI and Martin Luther King, Jr., (W. W. Norton & Co, New York City, 1981)

Further information on King’s Communist connections and the FBI surveillance of Stanley Levison can be found in the Congressional Record.