"Martin Luther King, Jr.: Whitewashed by Radical Leftists!"

When tyrants take control of a free society they always do two things: they take guns from everyone and rewrite history. They make the tyrants into national saviors and turn those opposed to tyranny into thugs. This rewriting of history is happening as I write. Martin Luther King, Jr. has been reworked, repackaged, and remade into a secular saint by desperate people who can’t argue the issue on its merits but must stoop to manufactured mythology.

Recently, Oliver Stone dropped out of writing and directing the much anticipated MLK film because the King people in Atlanta rejected his script. They refused to permit the truth being told since Stone planned to deal with “issues of adultery, conflicts within the movement, and King’s spiritual transformation.” It is incredible that honest people do not demand the truth, however unpleasant, about their heroes. It seems that those who lean left are basically dishonest people who will do anything to preserve their myths. King’s family and other leftists are still white-washing his image; after all, big bucks are involved as everyone knows who has dealt with King’s family.

Since this is a national holiday, in the interest of truth, I present the following incontrovertible facts about King. My readers can then decide if I’m a racist or a realist interested in truth.

King was a pinko: King’s very liberal biographer, David J. Garrow, wrote: “King privately described himself as a Marxist.” The Rev. Uriah J. Fields, King’s secretary during the early stage of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, wrote, “King helps to advance Communism. He is surrounded with communists.”

Liberal black newspaper columnist Carl Rowan attended National Security Council meetings and was permitted to see confidential FBI files on King. Rowan said that King was known to be a Communist since May of 1962 when King’s name was “placed in Section A …tabbed Communist” in the FBI’s files. William Sullivan, Assistant Director of the FBI, concluded at the time, King was “the most dangerous Negro of the future in this nation from the standpoint of communism, the Negro, and national security.” Sullivan was a major supporter of King!

King was a philander: Roman Catholic priest Richard John Neuhaus said of King: “Dr. King was, for all that was great about him, an adulterer, sexual libertine, lecher, and wanton womanizer.” That’s from a friend!

King’s friendly biographer, David J. Garrow revealed to USA Today King’s justification for his sexual immorality: “He [King] explained it as someone on the road 27 days a month and needing sex as a form of anxiety reduction and for emotional solace.” Oh, well, that makes his adultery and betrayal of his marriage vows and ordination vows acceptable–maybe even commendable!

An AP article should be a knockout blow for those who worship at King’s image with its heading, “FBI and Abernathy Say King Was a Sex-obsessed ‘Tomcat.’” That was followed with a graphic description of King’s last night on earth. “The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. spent parts of the night before his assassination with two women and then fought physically with a third, according to the memoirs of the Rev. Ralph David Abernathy, King’s top aide.” Preachers are supposed to “fight a good fight” but King perverted that teaching–in spades.

Assistant Director of the FBI Charles D. Brennan wrote a letter to Senator John P. East of North Carolina in which he stated that King’s activities consisted of “orgiastic and adulterous escapades, some of which indicated that King could be bestial in his sexual abuse of women.”

King was a pervert: Black columnist Carl Rowan reported that the FBI tapes suggest that there was a homosexual relationship between King and his “best friend” Ralph Abernathy! Black talk show host and columnist Tony Brown added more light on this possibility when he reported on King’s banter to Abernathy in one of their hotel rooms. However, it was so vulgar, I will not even disguise King’s request to his “best friend.”

Martin was a prevaricator: The head of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, said that King was the “most notorious liar” in America and also said that “King is a tom cat with obsessive degenerate urges.” King also lied about his name all his life; he lied to his ordination committee; he lied to his wife; he lied on his college and seminary papers; he lied in his books; he lied when he said he fired Communists on his payroll; he lied when he said that twice as many blacks died in Vietnam than whites. Hoover was right.

King was a plagiarist: King stole from others all his lifetime as was supported by King’s people in Atlanta! “King’s plagiarism was a general pattern evident in nearly all of his academic writings….We found that instances of textual appropriation can be seen in his earliest extant writings as well as his dissertation. The pattern is also noticeable in his speeches and sermons throughout his career.” Note King’s family excused his plagiarism calling it “textual appropriation.”

King’s biographer David J. Garrow states: “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….” Why did they not expect more? It is a fact that King stole 66% of his Ph.D. dissertation! It seems Boston University wanted to give a doctorate to an unqualified and dishonest man, therefore played the game.

In his seminary papers, King reproduced the research and writings of others but he also incorporated their many errors, grammatical as well as theological!

King was a phony: In another paper King wrote that “the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ is in my mind quite readily denied.” He other papers King denied Christ’s virgin birth and vicarious death and visible return of Christ. Martin Luther King was an unbeliever! He was a phony preacher and phony Christian!

What would be the reaction if a national holiday were suggested to honor a man, even a good man, who had past ties with the Klan or Nazis? Would it not be expected that everyone would demand that he answer some questions and his life be looked at very closely? Why is King an exception? And why are conservatives playing this game of whitewashing King’s reputation? Obviously, truth is unimportant.

To sum up: There is no argument. As usual, I’ll be accused of racism but it’s only the facts. King was a pinko, a philander, a pervert, a prevaricator, a plagiarist and a phony. That doesn’t bother most people but it does bother honest people.