The Beast as Saint:
The Truth About “Martin Luther King, Jr.”
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. (“King’s Plagiarism: Imitation, Insecurity and Transformation,” The Journal of American History, June 1991, p. 87)
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 “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, 1963.
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 1963 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 US, 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 sex 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 hadáseen 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.
1. The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr.- – (an official publication of the Martin Luther King Center for Nonviolent Social Change).
2. “King’s Plagiarism: Imitation, Insecurity and Transformation,” The Journal of American History, June 1991, p. 87) David J. Garrow
3. New York Times” of October 11, 1991, page 15.
4. “The FBI and Martin Luther King, Jr.”, David J. Garrow, (1981).
5. “And the walls came tumbling down,” Rev. Ralph Abernathy (1989)
The Death of the Dream:
The Day Martin Luther King Was Shot
Left to right: Hosea Williams, Jesse Jackson, Martin Luther King Jr., Rev. Ralph David Abernathy on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel Memphis hotel, a day before King’s assassination. April 3, 1968.
The picture above has been shown millions of times. King, the day before his death, greeting his supporters. What is not publicly known is what happened the night before his death. Newsweek magazine from January 19, 1998 gives you a small glimpse of the real Martin Luther King Jr.
Pillar of Fire: America in the King Years, 1963-65.
(book reviews) Jon Meacham
01/19/98 Newsweek, Page 62
January 6, 1964, was a long day for Martin Luther King Jr. He spent the morning seated in the reserved section of the Supreme Court, listening as lawyers argued New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, a landmark case rising out of King’s crusade against segregation in Alabama. The minister was something of an honored guest: Justice Arthur Goldberg quietly sent down a copy of Kings account of the Montgomery bus boycott, “Stride Toward Freedom,” asking for an autograph. That night King retired to his room at the Willard Hotel. There FBI bugs reportedly picked up 14 hours of party chatter, the clinking of glasses and the sounds of illicit sex–including King’s cries of “I’m f–ing for God” and “I’m not a Negro tonight!”
Note: What is not mentioned in this article is that Martin Luther King was having sex with three White women, one of whom he brutally beat while screaming the above mentioned quotes. Much of the public information on King’s use of church money to hire prostitutes and his beating them came from King’s close personal friend, Rev. Ralph Abernathy (pictured above), in his 1989 book, “And the walls came tumbling down.”
Newsweek Magazine 1-19-1998, page 62
“And the walls came tumbling down,” by Rev. Ralph Abernathy (1989)
The King Holiday and Its Meaning
by Samuel Francis
This article is reprinted from the 2/98 issue of American Renaissance, P.O. Box 527, Oakton, VA 22124; $24/yr.
“Martin Luther King Jr. gives a speech at his Southern “Christian” Leadership Conference (SCLC) on September 26, 1962, as his comrades – Ann Braden, Carl Braden, and James Dombrowski – Intently listen.”
On August 2, 1983, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill creating a legal public holiday in honor of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Although there had been little discussion of the bill in the House itself and little awareness among the American public that Congress was even considering such a bill, it was immediately clear that the U.S. Senate sould take up the legislation soon after the Labor Day recess.
The House had passed the King Holiday Bill by an overwhelming vote of 338-90, with significant bipartisan support (both Reps. Jack Kemp and Newt Gingrich voted for it), and the Reagan administration was indicating that the president would not veto it if it came before him. In these circumstances, most political observers seemed to think that Senate enactment and presidential signature of the bill would take place virtually unopposed; few anticipated that the battle over the King holiday in the next few weeks would be one of the most bitter congressional and public controversies of the decade.
From 1981 to 1986 I worked on the staff of North Carolina Republican Sen. John P. East, a close associate and political ally of the senior senator from North Carolina, Jesse Helms. While the legislation was being considered I wrote a paper entitled “Martin Luther King, Jr.: Political Activities and Associations.” It was simply documentation of the affiliations with various individuals and organizations of communist background that King had maintained since the days when he first became a nationally prominent figure.
In September, the paper was distributed to several Senate offices for the purpose of informing them of these facts about King, facts in which the national news media showed no interest. It was not originally my intention that the paper be read on the floor of the Senate, but the Helms office itself expressed an interest in using it as a speech, and it was read in the Congressional Record on October 3, 1983. During ensuing debate over the King holiday, I acted as a consultant to Sen. Helms and his regular staff.
Sen. Helms, like Sen. East and many other conservatives in the Senate and the country, was strongly opposed to establishing a national holiday for King. The country already observed no fewer than nine legal public holidays — New Years Day, “Presidents Day” as it is officially known or “Washington’s Birthday” as an unreconstructed American public continues to insisting on calling it, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veterans Day, Columbus Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas.
With the exception of Washington’s Birthday and Christmas, not a one of these holidays celebrates a single individual. As Sen. East argued, to establish a special holiday just for King was to “elevate him to the same level as the father of our country and above the many other Americans whose achievements approach Washington’s.” Whatever King’s own accomplishments, few would go so far as to claim that they equaled or exceeded those of many other statesmen, soldiers, and creative minds of American history.
That argument alone should have provided a compelling reason to reject the King holiday, but for some years a well-organized and powerful lobby had pressured Congress for its enactment, and anyone who questioned the need for the holiday was likely to be accused or “racism” or “insensitivity.” Congressional Democrats, always eager to court the black voting bloc that has become their party’s principal mainstay, were solidly in favor of it (the major exception being Georgia Democrat Larry McDonald, who led the opposition to the measure in the House and who died before the month was over when a Soviet warplane shot down the civilian airliner on which he and nearly three hundred other civilians were traveling).
Charles D. Brennan, retired Assistant Director of the FBI, stated that he had personally been involved in the FBI surveillance of King and knew from first-hand observation the truth about King’s sexual conduct — conduct that Mr. Brennan characterized as “orgiastic and adulterous escapades, some of which indicated that King could be bestial in his sexual abuse of women.”
Republicans, always timid about accusations of racial insensitivity and eager to court the black vote themselves, were almost as supportive of the proposal as the Democrats. Few lawmakers stopped to consider the deeper cultural and political impact a King holiday would have, and few journalists and opinion-makers encouraged them to consider it. Instead, almost all of them — lawmakers and opinion-makers — devoted their energies to vilifying the only public leader who displayed the courage to question the very premise of the proposal — whether Martin Luther King was himself worthy of the immense and unprecedented honor being placed upon him.
It soon became clear that whatever objections might be raised against the holiday, no one in politics or the media wanted to hear about them and that even the Republican leadership of the Senate was sympathetic to passage of the legislation. When the Senate Majority Leader, Howard Baker, scheduled action to consider the bill soon after Congress returned from the Labor Day recess, King’s widow, Coretta Scott King, called Sen. Baker and urged him to postpone action in order to gain time to gather more support for the bill. The senator readily agreed, telling the press, “She felt chances for passage would be enhanced and improved if it were postponed. The postponement of this is not for the purpose of delay.” Nevertheless, despite the support for the bill from the Republican leadership itself, the vote was delayed again, mainly because of the efforts of Sen. Helms.
Sen. Helms delivered his speech on King on October 3 and later supplemented it with a document of some 300 pages consisting mainly of declassified FBI and other government reports about King’s connections with communists and communist-influenced groups that the speech recounted. That document, distributed on the desks of all senators, was promptly characterized as “a packet of filth” by New York’s Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who threw it to the floor of the Senate and stomped on it (he later repeated his stomping off the Senate floor for the benefit of the evening news), while Sen. Edward Kennedy denounced the Helms speech as “Red smear tactics” that should be “shunned by the American people.”
A few days later, columnist Edwin M. Yoder, Jr. in the Washington Post sneered that Jesse Helms “is a stopped clock if ever American politics had one” who could be depended on to “contaminate a serious argument with debating points from the gutter,” while he described Kings as “a prophet, a man of good works, a thoroughly wholesome influence in American life.” Writing in the Washington Times, conservative Aram Bakshian held that Sen. Helms was simply politically motivated: “He has nothing to lose and everything to gain by heaping scorn on the memory of Martin Luther King and thereby titillating the great white trash.” Leftist Richard Cohen wrote of Helms in the Post, “His sincerity is not in question. Only his decency.”
Meanwhile, Sen. Helms, with legal assistance from the Conservative Caucus, filed suit in federal court to obtain the release of FBI surveillance tapes on King that had been sealed by court order until the year 2027. Their argument was that senators could not fairly evaluate King’s character and beliefs anc ast an informed vote on the holiday measure until they had gained access to this sealed material and had an opportunity to examine it. The Reagan Justice Department opposed this action, and on October 18, U.S. District Judge John Lewis Smith, Jr. refused to release the King files, which remain selaed to this day.
Efforts to send the bill to committee also failed. Although it is a routine practice for the Senate to refer all legislation to committee, where hearings can consider the merits of the proposed law, this was not done in the case of the King holiday bill. Sen. Kennedy, a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, argued that hearings on a similiar proposal had been held in a previous Congress and there was no need to hold new hearings. He was correct that hearings had been held, but there had been considerable turnover in the Senate since then and copies of those hearings were not generally available. Nevertheless, it soon became clear that Republicans and Democrats, liberals and many conservatives, the White House, the courts, and the media all wanted the King holiday bill passed as soon as possible, with as little serious discussion of King’s character, beliefs, and associations as possible.
Why this was so was becoming increasingly clear to me as an observer of the process. Our office soon began to receive phone calls and letters from all over the country expressing strong popular opposition to the bill. Aides from other Senate offices — I specifically remember one from Washington state and one from Pennsylvania — told me their mail from constituents was running overwhelmingly against the bill, and I recall overhearing Sen. Robert Dole telling a colleague that he had to go back to Kansas and prove he was still a Republican despite his support for the King holiday bill. The political leaders of both parties were beginning to grasp that they were sitting on top of a potential political earthquake, which they wanted to stifle before it swallowed them all.
On October 19, then, the vote was held, 78 in favor of the holiday and 22 against (37 Republicans and 41 Democrats voted for the bill; 18 Republicans and 4 Democrats voted against it); several substitute amendments intended to replace the King holiday measure were defeated without significant debate.
President Reagan signed the bill into law on November 2nd. I distinctly remember standing with Sen. Helms in the Republican cloakroom just off the floor of the Senate during the debate, listening to one senator after another approaching him to apologize for the insulting language they had just used about Sen. Helms on the floor. Not a few of the senators assured him they knew he was right about King but what else could they do but denounce Helms and vote for the holiday? Most of them claimed political expediency as their excuse, and I recall one Senate aide chortling that “what old Jesse needs to do is get back to North Carolina and try to save his own neck” from the coming disaster he had prepared for himself in opposing the King holiday.
Indeed, it was conventional wisdom in Washington at the time that Jesse Helms had committed political suicide by his opposition to the King holiday and that he was certain to lose re-election the following year against a challenge by Democratic Governor James B. Hunt. In fact, Sen. Helms was trailing in the pools prior to the controversy over the holiday. The Washington Post carried a story shortly after the vote on the holiday bill with the headline, “Battle to Block King Holiday May Have Hurt Helms at Home,” and a former political reporter from North Carolina confidently gloated in the Post on October 23 that Helms was “Destined to Lose in ’84.”
In the event, of course, Sen. Helms was re-elected by a healthy margin, and the Post itself acknowledged the role of his opposition to the King holiday as a major factor in his political revival. As Post reporter Bill Peterson wrote in news stories after Helms’ re-election on November 6, 1984, his “standing among whites . . . shot up in polls after he led a filibuster against a bill establishing a national holiday on the birthday of the late Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.,” and on November 18, “A poll before the filibuster showed Helms trailing Hunt by 20 percentage points. By October, Hunt’s lead was sliced in half. White voters who had been feeling doubts about Helms began returning to the fold.” If Sen. Helms’ speech against the King holiday had any enduring effect, then, it was to help re-elect him to the Senate.
So, was Jesse Helms right about Martin Luther King? That King had close connections with individuals and groups that were openly communist is clear today, as it was clear during King’s own lifetime and during the debate on the holiday bill. Indeed, only two weeks after the Senate vote, on November 1, 1983, the New York Times published a letter written by Michael Parenti, an associate fellow of the far-left Institute for Policy Studies in Washington and a frequent contributor to Political Affairs, an official organ of the Communist Party that styles itself the “Theoretical Journal of the Communist Party USA.”
The letter demanded “What if communists had links to Dr. King?” Mr. Parenti pointed out that “The three areas in which King was most active — civil rights, peace and the labor struggle (the latter two toward the end of his life) — are also areas in which U.S. Communists have worked long and devotedly,” and he criticized “liberals” who “once again accept the McCarthyite premise that U.S. Communists are purveyors of evil and that any association with them taints one forever. Dr. King himself would not have accepted such a premise.” Those of Mr. Parenti’s persuasion may see nothing scandalous in associations with known communists, but the “liberals” whom he criticized knew better than to make that argument in public.
Of course, to say that King maintained close affiliations with persons whom he knew to be communists is not to say that King himself was ever a communist or that the movement he led was controlled by communists; but his continuing associations with communists, and his repeated dishonesty about those connections, do raise serious questions about his own character, about the nature of his own political views and goals, and about whether we as a nation should have awarded him (and should continue to award him) the honor the holiday confers. Moreover, the embarrassing political connections that were known at the time seem today to be merely the tip of the ethical and political iceberg with which King’s reputation continues to collide.
While researching King’s background in 1983, I deliberately chose to dwell on his communist affiliations rather than on other issues involving his sexual morality. I did so because at that time the facts about King’s subversive connections were well-documented, while the details of his sex life were not. In the course of writing the paper, however, I spoke to several former agents of the FBI who had been personally engaged in the FBI surveillance of King and who knew from first-hand observation that the rumors about his undisciplined sex life were substantially true.
A few years later, with the publication in 1989 of Ralph Abernathy’s autobiography, “And the Walls Came Tumbling Down,” those rumors were substantiated by one of King’s closest friends and political allies. It is quite true that a person’s sex life is largely his own business, but in the case of an internationally prominent figure such as King, they become publicly relevant, and they are especially relevant given the high moral stature King’s admirers habitually ascribe to him, the issue of his integrity as a Christian clergyman, and the proposal to elevate him to the status of a national moral icon.
In the course of the Senate debate on the King holiday, the East office received a letter from a retired FBI official, Charles D. Brennan. Mr. Brennan, who had served as Assistant Director of the FBI, stated that he had personally been involved in the FBI surveillance of King and knew from first-hand observation the truth about King’s sexual conduct — conduct that Mr. Brennan characterized as “orgiastic and adulterous escapades, some of which indicated that King could be bestial in his sexual abuse of women.”
He also stated that “King frequently drank to excess and at times exhibited extreme emotional instability as when he once threatened to jump from his hotel room window.” In a study that he prepared, Mr. Brennan described King’s “sexual activities and his excessive drinking” that FBI surveillance discovered. It was this kind of conduct, he wrote, that led FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to describe King as “a tomcat with obsessive degenerate sexual urges” and President Lyndon Johnson to call King a “hypocrite preacher.” Mr. Brennan also acknowledged:
“It was much the FBI collected. It was not the FBI’s most shining hour. There would be no point in wallowing in it again. The point is that it is there. It is there in the form of transcripts, recordings, photos and logs. It is there in great quantity. There are volumes of material labeled ‘obscene.’ Future historians just will not be able to avoid it.”
It is precisely this material that is sealed under court order until the year 2027 and to which the Senate was denied access prior to the vote on the King holiday.
One instance from King’s life that perhpas illuminates his character was provided by historian David Garrow in his study of the FBI’s surveillance of King. Garrow recounts what the FBI gathered during a 48-hour surveillance of King between February 22 and 24, 1964 in the Hyatt House Motel in Los Angeles: “In that forty-eight hours the Bureau acquired what in retrospect would be its most prized recordings of Dr. King. The treasured highlight was a long and extremely funny story-telling session during which King (a) bestowed supposedly honorific titles or appointments of an explicitly sexual nature on some of his friends, (b) engaged in an extended dialogue of double-entendre phrases that had sexual as well as religious connotations, and (c) told an explicit joke about the rumored sexual practices of recently assassinated President John F. Kennedy, with reference to both Mrs. Kennedy, and the President’ funeral.”
Garrow’s characterization of the episode as “extremely funny” is one way of describing the incident; another is that during the session in Los Angeles, King, a Christian minister, made obscene jokes with his own followers (several of them also ministers), made sexual and sacreligious jokes, and made obscene and insulting remarks intended to be funny about the late President Kennedy and his sex life with Mrs. Kennedy.
It should be recalled that these jokes were made by King about a man who had supported his controversial cause, had lost political support because of his support for King and the civil rights movement, and had been dead for less than three months at the time King engaged in obscene humor about him and his wife. In February, 1964, the nation was still in a state of shock over Kennedy’s death, but King apparently found his death a suitable occasion for dirty jokes.
More recently still, in addition to disclosures about King’s bizarre sex life and his close connections with communists, it has come to light that King’s record of deliberate deception in his own personal interests reaches as far back as his years in college and graduate school, when he plagiarized significant portions of his research papers and even his doctoral dissertation, an act that would cause the immediate ruin of any academic figure. Evidence of King’s plagiarism, which was almost certainly known to his academic sponsors at Boston University and was indisputably known to other academics at the King Papers Project at Stanford University, was deliberately suppressed and denied. It finally came to light in reports published by The Wall Street Journal in 1990 and was later exhaustively documented in articles and a monograph by Theodore Pappas of the Rockford Institute.
Yet, incredibly — even after thorough documentation of King’s affiliations with communists, after the relevations about his personal moral flaws, and after proof of his brazen dishonesty in plagiarizing his dissertation and several other published writings — incredibly there is no proposal to rescind the holiday that honors him. Indeed, states like Arizona and New Hampshire that did not rush to adopt their own holidays in honor of King have themselves been vilified and threatened with systematic boycotts.
The continuing indulgence of King is in part due to simple political cowardice — fear of being denounced as a “racist” — but also to the political utility of the King holiday for those who seek to advance their own political agenda. Almost immediately upon the enactment of the holiday bill, the King holiday came to serve as a kind of charter for the radical regime of “political correctness” and “multiculturalism” that now prevails at many of the nation’s major universities and in many areas of public and private life.
This is so because the argument generally offered for the King holiday by King’s own radical collaborators and disciples is considerably different from the argument for it offered by most Republicans and Democrats. The latter argue that they simply want to celebrate what they take to be King’s personal courage and commitment to racial tolerance; the holiday, in their view, is simply celebratory and commemorative, and they do not intend that the holiday should advance any other agenda. But this is not the argument in favor of the King holiday that we hear from partisans like Mrs. King and those who harbor similar views. A few days after Senate passage of the holiday measure, Mrs. King wrote in the Washington Post (10/23/83) about how the holiday should be observed.
“The holiday,” she wrote, “must be substantive as well as symbolic. It must be more than a day of celebration . . . Let this holiday be a day of reflection, a day of teaching nonviolent philosophy and strategy, a day of getting involved in nonviolent action for social and economic progress.”
Mrs. King noted that for years the Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change in Atlanta “has conducted activities around his birthday in many cities. The week-long observance has included a series of educational programs, policy seminars or conferences, action-oriented workshops, strategy sessions and planning meetings dealing with a wide variety of current issues, from voter registration to full employment to citizen action for nuclear disarmament.”
A few months later, Robert Weisbrot, a fellow of the DuBois Institute at Harvard, was writing in The New Republic (1/30/84) that “in all, the nation’s first commemoration of King’s life invites not only celebration, but also cerebration over his — and the country’s — unfinished tasks.” Those “unfinished tasks,” according to Mr. Weisbrot, included “curbing disparities of wealth and opportunity in a society still ridden by caste distinctions,” a task toward the accomplishment of which “the reforms of the early ’60s” were “only a first step.” Among those contemporary leaders “seeking to extend Martin Luther King’s legacy,” Mr. Weisbrot wrote, “by far the most influential and best known is his former aide, Jesse Jackson.”
The exploitation of the King holiday for radical political purposes was even further enhanced by Vincent Harding, “Professor of Religion and Social Transformation at the Iliff School of Theology in Denver,” writing in The New York Times (1/18/88). Professor Harding rejected the notion that the King holiday commemorates merely “a kind, gentle and easily managed religious leader of a friendly crusade for racial integration.” Such an understanding would “demean and trivialize Dr. King’s meaning.” Professor Harding wrote:
“The Martin Luther King of 1968 was calling for and leading civil disobedience campaigns against the unjust war in Vietnam. Courageously describing our nation as ‘the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today,’ he was urging us away from a dependence on military solutions. He was encouraging young men to refuse to serve in the military, challenging them not to support America’s anti-Communist crusades, which were really destroying the hopes of poor nonwhite peoples everywhere. This Martin Luther King was calling for a radical redistribution of wealth and political power in American society as a way to provide food, clothing, shelter, medical care, jobs, education and hope for all of our country’s people.”
To those of King’s own political views, then, the true meaning of the holiday is that it serves to legitimize the radical social and political agenda that King himself favored and to delegitimize traditional American social and cultural institutions — not simply those that supported racial segregation but also those that support a free market economy, an anti-communist foreign policy, and a constitutional system that restrains the power of the state rather than one that centralizes and expands power for the reconstruction of society and the redistribution of wealth.
In this sense, the campaign to enact the legal public holiday in honor of Martin Luther King was a small first step on the long march to revolution, a charter by which that revolution is justified as the true and ultimate meaning of the American identity. In this sense, and also in King’s own sense, as he defined it in his speech at the Lincoln Memorial in 1963, the Declaration of Independence becomes a “promissory note” by which the state is authorized to pursue social and economic egalitarianism as its mission, and all institutions and values that fail to reflect the dominance of equality — racial, cultural, national, economic, political and social — must be overcome and discarded.
By placing King — and therefore his own radical ideology of social transformation and reconstruction — into the central pantheon of American history, the King holiday provides a green light by which the revolutionary process of transformation and reconstruction can charge full speed ahead. Moreover, by placing King at the center of the American national pantheon, the holiday also serves to undermine any argument against the revolutionary political agenda that it has come to symbolize. Having promoted or accepted the symbol of the new dogma as a defining — perhaps the defining — icon of the American political order, those who oppose the revolutionary agenda the symbol represents have little ground to resist that agenda.
It is hardly an accident, then, that in the years since the enactment of the holiday and the elevation of King as a national icon, systematic attacks on the Confederacy and its symbolism were initiated, movements to ban the teaching of “Western civilization” came to fruition on major American universities, Thomas Jefferson was denounced as a “racist” and “slaveowner,” and George Washington’s name was removed from a public school in New Orleans on the grounds that he too owned slaves.
In the new nation and the new creed of which the King holiday serves as symbol, all institutions, values, heroes, and symbols that violate the dogma of equality are dethroned and must be eradicated. Those associated with the South and the Confederacy are merely the most obvious violations of the egalitarian dogma and thereform must be the first to go, but they will by no means be the last.
The political affiliations of Martin Luther King that Sen. Jesse Helms so courageously exposed are thus only pointers to the real danger that the King holiday represents. The logical meaning of the holiday is the ultimate destruction of the American Republic as it has been conceived and defined throughout our history, and until the charter for revolution that it represents is repealed, we can expect only further installations of the destruction and dispossession it promises.
(Samuel Francis is a nationally syndicated columnist.)
My Awakening: Chapter 18
Jews, Communism and Civil Rights
by David Duke
The following is a Chapter from European American civil rights activist David Duke’s ground breaking autobiography, “My Awakening”. This chapter helps to shed light on many aspect of the so-called “civil rights” movement that have never before been seen.
The eccentric woman in the Citizens Council office, who railed about the Jews and Communism, obviously had some of her facts right, even if she seemed to fit the media stereotype of the anti-Semite. The facts were inescapable: Communism and Zionism were born from the same Jewish soul, personified in Moses Hess.
I slowly became aware of a dual morality permeating Jewish-Gentile relations. Jews practiced one morality for themselves and preached another for the non-Jewish world. Their own morality of racial pride taught solidarity, tradition and self-interest. But they preached diversity and liberalism for their perceived competitors. If such dualism did not exist, how could the Jewish-dominated American media:
- Support the nation of Israel, which promotes Judaism in its schools, while opposing even the singing of Christmas carols in American public schools?
- Support the nation of Israel, which has strictly segregated schools, communities, and facilities for Jews and Arabs – while condemning segregated schools and housing in America and South Africa?
- Support the nation of Israel, with its restrictive “Jews only” immigration laws, while subverting American attempts to curtail even illegal immigration?
- Support the nation of Israel, which allows every Jewish citizen to carry a machine gun if desired, while advocating strict gun control for American citizens?
- Support the nation of Israel, which openly states its mission to preserve the Jewish people and heritage, while condemning Whites who would dare to advocate the preservation of the White race and Western culture in America?
- Always paint the historical relations between Jews and Gentiles with the Gentiles as evildoers and the Jews as innocent victims, while condemning White people for even defending themselves from such Jewish depiction?
The moral hypocrisy became obvious. Powerful Jews advocate one morality for Jews; the opposite for Gentiles. If their policies of solidarity are morally good for them, why would they not be morally good for us as well? Why the double standard? If “White racists” are morally reprehensible, why are not Jewish supremacists reprehensible as well?
While Herzl and other Zionists feverishly gathered worldwide Jewish support for the establishment of the exclusively Jewish state, Jewish activists were busy trying to negate the Christian component of American culture and remove even Christmas carols from our schools. While they trumpet their belief that they are a “Chosen People” above all others, and celebrate a unique people defined by heritage from Abraham to the present – they tell White people that race consciousness is evil. While they established a Jewish nation where citizenship is based almost exclusively on the heredity of the “Jewish people,” Jewish anthropologists promote the idea that the White race doesn’t exist. Even though they devotedly support their own exclusively Jewish-run state of Israel, they work feverishly to undermine the White control and character of America through the “civil-rights” movement and massive non-White immigration. While they have laws in Israel prohibiting Gentiles from owning certain media, they boldly move to gain control of the great majority of the mass media in America.
Communist Ideology and Race
Mattie Smith told me that the Jews had the leading role in the efforts to destroy the very underpinnings of our race and our heritage. I had read that Jews were the leaders of the academic movement promoting the idea that races are equal in their physical and mental abilities. In looking into the foundations of racial egalitarianism, I found that adherents of international Communism pioneered the modern notions of racial equality. In America, Marxist organizations quickly gained ascendancy in the remnants of the old abolitionist movements. In South Africa, they led the fight for full “democratic” rights for the Blacks. Across the world, Communism allied itself with non-White peoples and their struggle for “liberation from White imperialism, colonialism, and oppression.” I soon found out that Jews dominated the International Communist movement in modern times just as they had led Bolshevism in Russia early in the 20th century.
Jewish scribe Nathan Glazer stated matter-of-factly that in the 60s and 70s the Jews comprised half of all the active Communists in the United States and four out of five of its leaders. Two Jews, Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman, led the Marxist-Oriented, Yippie Movement, and they were two of the five Jewish members of the revolutionary “Chicago Seven” group – tried for the violent disruption of the 1968 Democratic Convention. I read a book called Behind Communism, and I was surprised to discover that at least 4 out of 5 of all those caught and convicted of Communist espionage and treason in the United States and Canada were Jews.
|Julius and Ethel Rosenberg|
Probably the most infamous act of treason in American history was the theft of the atomic bomb secrets by Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. They were part of the Fuchs-Gold spy ring that operated in and around the Manhattan Project and other branches of the American atomic weapons program. Seven members of the Fuchs-Gold ring pled guilty to charges associated with espionage. They were Klaus Fuchs, Harry Gold, David Greenglass, Abraham Brothman, Miriam Moskowitz, Sidney Weinbaum, and Alfred Slack. Another suspect, Morton Sobell, fled to Mexico, but Mexican authorities turned him over to the United States to face trial and subsequent conviction. A jury also convicted the Rosenbergs, and they were executed. Of the ten spies most responsible for the selling of our atomic secrets to the Soviets, only one, Alfred Slack, was a Gentile.
Other major spy cases included the Amerasia Case, the Gerhart Eisler Case, the Judith Coplin Case, and the Alger Hiss Case. Jews figured prominently in these cases and made up a clear majority of the defendants. The only prominent non-Jewish spy was Alger Hiss. In the Hollywood Ten Case, The House of Representatives convicted ten of Hollywood’s leading film writers of contempt of Congress. They appeared before the House Committee on Un-American Activities and refused to testify when asked if they were Communists. Jewish publications alleged the committee ruined the writers for no apparent reason. Recently a number of movies have been made defending the Hollywood Ten as unjustly and unfairly persecuted, yet six of the ten proved to be dues-paying members of the Communist Party. The other four had records of many Communist-front activities and connections. Nine of the ten were of Jewish heritage.
While Jewish Marxists pursued the political part of the “civil-rights” effort, they pushed just as hard in the academic realm. Until the 1930s the biological sciences recognized the different races of mankind as surely as they did the different species and subspecies of the animal kingdom – that is, as commentator Kevin Strom says, “Until the egalitarian political wind blew into American academia, propelled by a clever, connected, and well-heeled minority with an agenda.”
I began to realize that the drive for race-mixing did not find its source in the Black people of America. Most Blacks were content to be separate, although they certainly wanted economic and social advancement. The most popular Black leader in the early part of the 20th century was the Black separatist Marcus Garvey, who sought repatriation for Blacks back to Africa and the foundation of a new Black nation. Against this movement of Black separatism and the effort of European Americans to preserve White America there rose a minority with an entirely different agenda.
The Racial Egalitarian Dogma
Franz Boas is the accepted father of the modern egalitarian school of anthropology. He was a Jewish immigrant from Germany with little formal training in the anthropological field, having done his doctoral thesis on the color of water. Boas introduced what he called “cultural anthropology” to the discipline. Until his arrival, anthropology fell in the realm of physical science. Boas effectively divided anthropology into the separate disciplines of cultural and physical anthropology.
Early physical anthropologists were truly race scientists because they studied man and his evolutionary development through the study of the measurable physical characteristics of the human races, past and present. Any good physical anthropologist could pick up a human skull and, based on its characteristics, quickly identify the race of the specimen. Of course, this physiological knowledge was vital in sorting out the unearthed remnants of early man and piecing together man’s prehistory and evolutionary development. Cultural anthropology dealt more with the different contemporary cultures of mankind and culturally related questions of antiquity and prehistory, making it a far less precise science, and one open to wide interpretation.
Surprisingly, before he became such a prominent anthropologist, Boas expressed his acceptance of racial differences in mental characteristics. In The Mind of Primitive Man, he wrote:
- Differences of Structure must be accompanied by differences of function, physiological as well as psychological; and, as we found clear evidence of differences in structure between races, so we must anticipate that the differences in mental characteristics will be found.
Both of Boas’ parents were radical socialists in the revolutionary movement that swept over Europe in 1870. In his biography of Boas, his student Melville Herskovits wrote that Boas’ political sympathies “leaned towards a variety of socialism.” The United States House of Representatives cited Boas’ involvement with 44 Communist-front organizations. Coinciding with the rise of Nazism in Germany and the increasing influence of racially aware anthropologists in the world scientific community, Boas began to marshal his anthropological influence in service of his political sympathies. He began to advance the quack idea that there are really no such things as individual human races. He argued that although they had variations of skin colors and features, the groups called races possessed little difference genetically and that, whatever their superficial differences, solely their environment created them. By 1938 Boas dropped the above quotation from the new edition of his book.
He gathered many Jewish disciples around him, including Gene Weltfish, Isador Chein, Melville Herskovits, Otto Klineberg, and Ashley Montagu. He also had among his followers the Negro K. B. Clark and two women, Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead. Mead later wrote her famous book on Samoa (Coming of Age in Samoa) suggesting that indiscriminate sexual relations would lessen teenage traumas and problems. (Her opus was later soundly refuted by Derek Freeman, who showed that Mead had falsified her data on Samoa.)
Boas and his entire cadre of disciples had extensive Communist connections. He repeatedly proclaimed that he was in a “holy war against racism” and he died suddenly during a luncheon where once again and for the last time, he stressed the need to fight “racism.” Boas and his comrades gained control over the anthropology departments of most universities by encouraging their egalitarian comrades to always use their positions to support their own in academic appointments. While traditional anthropologists had no ax to grind and no sacred cause to champion, Boas and his followers embarked on a holy mission to extirpate racial knowledge from the academic establishment. They succeeded.
Whenever egalitarians achieved positions of influence or power, they aided their comrades to rise in the teaching departments of the colleges and academic departments they administered. They could count on fellow Jews who held influential university positions to assist their co-religionists, as well as Gentile egalitarians, in getting professorships and research appointments and promotions. Similar collusion took place in the ranks and on the boards of anthropological associations and journals. However, the coup de grâce was the massive support given the egalitarian dogma by the media establishment, which was overwhelmingly in Jewish hands.
Racial equality was (and still is) presented to the public as scientific fact, opposed only by the “bigoted” and the “ignorant.” Egalitarian writers such as Ashley Montagu and others received great praise in magazines, newspapers, and, later on television. Whether one was a Jew or a Gentile, professing a belief in racial equality became essential dogma for anyone who wanted to advance in anthropology or any other part of the academic world. Adherence to the “politically correct” line led to prestige and acclaim, money and success. Racial truth-telling led to personal attack and often economic hardship.
Ashley Montagu became the best-known spokesman for the equality hoax, superseding Boas as the most popular exponent of antiracism. His well-modulated British accent and aristocratic name added instant credibility to his racial pronouncements. I can still, after thirty years, remember his impressive appearances on the Today television program. His book, Race: Man’s Most Dangerous Myth, became the bible of equality, and it profoundly impressed me before I had a chance to read the other side. Montagu’s real name was Israel Ehrenberg. In a brilliant exercise of psychological camouflage, Ehrenberg changed his name a number of times, finally settling on not simply an Anglo-Saxon moniker, but the name Montagu, which is one of Britain’s most aristocratic and oldest medieval-titled families.
By the late 1990s, Jewish writers began to brazenly write about their domination of American anthropology. In a 1997 edition of American Anthropologist, which is published by the American Anthropological Association, Jewish scholar Gelya Frank writes that egalitarian American anthropology was so thoroughly Jewish that it should be classed as “part of Jewish History.” Frank goes on to admit that anthropology is in the service of a social agenda and that her essay focuses on Jewish anthropologists who are “concerned with turning multiculturalist theories into agendas for activism.” The same breed of anthropologists who so fervently declare that “there is no such thing as race” concerning Blacks and Whites are now hypocritically affirming the unique genetic homogeneity of Jews. Moreover, increasing numbers of Jewish anthropologists have come out of the closet in celebration of their special genetic and cultural heritage.
As far as Blacks and Whites are concerned, egalitarianism still dominates. Richard Lewontin, Leon Kamin and Stephen Jay Gould, are its three self-acknowledged Marxist Jews and the leading academic exponents of egalitarianism. In spite of an avalanche of fresh scientific data proving the vital role of genes in producing individual and group differences, racial egalitarianism is still the holy writ of anthropology and human psychology as characterized by the popular media. The writings of Lewontin, Kamin, Gould, Rose, and other egalitarians frequently appear in the pages of magazines such as the Smithsonian, Natural History, Nature, Discover, Time, Newsweek, and other wide-circulation publications. Television programs often interview them as “authorities” on the subject of race – and seldom are their opponents allowed to challenge them. Most of the leading egalitarian spokesmen are self-described Marxists, a slight detail seldom mentioned in the media. Imagine if they were self-proclaimed Nazis; I suspect the reaction to them would be very different.
Despite the well-organized “part of Jewish history” control of anthropology, the scientific affirmation of race is growing so quickly that the popular egalitarians may not be able to hold back the scientific tide much longer. There has never been a greater disparity between scientific and popular understanding.
The Freudian Assault
Psychology fell to the Jewish onslaught just as anthropology had. From the days of Sigmund Freud, psychology became defined as the “Jewish science.” One of his Jewish biographers put it this way:
- History made psychoanalysis a “Jewish science.” It continued to be attacked as such. It was destroyed in Germany, Italy, and Austria and exiled to the four winds, as such. It continues even now to be perceived as such by enemies and friends alike. Of course there are by now distinguished analysts who are not Jews. . . . But the vanguard of the movement over the last fifty years has remained predominantly Jewish as it was from the beginning.
Since the Great Depression, academic psychology discounted the impact of heredity and attributed almost all individual human behavioral patterns and mental ability to environmental conditioning. They claimed that environment rather than heredity is really the source of all mental and behavioral differences among the races. But, not only did the theories of Freud and his disciples attack the principles of race, they made a broadside attack on the spiritual and moral values of European civilization. Freud suggested that our Christian sexual morality was the cause of mental illness on a grand scale. He relentlessly undermined the concepts of sexual fidelity and the foundations of marriage. In 1915 he stated:
- Sexual morality – as society, in its extreme form, the American, defines it – seems to me very contemptible. I advocate an incomparably freer sexual life.
In Moses and Monotheism (1939) Freud repeatedly attacks Christianity while promoting the spiritual supremacy of the Jewish people.
- The people, happy in their conviction of possessing the truth, overcome by the consciousness of being the chosen, came to value highly all intellectual and ethical achievements.
The Christian religion did not keep to the lofty heights of spirituality to which the Jewish religion had soared – Sigmund Freud
Just as the Communist Jews had a political war with the Czars of Russia, Freudians pursued a cultural war against Western Christian culture. Kevin MacDonald, in his classic study of Jewish ethnocentrism, A People That Shall Dwell Apart, points out that Freud’s Totem and Taboo reveals his role in the cultural war against Gentiles:
- Freud’s speculations clearly had an agenda. Rather than provide speculations which reaffirmed the moral and intellectual basis of the culture of his day, his speculations were an integral part of his war on gentile culture – so much so that he viewed Totem and Taboo as a victory over Rome and the Catholic Church.
Freud reveled in what he saw as his war against Christendom, which he compared with the Roman Empire, and suggested that he was like his idol Hannibal and was meant to sack Rome.
- Hannibal. . . had been the favourite hero of my later school days. . . . I began to understand for the first time what it meant to belong to an alien race . . . the figure of the semitic general rose still higher in my esteem. To my youthful mind Hannibal and Rome symbolized the conflict between the tenacity of Jewry and the organisation of the Catholic Church . . .
Freud makes his Jewish supremacist viewpoint very clear in a letter to a Jewish woman who intended to conceive a child by a Gentile to heal the split in psychoanalysis. His words were:
- I must confess…that your fantasy about the birth of the Savior to a mixed union did not appeal to me at all. The Lord, in that anti-Jewish period, had him born from the superior Jewish race. But I know these are my prejudices.
A year later the same woman gave birth to a child fathered by a Jew. Freud responded
- I am, as you know, cured of the last shred of my predilection for the Aryan cause, and would like to take it that if the child turned out to be a boy he will develop into a stalwart Zionist. He or she must be dark in any case, no more towheads. Let us banish all these will-o’-the-wisps!
I shall not present my compliments to Jung in Munich, as you know perfectly well….We are and remain Jews. The others will only exploit us and will never understand and appreciate us. (quoted in Yerushalmi 1991, 45).
Not only did Freud consciously launch an attack on our cultural values, he conveniently labeled opponents of that assault as mentally ill. In Moses and Monotheism, Freud portrays anti-Semitism as a mental illness that arises out of jealousy of Jewish ethical supremacy.
On the deck of a ship steaming toward the United States, Freud commented to his friends that the people of America thought he was bringing them a panacea, but instead he said, “We are bringing them the plague.”
The Civil-Rights Movement
Just as Jewish academics lead the scholastic fight for egalitarianism in science and sociology, and Jewish media moguls lead the propaganda fight, the “civil-rights” movement itself found most of its leadership and financial support in the Jewish community.
Almost from the first day of its inception in 1909, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was the premier organization working for a racially mixed American society. Interestingly enough, the founding board of directors had only one prominent Black, W. E. B. Dubois (who was actually a Mulatto). Most of the board consisted of Jewish Marxist ideologues. The U.S. House of Representatives and many state investigative bodies thoroughly documented the fact that all of the NAACP’s founders were activists in the Communist cause. Dubois even chose Communist Ghana as his burial site.
NAACP leader Kivie Kaplan
The NAACP’s first president was Arthur Spingarn, and only Jews served as NAACP presidents from its founding until the 1970s. Noel Spingarn succeeded his brother, Arthur, and following him, Kivie Kaplan reigned over the organization. The Jewish leadership of the NAACP was little known by the public at large. When I came of age, the only name I heard associated with the NAACP was Roy Wilkins, who was its Black national secretary. Because he was so much in the press and public eye, like most Americans, I thought Wilkins was the NAACP leader. But Kaplan was the actual NAACP president during that time. Benjamin Hooks became the first Black president finally in the 1970s. Once a Black finally made it to the presidency of the organization, no longer did the public hear much about the NAACP “national secretary.” From then on the public spokesman was the NAACP president.
In the recent Black-Jewish split, liberal Jews are quick to cry foul at Black resentment against them by reciting the fact that the lion’s share of the financing of the Black cause has come from Jews. They also boast that at least 90 percent of the civil-rights legal effort has come from Jewish attorneys and has long been supported by Jewish money.
Practically every step of the civil-rights movement’s progress came through the courts. They decreed forced racial integration of the schools, enabled illiterate Blacks to vote, and ultimately forced upon America the massive anti-White discrimination program with the Orwellian name “affirmative action.” Here, too, Jews took the predominant roles.
The organization that fought many of these battles was the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, an organization separate from the NAACP itself. At this writing, Jews still lead it. Jake Greenberg has been active in the legal fund for years and was the chief attorney for Brown in the famous Supreme Court case Brown v Board of Education. In that nefarious decision, the Supreme Court – in one devastating stroke of the pen – initiated the transformation of the American public educational system from one of the best in the world to one of the worst in the First World.
Even in the areas where Jews were not the actual leaders, they provided much of the behind-the-scenes influence. Martin Luther King Jr. fell under the guidance of Stanley Levinson, who wrote many of King’s speeches, including, some say, the “I Have a Dream” speech delivered at the March on Washington. John and Robert Kennedy warned King to disassociate himself from Levinson because of Levinson’s Communist record. King, however, found Levinson invaluable and refused. The Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) also had key Jewish involvement in their formative periods, and most of the nominally White “Freedom Riders” that went South were Jews. The famous case of the three Freedom Riders killed in Philadelphia, Mississippi, involved Schwerner, Goodman, and Chaney – two Jews and one Black.
The public image of the man who called himself “Martin Luther King” (his legal name was Michael King) is a textbook illustration of the power of the media to influence America. Most people still do not know of the extent of King’s involvement in Communism, in part because the media continues to ignore King’s long record of Communist associations. King privately declared himself to be a Marxist, and told his inner circle that his efforts were a part of the “class struggle.” His personal secretary, Bayard Rustin, was a Communist. When King had to replace Rustin in 1961, he chose another Communist, Jack O’Dell. His main advisor (“handler” would probably be a more apt term), as I’ve mentioned, was Jewish Communist Stanley Levinson, who edited and probably wrote a good deal of King’s book Stride Toward Freedom. Levinson prepared King’s income tax returns, controlled King’s fundraising activities, and was also in charge of funneling Soviet money to the Communist Party, USA.
Only recently has it been revealed that King plagiarized large sections of his doctoral thesis. Boston University formed a committee to determine the extent of King’s plagiarism. It determined that 45 percent of the first part and 21 percent of the second part were taken from other authors. Schools regularly revoke degrees on discovery of far less cheating, but the importance of King to the civil-rights movement prevented the revocation of his divinity degree.
The media have always carefully portrayed King as a good Christian family man – the epitome of a man of God. But King had dozens of liaisons with prostitutes, White and Black, used church money to pay them and commonly beat them – all documented by the FBI and admitted by King associates.
King even spent the night before his assassination copulating with and beating White prostitutes. On the FBI surveillance tapes the “Reverend King” can be heard during intercourse to say, ” I’m f—ing for God!” and “I’m not a Negro tonight!” The King records are so damning that the tapes and other FBI documents were sealed for 50 years. Despite these facts, King’s Jewish handlers and their allies in the media were steadfast in their laudatory portrayal of King.
Jewish and Black relations have become strained in recent years as Black political sympathies have become more nationalistic in their own right. Jewish association with Black civil-rights causes originated from the days when many Communists saw the Blacks as potential revolutionaries for Communist uprising. The Communists in their creation of the Soviet State temporarily won the Jewish fraternal struggle between Zionism and Communism that Winston Churchill described in 1920. Radical American Jews envisioned the Blacks as an American proletariat, a transatlantic version of the oppressed serfs of Russia that could be utilized as allies helping to usher in a Communist revolution. Of course, even non-Communist Jews tended to support a non-racial definition of “American,” since they more than anyone are aware of their status as outsiders in White society. This led almost all organized Jewish factions to support the dismantling of the laws and traditions that supported the continued existence of our race.
Zionism over Marxism
After the Second World War, two major factors began to pull the Jews away from Communism: the Russification of the Soviet State and the establishment of the state of Israel.
To fight the Germans, Stalin and the Soviet regime motivated the Russian people by calling on their deep patriotic feelings. Stalin himself, one of the most paranoid and ruthless leaders of all time, skillfully played one Jewish faction against the other until he emerged as the unquestioned authority in Russia. Leon Trotsky (Lev Bronstein), Stalin’s chief rival, was forced into exile and later murdered by the Russian NKVD. Although individual Jews remained pivotal in his regime, Stalin saw all Jewish alliances as a threat to his own power. He brutally repressed any potential threat he could find, and he turned the Soviet Union to a more nationalistic course. The anthem of Soviet Communism, the egalitarian and anti-nationalist “Internationale,” was replaced by a traditional Russian hymn.
Affirmative action for Jewish Communists in the early days of the revolution was replaced by a merit system in universities and the military. A lot of Stalin’s maneuvers against the Jews did not become clear until long after the Second World War, and many Jews had reluctance to believe that they had lost control of the Soviet regime. Even into the late 1960s, in most countries other than Russia, Jews still constituted the majority of Marxist leadership around the world – including the United States. Many of these Jewish Communists, though, had become somewhat anti-Russian and now called themselves Trotskyites. Only a few Jewish radicals held onto the Communist vision as expressed in Russia; most others reached for a new Marxist ideology rooted in egalitarianism and, while holding onto the social tenants of Communism, began a migration to capitalist economics.
While these factors occurred in the Soviet Union, the state of Israel was created, and it seemed that the old, ethnocentric, and orthodox prophecies were finally coming about. For 2,000 years Jews had uttered the prayer “Next year in Jerusalem.” Suddenly, any Jew could go to a Jerusalem once more under their direct political control. During these years, America witnessed the transformation of many New Left Jewish radicals. Norman Podhoretz and Commentary magazine, for example, shifted from Communist apologist to capitalist advocate – from an anti-Vietnam War dove to an unmitigated Israeli hawk. In the 1970s, a flood of these New Right Jews flooded into the “conservative movement,” adapting to the tenants of economic conservatism but adding the elements of social liberalism, egalitarianism, the New World Order, and, of course, super-Zionism. Jews filtered into organizations of every conceivable political stripe, espousing different viewpoints but always keeping a keen eye for the interests of the Jews and the Israeli State.
Simultaneous with the sacrifice of our nation upon the alter of an impossible Black “equality,” came the promotion for the equally fictitious idea of sexual “equality.” Women were told that they were psychologically the same as men but were just socially conditioned by their environment to be wives and mothers instead of research scientists and captains of industry. Not only did the “women’s liberationists” try to convince women that nurturing and inculturating the next generation was less important than sweating on an assembly line or sweating the “bottom line” in an executive suite, they went much further by decrying the role of wife and mother altogether.
Freud also contributed to the destruction of the family in his endorsement of the supposed sexual liberation of sexual promiscuity. One of the strengths of the West has always been high-investment parenting as compared to the Third World. Freud and his Jewish purveyors of psychoanalysis conflated sex and love and justified the destruction of the family unit on issues such as unsatisfactory sexual gratification.
Women’s liberation has completely restructured the American family, as most wives and mothers have been forced into the job market by the new economic standards, resulting in fewer role choices for women. Many researchers say the creation of millions of “working” mothers has had a deleterious effect on family stability and child development. As a result many women are now struggling as the sole provider for themselves and their children, and the ones in stable families often find themselves stressed and debilitated by having to do both the traditional women’s roles in the home and working eight hours a day outside of it.
The most prominent of the modern feminists were Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, and Bella Abzug. Interestingly, all three came from one of the most sexually repressive religions on Earth: Judaism. A Hole in the Sheet by Evelyn Kaye, who grew up in an Orthodox home, illustrates the demeaning and often disrespectful position of women in the Jewish faith and the hatred expressed toward Gentiles outside of it. She discusses the Bar Mitzvah and the completely ascendant role of the male and writes the following:
- During the prayers which a Jewish man recites every morning are a series of blessings, which include: “Thank you, Lord, for not making me a non-Jew, for not making me a slave, for not making me a woman.”
In Susan Weidman Schneider’s book Jewish and Female, Rabbi Laura Geller comments: “Menstrual taboos are responsible for real damage to Jewish women’s views of themselves and their bodies. I have met many women who learned nothing about the Torah except that they could not touch the Torah because they menstruate. . . . Their sense of themselves as ‘inferior’ Jews has already permeated their relationship to tradition and their own bodies.
Kaye also bravely comments on the anti-Gentile nature of Jewish Orthodoxy.
- The final turning point for me was anti-Goyism.
The mark of a truly devout Hasidic or Orthodox Jew, as well as many other Jews, is an unquestioned hatred of non-Jews. This is the foundation of the ultra-Orthodox and Hasidic philosophy. It’s as tenacious, unreasoned and impossible as anti-Semitism, racism, and sexism. And as intractable.
What it says is that all non-Jews, or Goyim as the word is in Yiddish since it’s the plural of “Goy,” are wicked, evil and untrustworthy.
There is a complete litany of all the terrible things about non-Jews which apply to every single one and which are believed implicitly by the Orthodox. These include:
– All Goyim drink alcohol and are always drunk;
– All Goyim are on drugs;
– All Goyim hate Jews even when they seem to be friendly;
– All Goyim are anti-Semites, no matter what they say or do;
– All Goyim have a terrible family life and mistreat their wives and children;
– All Goyim eat pork all the time;
– Goyim are never as clever, as kind, as wise or as honest as Jews;
– You can never trust the Goyim.
There’s much more. But the essence of anti-Goyism is passed to Jewish children with their mother’s milk, and then nurtured, fed and watered carefully into full-blown phobias throughout their lives.
The Talmud often characterizes women as unclean, whores, and as deceitful, lower beings. It even has long passages that justify adult males having sexual relations with little girls. Women are segregated in the Orthodox synagogue. Women are almost as reviled as Gentiles. Note the following talmudic references, starting with the prayer to which Kaye refers:
- Blessed be thou. . .who has not made me a goy. . . who has not made me a woman, and who has made me an Israelite. . .who has not made me a slave. Judah Ben Ilai
When a grown up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this [three years old], it is as if one puts the finger into the eye, tears come to the eye,… [footnote] (7) again and again but eyesight returns, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years. (Kethuboth 11b)
A maiden aged three years and one day may be acquired in marriage by coition. (Sanhedrin 55b and 69a-69b) and (Yebamoth 57b 58a, 60b)
Yet, the Jewish high priestesses of women’s liberation have made few inroads in reforming those inequities. Only the Reform part of Judaism puts women on somewhat of an equal footing. But Israel is an Orthodox-run Jewish nation, and nearly all the Reform and Conservative organizations around the world support Israel wholeheartedly. The question of ethnic heritage far overshadows any doctrinal debate. It is ironic that women from the religious culture having the most demeaning attitude toward women, should focus their efforts on promoting a sexual revolution among those of European descent. It seems to me that their time could be better spent addressing the rank inequities in their own backyard.
No Third World society on Earth venerates women, womanhood and motherhood as much as Western Christian civilization. No dark races accord women as much freedom and respect. In most Third World nations, women are treated much like chattel property. Millions are sexually mutilated with female circumcision and infibulation. Physical abuse is commonplace. Women routinely provide almost all their own and their children’s sustenance in Africa, where the normal behavior of the male is to sexually play – but seldom stay.
The purposely-induced antagonism between the sexes divides White Americans when it is more important than ever that we are united. The wedge driven between White men and women often divides our vote and helps minority and pro-minority candidates to win elections. Women are deceived into voting for minority candidates and liberal causes in higher percentages than men do. In spite of the wide difference between the White and Black race in the status and well-being of women, the feminist movement has aligned itself with Black “civil-rights” objectives. They’ve been told that the “White male patriarchy” is the enemy, causing resentments and conflicts between the sexes that could prove fatal for our people unless repaired. Many women’s groups openly campaign for Jewish and Black causes, blessed by accolades of the Jewish high priestesses of feminism. But when White women form organizations exclusively for the advancement of our European heritage, they face condemnation.
White men and women who have become aware of the racial apocalypse looming ahead must make a supreme effort to reach the alienated Western woman and bring her back into unity with her own people. Her most vital interests, as well as that of Western man, lay with the preservation of her racial heritage and the Western culture in which she thrives. White nations have always afforded women the greatest degree of personal safety and physical health, the best education and economic opportunity, the most prestige, and the most stable family life.
A perfect example of the ardent minority racism dominating women’s liberation groups was the halting of a demonstration against the acquittal of wife-beater turned-wife killer O. J. Simpson. A National Organization of Women spokeswoman planned a demonstration protesting the acquittal until the national office made her call off the demonstration because it would offend Blacks. Black sensibilities obviously became far more paramount to NOW than the very lives and safety of women – at least White women.
Women’s rights are virtually nonexistent in Third World nations, where women are ruled by male tyranny and brutality. Sentiments of male chauvinism find mild verbal and cultural expression in Western nations. In the dark nations, male chauvinism is not represented by mere office chatter or humor; it is realized in a day-to-day living in which millions of women are subject to brutality, suppression, sexual mutilation, and subjugation. When women realize that their real liberation can come only in a fully Western society, the liberation of Western man will come as well. There may be debate among our people of the respective roles of men and women, but that debate can be heard only in a Western society. If our nation is remade in the image of the dark world, there will be no respect of women’s rights and no possibility of debate. Even from a purely selfish, feminist point-of-view, the transformation of our society to a genetically and culturally Third World state would mean the end of any aspirations of “women’s rights.”
Egalitarianism and Civil-Rights as Weapons
As I uncovered more information of the Jewish domination of the anti-White, and anti-family revolution, it struck me that many powerful Jews might see White America in the same way they once viewed the Czar and the White Russians. I began to wonder whether we were destined to become a people deposed, a nation conquered not with armies and cannon but by the power of the purse and the power of the press.
If they did not view us as Theodor Herzl did – as aliens – why did so many of them attack American traditions and customs, from the structure of the family to the singing of Christmas carols in our schools? Although not all Jews participate in the crusade against our heritage, a vast majority support chauvinist Jewish organizations and back the candidates for public office who most sublimate themselves to Jewish concerns. Jewish support means far more than their voting bloc; it means full campaign coffers and the support of powerful media.
Jewish activists have been relentless in their support for pluralism of American politics and culture. The high-sounding Jewish promises of the so-called civil-rights movement – love, peace, and brotherhood – have been replaced with the violent obscenities of a rap song. For Blacks, once rhythmic and peaceful urban communities now echo with the sound of gunfire, a third of young Black men are in jail, probation, or parole, and millions are chained, hand, foot, and soul, to alcohol and drugs.
Whites who have fled from the cities their fathers built find themselves burdened with high taxes that disproportionately go to unproductive minorities in Welfare and in the criminal justice system flooded with minority criminals. Those unable to flee find themselves in deteriorating conditions. Their children endure the primitivism and try to adjust to the fear permeating the mostly black schools of our major cities, while their parents barricade themselves behind their locked doors and barred windows. There they often lose themselves in the make-believe world of television, where they supinely watch their history, their soul, and their spirit under an unrelenting attack as spiritually damaging as the crime on the streets is physically destructive.
What did Jews have to gain from the empowerment of minorities in America? Obviously, the Marxists saw Blacks and other minorities as staunch allies vital for the advancement of their agenda and political success. Over the past decades, the Black bloc vote has been vital to liberal politics. Perhaps more important, a Babylon-like, multiracial America suits Jewish interests. In a divided land, the most unified group exercises the greatest power. In a jumbled, kaleidoscope society, the exercise of that alien power is less apparent to the majority elements, for if a tiny minority has an agenda hostile to the majority, that minority needs to be as unobtrusive as possible. Multiracialism muddies the waters. Jews will always thrive in such a Babylon. Every blow that has broken the solidarity and furthered the dispossession of the founding and once-ruling American majority, is an opening for the new contenders to the throne.
A great deal of the degeneracy has no design at all. The alien nature described by Theodor Herzl finds its expression in thousands of jabs and body blows to the traditions and values of the Anglo-America of old. Whether it is a Nativity scene outlawed from a public square, or an all-male military academy turned coed, or morning radio programs filled with crude talk of human excretory activity, or the glamorization of drugs in films and novels, the beat goes on, drummed by people almost proud of their alien nature. The tune is the funeral march for America and the whole Western world.
They eat away at our nation’s European roots, always gaining influence and power and yet always considering themselves outsiders, and that is precisely what they are: spiritual, cultural, and genetic outsiders who are now on the inside of the American power structure. Consider the following statement from a Jewish pundit who has both success and fame:
- Decades later, prowling along the river with Texas Rangers to see them catch crossing Mexicans, I stopped and sat on the ground. I said that’s enough – I am one of them, the wetbacks, and not of them, the hunters.
A. M. Rosenthal wrote those words, a man who has been head of the Editorial pages of The New York Times, America’s most powerful newspaper. With all his money, power, and prestige – sitting in the dirt along the muddy banks of the Rio Grande – Rosenthal still identifies himself as an “outsider.” His loyalties are not with other Americans who want to preserve our way of life. His allegiance is with the aliens who will change it.
The minority racism – the “civil rights” and the egalitarianism – that has flourished in America, had its origins in an alien ethnocentrism. Our nation, once distinctively European in nature, is fading fast. It was not brewed in the fleshpots of Babylon. But unless great change comes, it will succumb there.
Most Americans who fought against the civil-rights movement, believing correctly that it would lead to the destruction of the fabric of society, never recognized the source of its power. In the South some blamed the “Yankees,” some the politicians, and some the media. Few understood that the civil-rights movement was an outgrowth of the same power that propelled the Russian Revolution, that influenced the participation of America in the First World War, that helped bring about the Second World War, and that finally created the nation of Israel.
How ironic that the civil-rights movement had its roots in racism, that it was simply a weapon wielded by the most ethnocentric people on Earth against their ancient enemies. Blacks were simply pawns in a much larger political game. Most of the non-Jewish Whites who were enlisted in the cause never realized that the struggle was not really about civil rights. These participants, like the Blacks themselves, were being manipulated in the much bigger contest of the Jewish struggle for power.
The same establishment that preaches the holy writ of racial equality and amalgamation, never lets Americans forget the right of Jews – in fact, the holy obligation of Jews – to maintain their heritage both here and in their Jewish state. It reminds us constantly, from the pulpit of television, of their unmatched godliness, their eternal innocence and victimhood. Their pundits and scriptwriters unabashedly proclaim Jewish mental, cultural, and moral supremacy. They are canonized daily by their media, while those who dare utter a contrary word are muzzled or demonized. A tabernacle of the new religion of the Holocaust stands squarely in the midst of the American Acropolis of Washington, D.C. In that shrine the American people can worship the Chosen People and feel guilt for their sins against them. There they can learn of the worst transgression of all: questioning the only true “civil right” – the Jewish right to rule us culturally, spiritually, and politically.
The alien oppression would be bad enough by itself, but our masters clearly planned the extermination of our kind. Once I understood that, I could no longer remain silent about the realities of Jewish power in the West. Their continued dominance would sweep away our folk in a rising tide of immigration, miscegenation, non-White fecundity, and White self-sterilization.
The alien-dominated media keep most White Americans completely unaware of the ongoing dispossession of our people – and another segment cheering it on. I began to see that the media was the most powerful weapon they used against us, so I focused my next inquiries on Jewish infiltration and domination of the American mass-communication media.
Bring The Dream Alive!
Recommended Books dealing with the life and works of Martin Luther King Jr.
This controversial account analyzes the writings of Martin Luther King Jr. and other prominent Americans, examining charges of plagiarism and problems of fraud and civil rights issues which have arisen from plagiarism issues.
Anyone studying social issues in general and King in particular will find this important supplemental reading.
Theodore Pappas Hallberg
Publishing Box 23985,
Tampa, FL 33623 0-87319-045-9
Wiswell Ruffin House
Dresden, New York, 1992
My Awakening – David Duke – Free Speech Press
It is a powerful autobiographical account of David Duke’s evolution from a typical American son to one of the most controversial political leaders in the world. His compelling story takes us from his early life and love of the wetlands and forests of south Louisiana to his activism for the rights and heritage of European Americans. It recounts his political victory in the House of Representatives from Louisiana, and his subsequent amazing races for the U.S. Senate and Governorship that won him a landslide of White voters (over 60%) even though he was vastly out spent and attacked relentlessly by a hostile media.
Two-thirds of the book is devoted to his awakening on the most important issue of our time: RACE. He offers compelling evidence that belief in racial equality is the modern scientific equivalent of believing that the earth is flat. He goes on to show its irrepressible influence on the rise and fall of civilizations. In a major section of the book he offers compelling evidence (primarily from Jewish sources) explaining the Jewish role in leading the Western World to the edge of a racial apocalypse.
My Awakening is a reference book for all patriots. It is well-written and fascinating reading. It deals with the most important issues of our time with an honesty and a power unlike any other book in print. It may well change the world. Autographed copies are available from Free Speech Books.
Excellent for the “Jews, Communism and Civil Rights” chapter!
This page examines the people and events that exemplify the civil rights industry. The mass media and the civil rights industry effectively work together to censor facts and ideas that expose the so-called civil rights movement as un-American and subversive.