Michael King, aka.
Martin Luther King, Plagiarism Page
Michael King (aka Martin Luther King, Jr.) is a first class plagiarist.
Boston University: "No thought should be given to the revocation of Dr. King's doctoral degree" (even though we KNOW that he cheated his way to a degree?). Michael King, the known communist. Michael Eric Dyson: MLK's plagiarism was justified? Boycott Hewlett Packard for replacing Easter with MLK Day.
None of the following articles make the obvious connection between the jewish control of the American "mainstream media" and an intentional effort to denigrate Martin Luther by promoting a black criminal with the phony name of "Martin Luther King." And none of them note that the very best education in the world offered to presumably the best qualified black man in the world produced nothing but a colossal government fraud that was used to undermine the rights of all Americans, including and especially black Americans.
It was MLK who was used as the excuse to pass the "Civil Rights Act" of 1964 which the entire world understood would turn the entire US Constitution upside down. If Hubert Humphrey was alive today, he would be busy eating 800 pages of legislation in order to fulfil his promise that he would eat it if it led to racial quotas [read: affirmative action].
Never in human history has such a successful culture done such a great job of using its own success to execute
The government micromanagement of American lives, businesses, families, and personal possessions which followed created the most totalitarian government on the planet. The concurrent development of the computer age made it possible to document and preserve for antiquity each and every thought of each and every citizen which their own government would twist into pretzels.
Where "free exercise of religion" meant "free exercise of religion", it suddenly meant the government could ban spoken Christian prayers in public schools. Where "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" prohibited even one gun control law for 188 years, it suddenly meant 22,000 expensive and ineffective gun control laws.
Where "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" enabled the US to create one of the highest standard of livings the world had ever witnessed, it suddenly meant that the evil White man's property was completely up for grabs using the "legal system" to grab it.
MLK is no hero or martyr‑‑he was always a LIE and is now the worst enemy of both blacks and Whites.
Plagiarism and the Culture War: The Writings of Martin Luther King Jr. and Other Prominent Americans I have a dream ‑ but if you strip‑search me you'll find three more.
Plagiarism and the Culture War: The Writings of Martin Luther King Jr. and Other Prominent Americans Theodore Pappas. (Hallberg, 1998) Reviewed By Gavan Tredoux
The news has been out since the late 1980s that Martin Luther King Jr., the American Civil Rights icon, was a serial plagiarist. Not only did he plagiarize at least half of his doctoral thesis; many of his speeches, including the most famous, were plagiarized too. Nor was this a recent development in his career ‑ he had been plagiarizing material since he was a teenager.
Note: Not only his writings, but his name. "Martin Luther King Jr" was named Michael King by his father, he ssumed his father's name as an alias, ie. he never took the trouble to legally change it. Even his name was a lie!
This is a fascinating story. There is the delicious irony that Luther King Jr. has been universally feted and embalmed with saintly oils. More interesting still, the story has been suppressed. Most Americans have not heard about the plagiarism and perhaps never will. The editors of his papers did their utmost to prevent the story from spreading. Boston University delayed, denied and obfuscated as long as possible ‑‑ and then some. The press, including the major newsmagazines, quashed coverage until the story had emerged elsewhere, and then buried it in the inside pages, entombing it in layers of qualification, special pleading and distraction. Now that the plagiarism has become incontestable, many academics continue to cover for the plagiarist, insisting that he was merely being an African American!
Pappas struggled for years to find a publisher and effective distribution for his own groundbreaking account of all this. Despite that, the first printing sold out. Now he has completely revised and expanded the first edition, but don't expect a bookstore in your area to carry it. Instead, point your web browser at amazon.com or the Internet retailer of your choice, and have it delivered.
Pappas has no trouble establishing the principal case against Luther King Jr., since a few lengthy excerpts from his doctoral thesis and an uncannily similar work at the same college, by the deliciously‑named Jack Boozer, more than suffices. Luther King Jr. copied vast tracts of text from Boozer, even repeating citation errors in the original. It is especially poignant that this was work conducted in divinity.
The author fails to do justice to the astounding coincidence that these theses shared an examiner. This may explain part of the obvious embarrassment felt by Boston University, who are forced to choose between explanations ranging from incompetence to conspiracy to commit fraud. This may provide satisfaction to those who have long suspected that nobody really reads doctoral theses anyway, least of all the examiners, and certainly not in the theology faculties.
The plagiarism did not begin or end with the doctoral thesis, so much so that the Collected Papers of Luther King Jr. apparently devotes at least as much time to "uncited sources" as it does to his own work, if that is the correct description. Even the much celebrated "I have a dream" speech of 1963 was plagiarized. By a peculiar turn of events, the source King raided for this was a speech given to the Republican National convention of 1952, by a black preacher named Archibald Carey.
The trail leads all the way back through Luther King Jr.'s undergraduate days to his teenage years ‑ the earliest known instance is apparently an essay written at age 15. It seems to be harder to find something that that was incontestably original and not plagiarized. Hence much of Pappas' book is devoted to the events surrounding the discovery of the plagiarism, and the widespread cover‑up that has followed. Not that this was a conspiracy ‑ these are really quite rare and very hard to execute.
The people and institutions controlling the commanding heights of opinion formation in the United States obviously share an acute embarrassment about this whole affair. Martin Luther King Jr. has been converted into an icon and assiduously promoted to the American public and the world at large as a heroic figure. An annual national holiday has been declared to honor him. Streets and institutions across the country have been named after him. He has assumed the proportions of a black George Washington, and his surviving family resembles the Kennedy clan, at least as much in behavior as in status. It is hard to find anybody in mainstream American society who has an unkind word for Martin Luther King Jr., liberal or conservative.
It is often said of figures like these that they would have to be invented if they did not exist, and although Pappas does not remark on or pursue this, "Martin Luther King Jr." was partly invented. Mostly a creation of white liberals, he has subsequently been annexed by conservatives too.
The flip side of King's plagiarism was his unsuitableness for the roles and positions he had been promoted to. He had been selected for the doctoral program at Boston despite his inferior grades, not because of his academic potential but because he was well liked by his fellow students and the staff. Lacking the requisite ability, he got by on plagiarism. He had been cast as the Great (Liberal) Black Hope of politics, a Gerry Cooney of ideas. It is hard to believe that throughout his high school and college career nobody noticed that he was proceeding largely by imitation and appropriation of the work of others.
Part of the reason why King got away with dishonesty while alive, and still does posthumously, is the indulgence that he enjoyed as a favourite of his instructors and examiners. At the very least, this indulgence shielded him from the critical and detached consideration that the average student was subjected to ‑ or ought to have been. King was a favourite because he represented an opportunity for the institutions he proceeded through to influence not just black society, but white society too, through a cooperative vehicle. The vehicle might not have been the brightest or most able student, but he was affable and eager to please. As it turned out, he exceeded the expectations of his promoters. Indeed, the politics represented by King had a more profound effect on white society than black society.
Among blacks King was rapidly out‑radicalized by Malcolm X, the Panthers and other extremists. Whatever white hostility King at first faced faded remarkably over the years, to the extent that he now represents the black face of white liberals. Not just for liberals, since conservatives have now embraced King as the embodiment of non‑racialism in their anti‑preference rhetoric, a symptom of the total conquest by liberals of the race issue.
Given this across the board sponsorship of King and his legacy, it is not surprising that the media in the US were not only slow to pick up on the first hints of plagiarism but deliberately scotched nascent investigations by reporters. Hints at the plagiarism had emerged in the late 1980s as King's papers were being edited for publication under a government grant, and surfaced in 1989 in a British newspaper.
It would be nearly a year before the story made print in the US, not only because reporters were reluctant to cover the story and editors reluctant to publish it, but also because the editors of the King papers deliberately stonewalled inquiries, as they later admitted quite cheerfully. Boston University turned away inquiries with categorical denials of any improprieties, a mixture of outright mendacity and bluster. Boston University has also refused to withdraw the doctorate, despite the overwhelming weight of evidence that it was stolen from the work of others.
Pappas was instrumental in breaking the story in the US, as the editor of the periodical Chronicles, which published the first details in late 1990, closely followed by The Wall Street Journal (though one should note that the first reports emerged in early 1990 from a handful of conservative organizations). This remarkable scoop for Pappas was due to courage only, since most other papers (including at least Dan Balz at the Washington Post, the editor of the New York Times book review section, and the Atlanta Journal/Constitution) and newsmagazines had already known of the story for months. Later, The New Republic would publish a mea culpa, bemoaning their own decision to kill the story, but others were not as forthcoming. Now that the story could no longer be contained, various newspapers eventually reported it in a low‑key manner, smothered with qualifications and a Maginot Line of 'explanatory' editorials.
Gradually the story has made its way through the US media, never prominently featured and safely buried. If one looks for it, it can be found, but very few know the full story or the sheer extent of King's plagiarism. The only place where the 'full monty' can be obtained is Pappas' book, and that makes it essential reading ‑ even if Pappas sugars his bitter pill with the suggestion that Luther King should have his doctorate replaced by an honorary one. The last suggestion is an elegant demonstration of the invention, and reinvention, of Martin Luther King Jr.
The Beast as Saint:
The Truth About "Martin Luther King, Jr."
by Kevin Alfred Strom
(A speech given by Mr. Strom on the nationwide radio program, AMERICAN DISSIDENT VOICES, January 15th, 1994)
WHEN THE COMMUNISTS TOOK OVER a country, one of the first things that they did was to confiscate all the privately‑held weapons, to deny the people the physical ability to resist tyranny. But even more insidious than the theft of the people's weapons was the theft of their history. Official Communist "historians" rewrote history to fit the current party line. In many countries, revered national heroes were excised from the history books, or their real deeds were distorted to fit Communist ideology, and Communist killers and criminals were converted into official "saints." Holidays were declared in honor of the beasts who murdered countless nations.
Did you know that much the same process has occurred right here in America?
Every January, the media go into a kind of almost spastic frenzy of adulation for the so‑called "Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr." King has even had a national holiday declared in his honor, an honor accorded to no other American, not Washington, not Jefferson, not Lincoln. (Washington and Lincoln no longer have holidays ‑‑ they share the generic‑sounding "President's Day.") A liberal judge has sealed the FBI files on King until the year 2027. What are they hiding? Let's take a look at this modern‑day plastic god.
Born in 1929, King was the son of a Black preacher known at the time only as "Daddy King." "Daddy King" named his son Michael. In 1935, "Daddy King" had an inspiration to name himself after the Protestant reformer Martin Luther. He declared to his congregation that henceforth they were to refer to him as "Martin Luther King" and to his son as "Martin Luther King, Jr." None of this name changing was ever legalized in court. "Daddy" King's son's real name is to this day Michael King.
King's Brazen Cheating
We read in Michael Hoffman's "Holiday for a Cheater":
The first public sermon that King ever gave, in 1947 at the Ebenezer Baptist Church, was plagiarized from a homily by Protestant clergyman Harry Emerson Fosdick entitled "Life is What You Make It," according to the testimony of King's best friend of that time, Reverend Larry H. Williams. The first book that King wrote, "Stride Toward Freedom, was plagiarized from numerous sources, all unattributed, according to documentation recently assembled by sympathetic King scholars Keith D. Miller, Ira G. Zepp, Jr., and David J. Garrow.
And no less an authoritative source than the four senior editors of "The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr. (an official publication of the Martin Luther King Center for Nonviolent Social Change, Inc., whose staff includes King's widow Coretta), stated of King's writings at both Boston University and Crozer Theological Seminary: "Judged retroactively by the standards of academic scholarship, [his writings] are tragically flawed by numerous instances of plagiarism...Appropriated passages are particularly evident in his writings in his major field of graduate study, systematic theology." King's essay, "The Place of Reason and Experience in Finding God," written at Crozer, pirated passages from the work of theologian Edgar S. Brightman, author of "The Finding of God‑ ‑. Another of King's theses, "Contemporary Continental Theology," written shortly after he entered Boston University, was largely stolen from a book by Walter Marshall Horton. King's doctoral dissertation, "A Comparison of the Conceptions of God in the Thinking of Paul Tillich and Harry Nelson Wieman," for which he was awarded a PhD in theology, contains more than fifty complete sentences plagiarized from the PhD dissertation of Dr. Jack Boozer, "The Place of Reason in Paul Tillich's Concept of God." According to "The Martin Luther King Papers", in King's dissertation "only 49 per cent of sentences in the section on Tillich contain five or more words that were King's own...!"
In "The Journal of American History", June 1991, page 87, David J. Garrow, a leftist academic who is sympathetic to King, says that King's wife, Coretta Scott King, who also served as his secretary, was an accomplice in his repeated cheating. Reading Garrow's article, one is led to the inescapable conclusion that King cheated because he had chosen for himself a political role in which a PhD would be useful, and, lacking the intellectual ability to obtain the title fairly, went after it by any means necessary. Why, then, one might ask, did the professors at Crozer Theological Seminary and Boston University grant him passing grades and a PhD? Garrow states on page 89: "King's academic compositions, especially at Boston University, were almost without exception little more than summary descriptions... and comparisons of other's writings. Nonetheless, the papers almost always received desirable letter grades, strongly suggesting that King's professors did not expect more...." The editors of "The Martin Luther King Jr. Papers" state that "...the failure of King's teachers to notice his pattern of textual appropriation is somewhat remarkable...."
But researcher Michael Hoffman tells us "...actually the malfeasance of the professors is not at all remarkable. King was politically correct, he was Black, and he had ambitions. The leftist [professors were] happy to award a doctorate to such a candidate no matter how much fraud was involved. Nor is it any wonder that it has taken forty years for the truth about King's record of nearly constant intellectual piracy to be made public."
Supposed scholars, who in reality shared King's vision of a racially mixed and Marxist America, purposely covered up his cheating for decades. The cover‑up still continues. From the "New York Times" of October 11, 1991, page 15, we learn that on October 10th of that year, a committee of researchers at Boston University admitted that, "There is no question but that Dr. King plagiarized in the dissertation." However, despite its finding, the committee said that "No thought should be given to the revocation of Dr. King's doctoral degree," an action the panel said "would serve no purpose."
No purpose, indeed! Justice demands that, in light of his willful fraud as a student, the "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.