UNCELEBRATE
KING 2009
PART 2 of 2
by Alan Stang
January 19, 2009
NewsWithViews.com
[Announcement: Did you know Alan Stang has a new radio show? Click here for details.]
Now let’s look at Martin Luther King’s plagiarism. This is something I knew absolutely nothing about and can take no credit for revealing. After King was killed – which made a valuable martyr out of a man who had become a liability because he had been so well exposed – the professors went to work on his writings.
Their motive was not to speak ill of the dead; they loved, admired, even revered King and wanted to give his writings the same treatment they would give any other “great” man’s. The lawyers would call their revelations “admissions against interest.” They were astounded and horrified, even shocked – shocked, I say! – to discover that their hero was a slovenly, semi-literate high school writer, who had plagiarized most of what he “wrote.”
Plagiarism is the literary version of bank robbery. It is theft; it is stealing. That is why the federal government rightly guarantees copyright in this country. A literary work is a property just as much as a piece of real estate is, and a copyright does the same thing a land title does. That is why moviemakers pay millions for the right to film best-selling books. But Martin Luther King plagiarized as prolifically as young seminarian Josef Stalin robbed banks.
Browse through a book entitled The Martin Luther King Jr. Plagiarism Story (Rockford Institute, Rockford, IL, 1994), by Theodore Pappas. In 1984, the “Martin Luther King Papers Project” was launched at Stanford University. In 1986, Professor David J. Garrow, in his book, Bearing the Cross, wrote that big chunks of King's Stride Towards Freedom are identical to passages from Paul Ramsay's Basic Christian Ethics and Anders Nygren's Eros and Agape.
It is important to note that Professor Garrow is not a King critic. He is a “liberal,” a staunch admirer who had come to worship at the shrine. No doubt that was why he did not call what King had done plagiarism, and his index calls the incident “ghostwriting.” David, David! No! A ghostwriter is someone who is hired to write something by the person whose name will appear on the cover as the author. A ghostwriter is not someone who steals what someone else writes and puts his own name on the cover. I have been a ghostwriter, but, because I was a ghost, I shall not tell you what I wrote.
The King Papers project first discovered evidence of his plagiarism in late 1987. In October, 1989, according to Wall Street Journal reporter Peter Waldman, the professors discussed King's plagiarism with his widow, Coretta Scott King, in an all-day meeting in Atlanta. Mrs. King remained silent throughout, and never did answer queries about her husband's thefts. The board decided to publish King's papers with footnotes fully detailing the plagiarism, along with a separate article outlining its extent.
On December 3, 1989, Frank Johnson revealed in the British Sunday Telegraph, that Ralph Luker, associate editor of the King Papers Project, said King had “borrowed” heavily from the thesis of Jack Boozer, fellow Boston University theology student and later Professor of Religion at Emory. While Boozer was away in the military, King stole his work. In September, 1990, Thomas Fleming wrote in Chronicles that King's doctorate should be considered a courtesy title, because he had plagiarized his dissertation.
If the truth had leaked, Boston University would have been humiliated. It is a short distance from B.U. to P.U. So, B.U. President Jon Westling sent a letter to Chronicles (published in the January, 1991 issue) denying Fleming's charge. Westling said King's dissertation had been “scrupulously examined and reexamined by scholars,” and that “not a single instance of plagiarism of any sort has been identified. . . . not a single reader has ever found any nonattributed or misattributed quotations, misleading paraphrases, or thoughts borrowed without due scholarly reference in any of its 343 pages.” Hey, Jon, how long was your nose after you said all that?
Claiborne Carson was director of the Project. He denied all charges until Waldman said he had a copy of Boozer’s dissertation. Then he caved. The story appeared on the front page of the Wall Street Journal on November 9, 1990. The article quoted Claiborne Carson finally admitting King's plagiarism, but it calls his thievery “borrowings,” and “voice merging” that derives from the oral traditions of the black church. In other words, he was saying that thievery was a tradition of the black church, an intolerable insult.
The article says that “most of King's papers had many original thoughts,” but often “borrowed without citing,” According to Waldman, Carson was asking staff members to refrain from use of the “p” word at work. In short, even the author of the exposé leaned over backward far enough to do an Olympic flip. Compare this treatment to what you know would be done to anyone else – black, white or whatever – who commits misrepresentation as outrageous as King’s. He would be stripped of his degree. Look for instance at the case of Clifford Irving’s phony “biography” of Howard Hughes.
Gerry Harbison was a professor of chemistry at the University of Nebraska. He was certainly not a “right-wing wacko.” He was full of praise for the “civil rights movement.” Professor Harbison is worth quoting at length: “Like most graduate students, King spent the first half of his doctoral work taking courses in his degree area, theology. His surviving papers from that period show that from the very beginning he was transcribing articles by eminent theologians, often word for word, and representing them as his own work.
“After completing his course work, graduate students usually write a dissertation or thesis, supposedly an independent and original contribution to scholarship. King's thesis was anything but original. In fact, the sheer extent of his plagiarism is breathtaking. Page after page contains nothing but direct, verbatim transcriptions of the work of others. In 1990, the King Project estimated that less than half of some chapters was actually written by King himself. Since then, even more of his ‘borrowings’ have been traced.
“. . . But most unforgivably of all, thousands of words in paragraph-sized chunks, were taken from the thesis of a fellow student, Jack Boozer, an ex-army chaplain who returned to Boston University after the war to get his degree. We even know how he did it, for King was systematic in his plagiarism. He copied significant phrases, sentences or whole paragraphs from the books he was consulting onto a set of index cards. ‘Writing’ a thesis was then a matter of arranging these cards into a meaningful order.
“Sometimes he linked the stolen parts together with an occasional phrase of his own, but as often as not he left the words completely unchanged. The index cards still survive, with their damning evidence intact. King fooled everybody: his adviser, his thesis reader and King scholars for more than 30 years. Everything I've written above can easily be verified in a couple of hours in Love Library. None of it comes from right-wing scandalmongers who might have a vested interest in damaging King's reputation.”
So, while Jack Boozer was at war, serving in our military, unable to protect himself, Martin Luther King stole his work. In other words, King was a fiction, a phantasm, manufactured and maintained by the Communists who chose him because of his oratorical talent, groomed him, used him, protected him and then (probably) eliminated him when he became a liability.
The Martin Luther King we were told about did not exist. He even plagiarized the “I Have a Dream” speech. He should have called it, “I Have a Scheme.” We are talking about a man who should have been in jail for grand theft, but who instead has been honored above Washington.
Now let’s look at King’s Christianity. He was a "Reverend." He had a "doctorate" in theology. The man was as brilliant a theologian as Boston University’s Jack Boozer. Christianity, we are told, was the inspiration for everything he did. What did Martin Luther King believe?
Among the papers with his name on it is one entitled, “What Experiences of Christians Living in the Early Christian Century Led to the Christian Doctrines of the Divine Sonship of Jesus, the Virgin Birth, and the Bodily Resurrection.” The title itself tells us something is wrong. These doctrines came not from anyone’s "experience," but from history and from what Jesus said. But, “Dr.” King comments, “these doctrines are historically and philolophically untenable.” (sic)
Here is how Jesus got to be divine, according to “Dr.” King: “The first doctrine of our discussion which deals with the divine sonship of Jesus went through a great process of developement. (sic) . . . How then did this doctrine of divine sonship come into being? We may find a partial clue to the actual rise of this doctrine in the spreading of Christianity into the Greco-Roman world. . . . Anything that possessed flesh was always underminded (sic) in Greek thought. And so in order to receive inspiration from Jesus the Greeks had to apotheosize him.
“. . . As Hedley laconically states, ‘the church had found God in Jesus, and so it called Jesus the Christ; and later under the influence of Greek thought-forms, the only begotten Son of God.’” In short, according to King, it was the Greeks who made Jesus “divine.” My guess is that King really did write this, because it is so incompetent. This is the writing of a mediocre high school sophomore, not a man about to receive a doctorate.
Here is King on the virgin birth: “First we must admit that the evidence for the tenability of this doctrine is to (sic) shallow to convince any objective thinker . . . .” Finally, consider that the resurrection is the master doctrine of Christian belief. Catholics believe it. Protestants believe it. Without the resurrection, there is no Christianity; there is just another “wise man.” If you don’t believe in the resurrection, then go your way in peace, but you are not a Christian.
So, what does “Dr.” King believe about the resurrection? “The last doctrine in our discussion deals with the resurrection story. This doctrine, upon which the Easter Faith rests, symbolizes the ultimate Christian conviction: that Christ conquered death. From a literary, historical, and philosophical point of view this doctrine raises many questions. In fact the external evidence for the authenticity of this doctrine is found wanting. . . .” According to King, the apostles made it all up because they loved Him so much.
So, “Dr.” King was not a Christian. Along these lines, King was an ardent supporter of Planned Parenthood, the baby-killing racket, won their Margaret Sanger Award in 1966 and said “there is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger’s early efforts.” Mrs. Sanger’s early efforts included agitation to limit the procreation of the “inferior races” and publishing the work of Nazi propagandists. Were those the early efforts he meant?
Finally, there was King’s career as a sexual predator. We are not just talking about a world-class philanderer like Jack Kennedy. We’re not just talking about Fiddle and Faddle in the White House and Marilyn Monroe. We’re talking about a genuine sexual psychopath. How do we know this? We know it because FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover tapped his telephones and bugged King’s activities. Why did Hoover do that?
He did it because his boss, Attorney General Bobby Kennedy – a certified demigod in the illiberal pantheon – ordered him to. The Kennedys had become aware of King’s Communist activities and were worried. They brought him to the White House, where the President himself warned King that what he was doing could discredit them all. They wanted to know what he was up to, hence the wiretaps and bugs. What did they find out? Because the truth is so putrid, some of it has leaked.
For instance, King was in Norway to accept the Nobel Prize. He spent the night before the ceremony chasing a woman naked down the hallway in his Oslo hotel. King was naked. I don’t know whether the woman was. A story in the Atlanta Journal, dated March 31, 1965, quoted Republican Congressman William Dickinson as saying that King participated in "all night sessions of debauchery" in a church. On the night before he was killed, King participated in another orgy. He hired prostitutes and paid for them with church money. He beat at least one of them up. Again, he wasn’t just a womanizer; he was a predator. He should have been in jail.
At the request of Mrs. King, a court has sequestered all this evidence until the year 2027, long enough to milk everything possible from the myth. We share Mrs. King’s embarrassment. There are over 60,000 censored pages. Some of them have been released under the Freedom of Information Act; the rest has been labeled “obscene.” King’s own son says his father was killed in a “massive conspiracy” because his bizarre behavior, long-term depression and alcohol abuse had become a liability the killers couldn’t afford.
|
Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts! |
These are just a few examples of what we know, but they are certainly sufficient to justify a massive uncelebration. Again, they prove how corrupt we have become. Go ahead and uncelebrate all day, which will put you in mind to uncelebrate tomorrow’s coronation of Emperor Also Known As the First. For part one click below.
Click here for part -----> 1,
[Announcement: Alan Stang's radio show, The Sting of Stang, airs from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. Central, M-F, via Republic Broadcasting Network. Call him on the air at (800) 313-9443. To listen, go to republicbroadcasting.org and click on Listen Live. If you can't listen at that time, do so via the archives, which are free. I'll be talking about the various manifestations of the conspiracy for world government, its tactics, such as the illegal alien invasion, its purposes and its players, from Jorge W. Boosh on down.]
Share This Article
