Posted on 05/26/2019 6:26:43 AM PDT by MeneMeneTekelUpharsin
Secret FBI tapes that accuse Martin Luther King Jr of having extramarital affairs with '40 to 45 women' and even claim he 'looked on and laughed' as a pastor friend raped a parishioner, exist an author has claimed. The civil rights hero was also heard allegedly joking he was the founder of the 'International Association for the Advancement of P***y-Eaters'.
The shocking files could lead to a 'painful historical reckoning' for the man who is celebrated across the world for his campaign against racial injustice, according to one biographer. The FBI surveillance tapes detailing his indiscretions are being held in a vault at the U.S. National Archives and are not due for release until 2027. But David Garrow, a biographer of King who won a Pulitzer Prize for his 1987 book Bearing the Cross about the Baptist minister, has unearthed the FBI summaries of the various incidents.
In an article to be published in Standpoint, Garrow tells how the FBI planted transmitters in two lamps in hotel rooms booked by King in January 1964, according to The Sunday Times.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
If you’re going to condemn King for plagiarism (and let’s face it, we could argue a LOT of people plagiarized just from taking stuff here and there, since there’s rarely a truly original thought out there), I strongly suggest, by virtue of consistency, you do the same with Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence. Richard Henry Lee even accused Jefferson of plagiarizing John Locke’s Second Treatise with the Declaration, and Jefferson never denied it, and if anything he even implied that’s what made it a strong document. Here: https://mises.org/library/real-jefferson
“In fact, Richard Henry Lee accused Jefferson of plagiarism. According to the man who signed the first motion for independence in June 1776, the Declaration was copied from John Locke’s Second Treatise. The Virginian had no reason to dispute that allegation. In fact, Jefferson considered this to be the document’s real strength:
The object of the Declaration of Independence … was … not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject … Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind ... All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, etc.”
Either way, at least Martin Luther King didn’t forge, in an extremely blasphemous manner in fact, an entire bible called the “MLK bible” that gutted any and all supernatural aspects from it and made Jesus little different from a wise philosopher rather than the Son of God, while Jefferson had in fact done that.
He was a cheerleader for the Jacobin movement, however, which is tantamount to singing praises for the Vietcong or the Soviet Union at that time. And he did have a very disgusting treatment of God via the Jefferson Bible and also dismissing him as Cerberus. All of those I consider infinitely worse, and Jefferson certainly paraded as a Christian, at least, which is still awful, that he’d destroy Jesus’s divinity like that.
And it’s not pathetic in the slightest, it’s called being consistent and not being a hypocrite. If I’m to defame MLK, I’d also defame TJ for the exact same reasons, simply because I believe in absolute consistency in condemning people for crimes.
And believe me, I could even cite stuff about Abraham Lincoln and Richard Nixon that could also make them as bad as MLK, using your arguments. Also Eisenhower. And let’s not forget that Richard Nixon is the guy who helped found MLK’s civil rights movement.
Coretta Scott King? is that you? lol
Why don’t you start about TJ.
First of all, I’m a guy, a white guy at that. I’m not Coretta Scott King, and I don’t think she condemned TJ.
Second of all, I demand for consistency in thought. That means, if you condemn one person for an action, you condemn ALL people who did that action. That’s why I’m not going to condemn MLK, regardless of his personal failings (and he has plenty).
Besides, you are aware that Adeila Scott King, his niece, is pro-life because of MLK, right? I’m pretty sure Communists aren’t pro-life (Margaret Sanger, a Socialist, certainly wasn’t pro-life, nor was Murray Margaret O’Hair, and both advocated heavily for abortion. Same for Simone de Beauvoir.).
That’s not to say I won’t call out MLK for doing so. Like I said, he had very many personal failings. But guess what? I’m not going to outright demonize him by claiming he was a communist infiltrator or anything like that.
By “doing so”, I mean plagiarizing works and screwing around.
From 15 years ago, noted in case any one here thinks this is a grand conspiracy of Trump or the Deep State.
Martin Luther King, Jr: Plagiarist
Thomas Jackson, American Renaissance, April 1994
The Martin Luther King, Jr. Plagiarism Story, Theodore Pappas (Ed.), The Rockford Institute, 1994, 107 pp.
Late in 1987, a graduate student working on the project to publish the collected papers of Martin Luther King discovered that King had plagiarized huge parts of his doctoral dissertation. Clayborne Carson, the director of the project, decided to suppress this fact, thus setting in motion one of the most sordid tales of academic dishonesty and race-based special pleading in recent memory.
This book is an invaluable collection of several accounts of what King did and of the contemptible coverups and justifications that followed. Not surprisingly, its editor, Theodore Pappas, could not find a commercial publisher, so the book is unlikely to be in book stores or even in libraries. Only if enough people buy and read it will its story survive the whitewash.
Starting Early
It is now clear that King began plagiarizing as a young man and continued to do so throughout his career. At Crozer Theological Seminary in Chester, Pennsylvania, where he received a bachelor’s degree in 1951, his papers were stuffed with unacknowledged material lifted verbatim from published sources. The King papers project has dutifully collected this juvenilia, and Mr. Pappas explains how it strikes the reader today:
King’s plagiarisms are easy to detect because their style rises above the level of his pedestrian student prose. In general, if the sentences are eloquent, witty, insightful, or pithy, or contain allusions, analogies, metaphors, or similes, it is safe to assume that the section has been purloined.
Mr. Pappas notes that in one paper King wrote at Crozer, 20 out of a total of 24 paragraphs show “verbatim theft.” King also plagiarized himself, recycling old term papers as new ones. In their written comments on his papers, some of King’s professors chided him for sloppy references, but they seem to have had no idea how extensively he was stealing material. By the time he was accepted into the PhD program at Boston University, King was a veteran and habitual plagiarist.
Some of the most devastating parts of Mr. Pappas’ book are nothing more than side-by-side comparisons of material from King’s PhD thesis and from the sources he copied without attribution. King was overwhelmingly dependent on just one source, a dissertation written on the same subject as his own — the German-born theologian, Paul Tillich — by another Boston University student named Jack Boozer.
Here is a typical passage from King’s thesis that is lifted, word for word, from Boozer’s:
Correlation means correspondence of data in the sense of a correspondence between religious symbols and that which is symbolized by them. It is upon the assumption of this correspondence that all utterances about God’s nature are made. This correspondence is actual in the logos nature of God and logos nature of man.
There is word-for-word copying throughout the thesis. Mr. Pappas notes that the entire 23rd page is lifted straight out of Boozer, and that even when King was not stealing Boozer’s words without attribution, he was stealing his ideas: “There is virtually no section of King’s discussion of Tillich that cannot be found in Boozer’s text.”
Even when King is “quoting” Tillich, complete with footnotes, he may actually be quoting Boozer. Boozer occasionally typed the wrong page number in a Tillich footnote, or made an error transcribing Tillich’s words. King copied the errors along with everything else.
King’s plagiarism is even more breath-taking than it seems. Boozer was not just any B.U. graduate student. He had written his thesis in 1952, only three years before King wrote his, and had submitted it to the same advisor. Since the advisor is now dead, we will never know whether he failed even to notice the copying or was simply practicing early affirmative action. The second faculty reader of King’s thesis now excuses himself by saying he read it early in his career, at a time when he was naive about plagiarism.
Even after he became famous, King continued to plagiarize. His “Letter From Birmingham City Jail,” is now known to contain passages he had cribbed so often that he knew them by heart. Some of the best-known passages from his “I Have a Dream” speech are taken from a 1952 address by a black preacher named Archibald Carey. His Nobel Prize Lecture and his books, Strength to Love and Stride Toward Freedom, are also extensively plagiarized.
Moreover, it is clear that King did not take from others because he thought ideas and words were common property. He copyrighted the “I Have a Dream” speech, pilferings and all, and vigorously defended it against unauthorized use. King’s estate continues to enforce the copyright. Only last year, in a paroxysm of adulation, USA Today printed the full text of the speech, beginning on the front page. The estate sued.
Shielding the Saint
Like his penchant for adultery, King’s intellectual dishonesty does not sit well with his reputation as Saint and Great Man. Perhaps it is because they reveal other failings that his FBI files are still sealed. King, alone of all Americans, is honored with a national holiday, and it is awkward for a saint to be caught stealing. The line of defense has been predictable: He didn’t do it, and if he did, it doesn’t matter.
A three-year cover-up began with Mr. Carson and his staff at the King papers project. He forbade anyone to use the word “plagiarism,” and has since written of the “similarities” and “textual appropriations” that were part of King’s “successful composition method.” Mrs. Coretta Scott King also appears to have played a role in the cover-up by refusing to release King’s handwritten dissertation notes. Mr. Carson deliberately misled reporters who had heard rumors of plagiarism, and came clean with the facts only when it became clear that the story would break anyway.
The project leader’s disingenuousness has not affected funding for the King papers. They have probably swallowed up nearly a million dollars in tax money as well as support from the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, IBM, Intel and many other donors. In eight years, the project has published only one volume of a projected fourteen.
To the profound discredit of the American press, it was a British paper, the Sunday Telegraph, that first published a story, in December, 1989, about allegations of plagiarism. It was not until nearly a year later, in November, 1990, that the Wall Street Journal reported the story to a large American audience. Chronicles had briefly mentioned the rumors a little earlier, and Mr. Pappas had prepared a thorough exposé but was beaten into print by the nimblerJournal. It is now established that the New York Times, Washington Post, Atlanta Journal/Constitution, and New Republic all had heard about the plagiarism but had decided not to investigate it.
Once the truth was out, official reactions were just as craven. The Wall Street Journal wrote a typically lickspittle editorial, arguing that King’s plagiarisms do not reflect on his character but “tell something about the rest of us. [!?]”
Boston University formed a committee to look into the matter and concluded that since King had stolen only 45 percent of the first part and 21 percent of the second part of his dissertation, it was an “intelligent contribution to scholarship” and that “no thought should be given to revocation of Dr. King’s doctoral degree.” The second reader of the thesis actually defended the plagiarism by saying that King had accurately conveyed Boozer’s thinking — something not hard to do, since King copied him verbatim.
Boozer, who lived just long enough to learn of the plagiarism, was perhaps the greatest groveler of all. As his wife later explained, “He told me he’d be so honored and so glad if there were anything that Martin Luther King could have used from his work.”
Keith Miller of Arizona State University has already written a full-length exculpation of King called Voice of Deliverance: The Language of Martin Luther King, Jr. Mr. Pappas notes that Prof. Miller has come up with an astonishing variety of ways to say “plagiarism” without using the word: voice merging, intertextualization, incorporation, borrowing, consulting, absorbing, alchemizing, overlapping, quarrying, yoking, adopting, synthesizing, replaying, echoing, resonance, and reverberation.
Prof. Miller says that non-whites, who have strong oral traditions, should not be held to stuffy, Western standards of bibliography and that King could not be expected to understand the demands of an alien white culture. “How could such a compelling leader commit what most people define as a writer’s worst sin?” he asks; “The contradiction should prompt us to rethink our definition of plagiarism.” Since Martin Luther King did it, it must be all right.
Even those who condemn plagiarism claim to have no idea why King should have done it. Mr. Pappas drops us a hint when he writes, “[W]e know from his scores on the Graduate Record Exam that King scored in the second lowest quartile in English and vocabulary, in the lowest ten percent in quantitative analysis, and in the lowest third on his advanced test in philosophy — the very subject he would concentrate in at B.U.” People steal ideas when they are too lazy or unoriginal to come up with their own.
Blacks and Whites
Of course, the story that Mr. Pappas tells says far, far more about white America than about Martin Luther King. King was a dishonest scholar and got away with it — a small-time con-man whose degree would be revoked if Boston University had any integrity.
There is no doubt about what would have happened had King been white. Mr. Pappas reminds us that Joseph Biden’s bid for the presidency ended when he was shown to have copied from a speech by Neil Kinnock, the British Labor Party leader. Boston University itself recently stripped a dean of his position when it was learned he had cribbed from a Wall Street Journal article for a commencement address.
There is not a single white person, dead or alive, whose reputation academics and journalists would go to degrading lengths to preserve, but blacks are different. It is now well established that Alex Haley, the author of Roots, did not merely fake his African family tree but stole parts of it from a novel by a white man. His reputation remains unsullied, his Pulitzer Prize unrevoked. The black poet Maya Angelou’s “Inauguration Poem” likewise appears to have been an unattributed adaptation, but her reputation and academic sinecure are unshaken.
To criticize Maya Angelou or Arthur Haley is merely in bad taste but to question the sanctity of Martin Luther King is lèse majesté. Why?
In his forward to this book, Jacob Neusner writes that the impulse to defend a shameless plagiarist “stems from insufficient faith in the authentic achievements of Martin Luther King . . .” In other words, anyone who does not find room in King’s spacious personality for a few personal failings does not grasp the man’s true greatness. Nonsense.
People toady to King’s memory because he is a symbol of white racial atonement. To evoke his name is to confess white sinfulness and to ask forgiveness. Any attitude towards him other than worshipfulness suggests insufficient yearning for atonement or, to call it by its every-day name, racism.
To go further and actually criticize King is to risk more than the taint of bigotry; it is to insult the contemporary idea of America itself. King’s birthday is a holiday because he symbolizes what is thought to be America’s finest triumph — the triumph over white wickedness. King stands for integration and racial egalitarianism, from which flow quotas, multiculturalism and non-white immigration. Policies that will weaken the country and dispossess the white majority must have nothing less than a saint as their symbol.
https://www.amren.com/news/2018/01/martin-luther-king-jr-plagiarism/
Want to criticize MLK for being a plagiarist? Fine, do so. That’s an ill mark on him as I have acknowledged. Heck, I’ll even support your criticism of MLK there since that is due criticism there. But guess what? You should equally condemn Thomas Jefferson for plagiarizing John Locke when he wrote the Declaration of Independence, that’s the only way you’re not going to be a hypocrite.
One of King’s most distinguished biographers, Taylor Branch, revealed how
— on King’s trip to Norway to collect the 1964 Nobel Peace Prize — members of his entourage were found running after naked or near-naked prostitutes in the Oslo hotel where they were staying. Only a desperate appeal to hotel security saved them from being thrown out.
Branch also detailed how FBI agents bugged King’s hotel room in Washington in January 1964 and recorded him in adulterous full flow. ‘I’m f*****g for God! I’m not a negro tonight!’ he could be heard shouting.
Yeah, I know, and I also think that’s a very bad mark on MLK, one that God will ultimately have to deal with. But then again, even Donald Trump has engaged in Locker Talk and gone through multiple divorces, yet you can’t deny he’s a dang good president and leader, and certainly treated his extended family members very well if Aleida Scott King is of any indication.
Either way, that still doesn’t prove that he condoned rape or got entertained with it.
King spent the last night of his life enjoying the attentions of not one but two lovers, followed by an encounter with a third woman whom he knocked sprawling across his motel room bed.
At around 7am, King burst into their bedroom, looking alarmed, said Abernathy. King needed his friend’s help to calm down a third woman who was, he said, ‘mad at me. She came in this morning and found my bed empty’. ‘King, a married man, had been unfaithful even in his unfaithfulness.’
The drama didn’t end there. When the third woman turned up in the room, her argument with King became so intense that he ‘lost his temper and knocked her across the bed’.
Rev Ralph Abernathy—Civil rights campaigner who was the man who cradled King the day he was killed by an assassin’s bullet in Memphis, Tennessee, in 1968.
Autobiography of Ralph Abernathy (1989) — who succeeded King as the movement’s leader confirmed that long-standing rumours about his old friend’s rampant sexual appetites were true.
In case you haven’t noticed, I’ve agreed with you fully that his sexual escapades were indeed a very big flaw with his character, one he SHOULD be criticized for. That is not enough to condemn him as a monster, however, which you seem all intent on doing. He still didn’t sell military technological secrets to the Chinese for Campaign Cash, still put America first and foremost, still condemned Communism as an inherently and irreconcilably anti-Christian movement, and he certainly didn’t try to go out of his way to condemn Nixon and McCarthy, even when plenty of prominent leftists have tried to do that since Watergate. He’s as redeemable as Donald Trump, and that’s meant to be a compliment, BTW, not an insult. Not to mention, he was all for pro-life measures and staunchly anti-abortion, which his niece Aleida Scott King inherited.
Good post! Thanks.
Don’t bother responding to me any more, all your responses are always off topic.
They’re on-topic regarding MLK, however. Last I checked, I was also talking about MLK and his flaws (and I do agree he had plenty of flaws, what I don’t agree with is denouncing him as a monster for them and ignoring similar flaws by other great people), and I also addressed them. What, I have to strictly look at MLK and ignore instances conducted by other characters who are more good than him?
Just admit it, you don’t like a differing view of anything but your own. At least I acknowledge I don’t have much tolerance for other views due to wanting to stick strictly to facts and view opinions as lies.
Besides, last I checked, accusing MLK of being a Communist wasn’t on-topic either, yet you’ve done plenty of that before I even got involved on this thread.
Amen.
I gotta stop you there. That article borrows heavily from the notorious Frances Rice piece published in Human Events back in 2006.
I call it notorious because it was infamously in error and has caused no end of embarrassment for those bragging about how “MLK Jr was a Republican” when it was simply false and based on speculation without references and pure wishful thinking. It has been repeatedly debunked on FR from almost the first day it was published. Reporting such egregious points that Asa Philip Randolph was a Republican showed the ignorance of the author. Randolph was not a Republican, but a Socialist activist who had been a standard-bearer for Congress (from New York) as a Socialist Party member, as had been his wife.
I will not waste my time again going point by point on it. As I stated, it should go down in internet history as one of the most poorly researched flights of fancy and shameful for a Conservative author. That Human Events published it without vetting the facts should’ve caused considerable damage to their reputation, and for Conservapedia to liberally use it as a reference similarly damages their credibility.
I was curious as to your response about MLK’s Merv Griffin appearance and his handling by notorious Communist actor and singer Harry Belafonte. I absolutely believe by his associations and affiliations that anyone could see that the rhetoric didn’t match. By hiding behind the word “liberal” (indeed, stealing the original definition, which was really that of today’s Conservatism), the ultraleft has been able to radically move cultural, religious and political values to their extreme, and MLK was one of those who was doing just that. I believe they ultimately also just hid behind Christian religious cloaks to use it as a vehicle to move large segments of the Black population into their camp. These were all part of a larger scheme by outside forces to divide and destroy the nation.
Those who were able to vote generally were not, but they were largely disenfranchised (otherwise districts in MS & SC would’ve been sending Black Republicans to office since Reconstruction). Although my state of TN was not “Deep South”, many Blacks in Memphis/Shelby County were permitted to vote by the notorious Democrat Boss Crump in order to control state/federal politics. Blacks would be directed to vote for the Democrat candidate of his choice, when and if needed.
Add to that, for many left-leaning activist Blacks in the FDR era onwards, they were generally more supportive of the National Democrat party, even in the South. Many of their Northern counterparts who could vote had jettisoned the GOP by 1936 and were majority (but not overwhelmingly) Dem. It took barely a dozen or so years before most were supporting the Dems by 2/3rds margin (with some deviations based on particular contests) and could cease to be counted on by Republicans en bloc. By 1964, it was uniformally 90% and has remained stuck at that % since.
Who is Jug Ears? Barry?
Who else ? :-P
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.