MLK Holiday is Proof the US is Closet Communist
Henry Makow
January 19, 2018

Below, Alan Stang (1932-2009) shows that King was literally a Communist agent, a philanderer, a pagan and a plagiarist. He even plagiarized the "I Have a Dream" speech. The national holiday in his name is more proof that the US is thoroughly subverted.

Uncelebrate King
by Alan Stang
(Excerpts by henrymakow.com)

[snip]

There are five important aspects of Martin Luther King's career: 1) his Communist Party activities; 2) the violence that always erupted in a King demonstration; 3) his plagiarism; 4) his sexual pathology; 5) his pagan beliefs.

Martin Luther King attended a Communist training school in Tennessee. A famous picture shows him enjoying a lecture in the company of Communist Aubrey Williams and Abner W. Berry, a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. Rosa Parks, who helped King launch the Montgomery Bus Boycott, learned how to do it at the same Communist training school.

...Suddenly, King started to make speeches about the war in Vietnam. Well-meaning Americans scratched their heads. The war took him far afield from "civil rights," and his speeches started sounding like enemy propaganda cooked up in Hanoi. The reason was that Stanley Levison was writing those speeches. So who was Stanley Levison?

Stanley was the paymaster in this country for the KGB, the Soviet secret police. The KGB routinely sent Levison the rubles to pay for all Soviet activities in the United States, and he would distribute the money. How high up in the Soviet apparatus would you have to be - how much would the KGB have to trust you - to get that job? Stanley Levison, of the KGB, financed King and wrote his speeches. That is correct: the Soviet secret police financed Martin Luther King and put the words in his mouth.

King was said to be "heroic" because he was an apostle of Mohandas K. Gandhi's non-violence in India. For that reason, many Americans at the time wondered why it was that, wherever King went, violence erupted. Why the paradox? King explained it himself, in a piece he wrote for Saturday Review, April 3, 1965 ("Behind the Selma March," pp. 16-17, 57), in which he set forth the four steps of his technique:

"1. Nonviolent demonstrators go into the streets to exercise their constitutional rights. 2. Racists resist by unleashing violence against them. 3. Americans of conscience in the name of decency demand federal intervention and legislation. 4. The administration, under mass pressure, initiates measures of immediate intervention and remedial legislation."

Remember, this is not something we are accusing him of. King wrote this himself. Notice that step two of his formulation calls for violence. The reason violence broke out wherever he went was that violence was what he went into the streets to get. Without the necessary violence, his schemes would fall flat. So, in King's scenario, why would "racists" attack "nonviolent" demonstrators?

Drue Lackey was Montgomery, Alabama Chief of Police. In a speech in October, 2006, he explained that in the famous confrontation of 1965, "non-violent" demonstrators tried to provoke his policemen to react, by throwing "non-violent" bottles and bricks, and bedecking them with gobs of spit, while other "non-violent" demonstrators waited nearby to take pictures...