AMERICA'S GREATEST FORNICATING COMMUNIST

     The name of this work is "America's Greatest Fornicating
Communist." Lest the reader should be shocked by the title of this
essay, let me say the modern practice of what we call "double speak,"
adopted by the Associated Press and the international news services and
the United Press, CBS, ABC, NBC, and the British Broadcasting System,
since World War II, has made it impossible for anybody to talk clearly
any more, because they might offend somebody. That's the thinking.

     The word "fornication" in the Bible is a reference to illicit sex
relationships of almost any kind, where a body joins a body. So, at the
start, let me assure my readers that we use the term in the correct
context, and not in the context of the news media, which prefers
"premarital sex" or "adult consent" or "sexual lifestyle" or "sexual
option" or any of the double-speak.

     "Flee fornication. Every sin that a man does is without the body,
but he that commits fornication sins against his own body." That's
clear. It's clear if you have a Bible. If you don't have a Bible, you're
in trouble.

     When we talk about "America's Greatest Fornicating Communist,"
we're talking about a man who believes in government of the people, by
the people, and for the people. Now, that was condensed by Karl Marx to
mean the dictatorship of the proletariat. "Government of the people, by
the people, for the people" means government of the people, by the
people, and for the people in the sense of "all power to the people," or
"we the people." It's a communist type of thing. And a man doesn't have
to be a communist to promote it or support it or believe in it or fight
for it even die for it.

     The famous double-speak by the modern American news media is to the
effect that if you don't hold a card in the Communist Party, or belong
to the Comintern or the Politboro, then you're not a communist. That, of
course, is nonsense.

     All evolutionists have a capacity for becoming communists, and all
communists are evolutionists. All Marxists are evolutionists. None
believe in man as being the direct creative act of God.

     Communism is a system, of course, that has never worked anywhere on
this earth, because the basic idea behind it is false. The idea that the
mob or mass of people can actually run a government is fantasy. It
appeals to the mob.

     In this respect, Hitler's Third Reich was identical to any other
type of communism. Hitler ran the mob. The mob didn't run him. The
communists didn't run Russia; Stalin ran Russia. And before Stalin ran
Russia, Lenin ran it. The Politburo has run it since, and the Central
Committee, which consists of less than 400 men, and they have control of
well over 800,000,000 lives. The 800,000,000 had nothing to say about it
all any more than they do in the United States.

     The best term for communism is "democracy." Which simply means,
"government of the people, by the people, for the people." And, of
course, it has never worked one time, never will, and never can.
Government is always by an individual or a minority. Government is
always apartheid. It always has been and always will be.

     Now, no proof is needed for that statement, if a man can read. All
you have to do is get a history book and read. You say, "What history
book?" Any history book! Even the poorest histories written by the worst
possible type of scholars with the poorest type of scholarship will make
one thing very, very clear to anybody who can read. Governmental control
is never exercised by a majority--never. Never has, never will be.

     You say, "Well, the majority of the people voted." No, no, that
isn't quite it. Their minds are worked on before they vote, the
electoral college makes sure the majority numerically don't win, or
don't even get a voice in it. Whoever gets in immediately puts through
stuff that the majority didn't want and doesn't get to vote on.

     I mean, we may as well face it. Nobody in America has ever voted on
the income tax. The income tax enables the federal government to
confiscate your property. Do you understand that? You say, "But the
constitutional..." That's nonsense. You have no constitutional rights
whatsoever. Any time the IRS wants to confiscate your property or your
house or your automobile, or all three, they can do it any time they're
ready. Just fail to pay your taxes, or what they think you owe or say
you owe, and you're done.

     There was a case in Chicago where a man living in the Hispanic
section of town had a small business and hired about fifteen Hispanics
and five blacks to work for him. He didn't have a white man on the
force--discriminating against whites! And the NAACP got to him and shut
down his business through the Justice Department, who claimed that he
owed a black $12,000 for not hiring her, and then owed five more blacks
$2,000 apiece for not hiring them. But, since he had forgotten their
names and didn't know who they were, he was to spend $8,000 in
advertising to find out who he owed the money to! That's an actual case!

     You say, "What happened?" He folded up; he went bankrupted.

     They can shut down your business. You say, "What constitutional
rights did he have?" Absolutely none! You say, "According to what?"
According to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

     Where did that come from? That came from "America's Greatest
Fornicating Communist."

     Now, this material that we're going to give you is from two sources
that make use of multiple sources and document everything they say. One
of these is called "The F.B.I. and Martin Luther King Jr." by David
Garrow, Norton and Company, New York, published in 1981. The other is
"The Truth About the Real Martin Luther King Jr." by John Kenneth
Weiskittel, and this is a very important work which can be obtained from
Box 38335, Colorado Springs, CO 80937.

     In the material by Weiskittel, anybody can obtain the complete
documentation for every statement he makes by writing to John K.
Weiskittel, at this address: Box 38335, Colorado Springs, CO 80937.

     That is, nobody here is going to hide information underground that
you can't look at until the year 2017. If you know what I mean,
jellybean!

     Weiskittel says that during his life the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther
King Jr. became one of the most controversial figures in the American
political scene of his or any other generation. Despite the propagation
of a certain view by the national news media and its acceptance by a
large part of secular and religious officialdom, some observers have a
good deal of doubts about King's theology and his political views.

     For example, this communist wanted unilateral withdrawal of all
American forces from Southeast Asia, calling his own country "the
greatest purveyor of violence in the world today." Imagine a man saying
that with more than 100 concentration camps in Russia when he said it!
And they were genuinely puzzled as to how a man tolerated as a moral
leader could be called "the most notorious liar in the country" by
F.B.I. director J. Edgar Hooper, and called by the President "a
hypocrite preacher."

     Now, to believe the news media nonsense about this fornicating
communist, you have to do two things at the very start. Number one, you
have to assume he didn't have a brain in his head for calling America
"the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today." And number two,
you have to discount the opinion of the President of the United States
and the director of the F.B.I.

     At the age of thirty-nine, King was assassinated. He was hailed in
his life as the greatest prophet of the civil rights struggle, and
became eulogized as a fallen martyr. To cement this perception in the
minds of the general public, a federal holiday commemorating his birth
was proposed. Jesse Helms of North Carolina said, "No." The rest of the
supporters of Marxism and communism and--we suppose--fornication said,
"Yes."

     You say, "Well, that's stretching things a little bit, Ruckman."
Well, wait till you hear the whole story!

     The backers of the holiday were mainly the Democratic senators. And
there was a major obstacle to any national recognition at the start. The
major obstacle was evidence contained in an F.B.I. investigation of King
made from '63 to '68. That is, five years that fills fourteen file
cabinets! You understand? Fourteen file cabinets of information you
can't look at!

     You say, "What is the policy about examining government documents?"
Well, the joke spread by the press and the news media is that the public
should have access to public documents. No, you don't! You have access
to smut material and genocide material and muckraking slander and libel
on Oliver North, or some judge that Reagan tries to get on the Supreme
Court. But there are fourteen filing cabinets of material on a
fornicating communist that you can't get your hands on or look at, and
neither can anybody else!

     Doesn't that strike you rather strange for a national hero who is
going to have a federal holiday commemorating his birthday? Only two
others have it--George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Where are the
hidden filing cabinets on their records?

     Now, what do you suppose happened when that thing showed up? I
mean, the surveilance of King had been authorized by Robert Kennedy, but
a senate intelligence committee ruled in 1976 that fourteen files of
documented material was nothing but "harassment." That's your Democratic
senators. Now, that's instructive. It's the same Democratic senators--
thirteen of them--who put through the Civil Rights Act in 1964. What are
fourteen file cabinets of documented evidence against a fornicating
communist? They're harassment! But what would one filing cabinet of
evidence by the F.B.I. against you be?

     Evidently King had special privileges you don't have, whoever you
are reading this.

     King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and his former
aide, Bernard Lee, filed a suit against the United States government,
asking for monitary damage, and requesting the tapes and files of Dr.
King be destroyed.

     Why?

     Would they do the same thing to President Nixon and then make a
national hero out of him, and give him a birthday?

     On January 31, 1977, federal district court judge John Lewis
declined to award monetary damages to Lee and the SCLC, but ordered all
the F.B.I. tapes and transcripts on King to be sealed in the National
Archives for fifty years.

     Why? Why?

     Isn't that strange?

     Who was that? That was a district court judge. Did you get that? A
district court judge. Did you get that? You'd better get that! A
district court judge is a judge who lays down fiats for a whole
community, where nobody votes on anything.

     You say, "What did Congress do in voting about the transcripts of
King being sealed in the National Archives? Aren't the Congressmen the
representatives of the people?" You know, "no taxation without
represenation." Yes. "Did they vote?" No, they didn't vote.

     You say, "What did the Supreme Court do to overrule the district
court judge?" Nothing.

     You say, "Why?" The man was black! He had special privileges and
rights that Oliver North and Judge Bork and Judge Suder don't have.

     Then the bill to make up Martin Luther King's birthday a federal
holiday remained unsigned as 1983 began. Finally, in August of that
year, the House passed it. And two months later, the Senate followed
suit. In an October 19, 1983 press conference, President Ronald Reagan,
answering questions about an unsuccessful attempt by Senator Jesse Helms
to gain access to the files, said he believed the senator sincerely felt
that if the nation was to honor one of its citizens, "we should know
everything there is to know about that individual."

     Well, the President must have been crazy, don't you think, to think
something like that! The very idea of Jesse Helms and Ronald Reagan
thinking that, before you made a man a national hero, you should know
everything you should about the individual. My, what a prejudiced,
bigoted, unreasonable request!

     On the matter of King's communist ties, President Reagan commented,
"We'll know in about thirty-five years, won't we?" And then had to
apologize to King's widow, Coretta, for the remark!

     Why?

     Political pressure.

     On November 2, 1983, he signed the bill, designating the third
Monday in January a federal observance of King's birthday, a man who
nobody knew anything about at all, because fourteen files on his life
were put away for thirty-five years.

     Imagine having to apologize to a widow for saying, "We'll know in
about thirty-five years, won't we?"

     Violation of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech!

     That time the President was muzzled.

     Coretta Scott King, his widow, said, "There is a heightened
awareness of him that was not present before the holiday. I think it has
made greater believers of many more people."

     Not anybody who has any sense!

     The holiday in the last age amounts to a canonization of King, with
Protestant churches and Catholic churches holding special services in
his memory. In Washington, D.C., the cathedral dedicated a statue in his
likeness on Palm Sunday, and some of his bolder adherents bluntly
declared that his letter from Birmingham Jail "should be added to the
Bible"!

     With fourteen filing cabinets of material you couldn't read? His
letter should be added to the Book that is read by more people than any
other book in the world?

     Isn't that a strange thing?

     Now, how do you suppose the press was able to successfully convince
the American people that they had no right to even investigate a man
they were about to turn into a semi-god? Here's how it's done. From "The
F.B.I. and Martin Luther King Jr.," page 154: "One can find some
evidence to support the proposition that the Bureau set out to destroy
black leaders simply because they were black leaders." What is the
proof? "One example is the Bureau's conduct toward Elijah Muhammad and
the Nation of Islam, better known as the Black Muslims. The Bureau began
to wiretap surveillance of Elijah Muhammad's Chicago residence in 1957,
with the authorization of attorney general Herbert Brownough, on the
grounds that members of the NLI disavow allegiance to the United
States"--which they do--"and are taught not to obey the laws of the
United States"--which they are taught.

     "Furthermore, the Bureau claimed allegations had been received that
its members may resort to acts of violence"--which they certainly do!
So, what did he mean when he said, "There is some evidence to support
the proposition that the Bureau set out to destroy black leaders simply
because they were black leaders"? They weren't trying to destroy the
black leaders because they were black at all! They were set out to be
destroyed because they advocated acts of violence, the overthrow of the
government of the United States, no allegiance to the United States, and
need not obey the laws of the United States.

     And every Black Muslim I'm talking to knows that's the truth!

     A man named William Sullivan shows up, connected with the F.B.I.,
who had something to do with installing bugs to pick up what these
fellows were doing. And the writer says on page 159, "All of the
important Bureau memoranda from January 1964 clearly showed that
Sullivan, Hoover, and the men of Division 5 quickly became obsessed with
Dr. King's sexual behavior, and the possibilities of recording more of
it." What do you mean "obsessed with his behavior"? If there was any
behavior at all, shouldn't it have been noted? It has been during the
last two years of all the Congressmen!

     "Sullivan instructed the Milwaukee field office to install a bug in
King's hotel room, there so that further entertainment could be
recorded. Hoover's pernicious remark about King's supposedly obsessive
degenerate sexual urges indicated that his understanding of what the
surveillance was, designed to overhear, was exactly the same as
Sullivan's."

     So what did they overhear? Just what they thought they'd overhear.
Page 160: "The true purpose of a microphone surveillance was repeatedly
indicated in documents concerning them, where the multiple references to
King's personal activities, and the need to expose him. The handwritten
afterthought, in view of his association with communists inserted in
Phillips' July 1964 recommendation, that more information on King's
personal activities be gathered, was only the most sadly amusing example
of this veneer."

     Sadly amusing example? Why, every conservative court judge who ever
was recommended by a Republican was put through a grill that examined
what kind of toothpaste he used and what kind of breakfast food he ate!

     What is this?

     "Sullivan asserted that he had argued against the anonymous
package. He had done so on practical grounds, contending that instead of
getting Mrs. King to leave her husband and publicly renounce him, it
would only alert King and his family to the activities the Bureau had
undertaken against him." That is, now they've piled up proof after proof
after proof that he's a pretty regular, habitual fornicator. The problem
now is what to do with his wife.

     "Sullivan told one friend he had been forced to realize that King
was a worthless charlatan. He had been particularly upset that many
people contributed money to King without knowing that the real man bore
little resemblance to his public image. Even worse, in Sullivan's
opinion, King on occasion had paid women to have sex with him"--not
denied. "He had also carried on sexual affairs with a number of married
women"--not denied. "Sullivan had also thought that King had aspired to
be Secretary of Labor, that King had considering forming a civil rights
fund in secret foreign bank accounts, and that King had secured money
from hostile foreign governments."

     Now what the writer has done here is simply this. He has taken
something that was true and mixed it with something that was untrue, and
then commented, "Sullivan often mixed fact with fantasy."

     What were the facts about Sullivan's charges? They're in the
fourteen files you can't look at!

     The writer said he mixed facts with fantasy. What were the facts?
You can't read them! You're not allowed to look at them.

     Now, having carefully put the facts away for thirty-five years so
nobody could check the truth of Sullivan's charges, we are told on page
164, "At the root of Sullivan's hostility toward King were two key
ingredients: a puritanism on matters of personal conduct and sexual
behavior that stem from his own rural New England background, and a
subconscious racism."

     You mean his hostility wasn't based on facts? Then why weren't the
facts examined?

     "For all his airs of being the Bureau's 'house intellectual,'
Sullivan's narrow-mindedness on anything concerning sex..." like what?
One, King on occasion had paid women to have sex with him, and two,
carried on sexual affairs with a number of married women. If you think
that's wrong, you're narrow-minded on "anything concerning sex."

     Page 164: "All agree that it took very little to offend Sullivan's
sensibilities. Most knew better than to tell a ribald joke in Sullivan's
presence. His closest colleagues were now surprised when Sullivan was so
deeply upset by the material that was obtained on King's personal life."
What was it? You can't look at it!

     "Such pure enjoyment of physical pleasure"--paying women to have
sex with him (like Jimmy Swaggart), carrying on affairs with a number of
married women (which Jimmy Swaggart didn't)--"such pure enjoyment of
physical pleasure outside of marriage was beyond the pale in Sullivan's
mind." Well, isn't he a devil, huh? Imagine a man thinking that it's
wrong, if you're a married man with a family and a Christian minister,
to pay whores to have sex with you and carry on sexual affairs with a
number of married women. Imagine that! What a narrow-minded, puritanical
bigot! And imagine a man who didn't appreciate a dirty joke. What a
terrible, bigoted character! Can you imagine it?

     It took no time at all for Sullivan to conclude that King was not
fit to be a national leader. And you think he is? An habitual fornicator
with prostitutes and married women? You say, "Prove it!" There are
fourteen files full of it, and you can't see one of them. Now, isn't
that something?

     "Hoover spared no effort to collect and view all possible
information about the sexual activities of prominent Americans. Bureau
tales about this predilection are numerous." Page 165: "From 1964 on
Hoover often blabbered about Dr. King's sex life."

     Oh, come on! You mean J. Edgar Hoover often discussed the facts
concerning a fornicating communist's sex life? Double-speak.

     "While Sullivan's principal emphasis was on exposing King to the
public, Hoover often seemed more interested in using the King material
to entertain others, whom he believed shared his desire for it, than to
destroy King himself."

     Judging Hoover's motive? Where's the hidden file on Hoover? How
come this writer claims to know Hoover's motive in talking about these
fornications, when he hasn't got fourteen files of documented evidence
to prove it?

     On we go. He says, "Hoover's attitude toward the King material was
much more complicated than Sullivan's." What material? It's never been
published.

     Page 166: "While Sullivan's principal emphasis was on exposing King
to the public, Hoover often seemed more interested in using the King
material to entertain others, whom he believed shared his desire for it,
than to destroy King himself." What was the evidence? "Alternately, it
can be argued that the predominant motive for such intergovernment
dissemination of the material was not a desire to destroy King, but a
more calculated ploy to increase the F.B.I.'s bureaucratic status."

     What material? The material was never given!

     Page 167: "Virtually all of President Johnson's aides knew of his
weakness for such material. Several will admit privately that he
particularly enjoyed the information on King."

     What information on King? The author hasn't denied it, nor given
one example of it yet, and wouldn't let you examine the evidence to see
if he was lying or not. That's David Garrow.

     "Several will admit privately that he particular enjoyed the
information on King. The information also had a strong negative
influence on Johnson's political feelings toward black America's
foremost leader." Why shouldn't it? The author just admitted that it was
just good, healthy animal pleasure to hire whores and shack up with
married women.

     "As White House counsel Harry McPherson, perhaps the most sensitive
and intelligent member of the Johnson staff, has remarked, 'The
President became terribly disappointed in King, for good reasons or
not.'" What do you mean, "for good reasons or not"? He just gave two
good reasons! He figured if the fellow was hiring whores regularly and
shacking up with a number of married women, his future wasn't too
bright. What would you figure?

     He says, "Hoover had supplied the President with a vast amount of
scurrilous, defaming information about King. While Johnson was
contemptuous of the tape, he nonetheless was affected by the information
on it." Why shouldn't he be?

     You see the strange type of reporting you get these days? The
material that President Johnson and these fellows are getting ahold of
that is recorded, and some of it filmed, proved that King on occasion
"had paid women to have sex with him, and also had carried on sexual
affairs with a number of married women."

     The writer, David Garrow, says that this was the cause of
Sullivan's hostility toward King, because Sullivan was a puritan and
narrow-minded, and was against anything concerning sex (page 164). And
these called this whore-hopping and adultery "pure enjoyment of physical
pleasure outside of marriage"--page 164. Isn't that something?

     "When one aide attempted to defend King's sincerity on the issue of
war, Johnson reportedly said, 'Blankety-blank it, if only you could hear
what that hypocritical preacher does sexually!'"

     He was a hypocrite--and did do the stuff. So why was he listened
to?

     Page 168: "Stories on either King's private life or his
relationship to Levinson, the supposed communist financer, could prove
very embarrassing." "Supposed" communist financer? Levinson was a
communist! You see how these fellows write? It's some type of reporting!

     Page 169: "By early 1965, the Bureau's leadership was extremely
disappointed and surprised that no one had made available to the public
any of the material believed damaging to King. This realization became
especially pronounced in the wake of the December and January efforts to
interest a substantial number of newsmen in the material."

     They weren't interested in the material. Why? It demythologized
their god!

     Page 172: "In all likelihood the decline of the Bureau's efforts to
gather and disseminate the damaging personal material on King in 1965
reflected both frustration at the inability to use the information
publicly...." Why couldn't they use the information publicly? They did
on Oliver North! They did on General MacArthur! They did when Patton
slapped a man in Italy! They did on Judge Bork! They did on Judge Suder!

     They couldn't use the information publicly, "...and a simple
declining interest in something that was no longer as novel and
intriguing as it had been in 1964." Why? The fellow is still whore-
hopping and shacking up with married women while he's married himself!
Can the national interest suddenly get adjusted to that overnight?

     Page 181: "Life Magazine said King goes beyond his personal right
to dissent when he connects programs in civil rights here with a
proposal that amounts to abject surrender in Vietnam. By making a speech
that Life termed 'a demogogic slander that sounded like a script for
Radio Hanoi,' King has come close to betraying the cause for which he
has worked so long. King himself sat down and cried when faced with
these editorial comments."

     Why, the dirty yellow hypocrites! What do you mean a speech which
Life "termed" a demogogic slander? It was a demogogic slander!

     Sullivan heard King say--and recorded it--that he was a Marxist
(page 161). Furthermore, the writer, David Garrow, doesn't deny that he
said it. He just says, "True, Sullivan conceded the F.B.I. did
understand King to have said, 'I am a Marxist,' but that meant very
little, Sullivan argued." Who cares whether it meant anything or not? He
was for Hanoi, and said he was a Marxist. What else do you want?

     Page 182: "Mildred Stagle stated, 'Based on King's recent
activities and public utterances, it is clear that he is an instrument
in the hands of subversive forces seeking to undermine our nation.'" Was
he? "'Since the Southern Christian Leadership Conference President
Martin Luther King Jr. has urged massive civil disobedience throughout
the country in an effort to spur Congress into action to help the plight
of the Negro, it is felt that we need this insulation to obtain racially
intelligent information concerning his plans. King has warned that these
massive demonstrations may result in riots. Because of this, we should
be in a position to obtain intelligence so that appropriate
countermeasures can be taken to protect the internal security of the
United States.'"

     Did they turn it into a riot? Yes, they certainly did!

     One Johnson aide said, "We have permitted the Stokely Carmichaels,
the Rap Browns, the Martin Luther Kings, to cloak themselves in an aura
of respectability, to which they are not entitled. King's civil
disobedience was really criminal disobedience, and as the time nears for
Dr. King's April activities, I hope the President will publicly unmask
this type of conduct for what it really is."

     Exactly! You never got sounder advice in all your life!

     Then, what happens? The section on the Poor People's Campaign plans
"fanned fears the campaign could lead to violence" (page 185). "This
violence might be well the goal, the report claimed, not only of black
nationalists waiting to act under cover of King's own demonstrations,
but King's communist advisor Stanley Levinson. Levinson, along with
Rocktail and Ruston, received detailed attention in the section on
King's opposition to the war and background until then, plus a whole
host of others, including Odell, Neals, Blackwell, and Vivian, who are
summarized in the section on alleged communist influence.

     "The two final sections of the monograph dealt solely with King's
sexual activities" (page 186). "One part detailed an all-night sex orgy
at an SCLC workshop in Miami." Well, where is it? How come the details
never got to the newspaper?

     "One summarized the four-year-old Willard Hotel happenings, which
were termed a two-day drunken sex orgy. The report added, 'Throughout
the ensuing years and until this date, King has continued to carry on
his sexual aberrations secretly, while holding himself out to public
view as a martyr of religious conviction.'"

     Where's the material? I mean, these news fellows keep saying, "The
public is entitled to know!" "The public entitled to know about Jimmy
Swaggart!" But they're not entitled to know about a national leader who
has a birthday as a national holiday?

     Page 184: "The final portion is entitled, 'King's Mistress,' and
describes supposedly a long-standing affair that King had been carrying
on with the wife of a California dentist." What do you mean "supposedly"
long-standing affair? Was it, or wasn't it? Where's the evidence? The
evidence was there. The two sections of the monograph were distributed.
Where are they?

     "One of the F.B.I.'s major sources on this subject was the woman's
own brother, a famous former professional athlete. He complained to the
F.B.I. about King, whom he called a 'hypocrite.'"

     Where's the material?

     Page 184: "The report went on..." Where is the report! Why wasn't
it published? Why isn't it published now?

     "The report went on to allege that the Bureau agents had filmed
King and the women emerging from motel rooms."

     Oh, that's Jimmy Swaggart! You got to see his films. Or Mayor
Berry's films. How come you never saw Martin Luther King Jr.'s films?

     "...had filmed King and the women emerging from motel rooms, and
had intercepted phone conversations between them. It also alleged that
an unspecified source, most likely a microphone, had related an
incident..."

     What? An "unspecified source, most likely a microphone"? What
difference would it make if you specified which kind of microphone it
was? If it was a microphone, it reported something all right--it
reported what it picked up! What do you mean, "an unspecified source,
most likely a microphone, had related..." The "microphone" had related?

     "...an incident which occurred some time ago in a New York City
hotel, where King was intoxicated at a small gathering. King threatened
to leap from the thirteenth-floor window of the hotel, if the woman
would not say she loved him. Information like this, the report said,
would enable government officials to have some insight into the nature
of the man scheduled to lead the April demonstrations."

     It never got out.

     "Several days after the report was distributed, a Washington Post
story on Director Hoover made the first public allusion to the Bureau's
efforts to distribute damaging personal information about King, and the
whole nation rose in arms because King was black, and Hoover was white."

     Did violence break out with the marches? It certainly did.

     "Memphis City Hall: The head of the column had just turned right
onto Main from Bingle Street" (page 192) "when several of the long
sticks used to carry placards were thrown from one side of the street
into the store windows. A pause followed the first fusillade, but within
a minute a second barrage of the sticks followed, and some youngsters
who had been accompanying or trailing the column, began to loot goods
from the broken store. In came the Memphis Police. When the violence
first erupted, Lawson and others immediately had sought to get King away
from the scene. King himself not knowing what was happening..." Ha, ha,
ha! Imagine that! "...was frightened at first, telling those around him,
'I've got to get out of here.' Bernard Lee flagged down two black women
in a white Pontiac, asked for use of the car for Dr. King, and King and
his aides hopped in. The car headed west on McCall, away from Main.
Memphis Police Lieutenant M.E. Nichols pulled alongside and asked the
driver where King and his party wanted to go. Ralph Abernathy suggested
the Sheraton Peabody Hotel. But Nichols said, 'No, that would be back
across the path of disruption.' Abernathy suggested that King call
Levinson, and King did. Stanley tried hard to cheer him up. King again
spoke of cancelling the Poor People's Campaign. Levinson urged him to
continue.

     "In New York, the Bureau agents manning the wire tap on Levinson's
phone call, took down every word of the conversation" (page 194).
"Talking with Levinson did not alleviate King's despondency," because
when he talked to Abernathy, he said this, "Maybe we just have to admit
that the day of violence, and maybe we just have to give up and let
violence take its course."

     So it took its course.

     And he got his brains blown out.

     The author then proceeds to give you a chapter to prove that if you
don't think that whore-hopping and adultery are normal Christian
lifestyles, you are paranoid. Page 210: "Another facet of the paranoid
style's reaction to the challenge of widespread dissent is a strong
tendency to see the challengers not simply as evil foreign puppets, but
also as immoral, sensually-obsessed individuals." Well, was he or wasn't
he? What do you mean, "see them as that"? If that's what he was, if you
saw him as anything different, it would prove you had bad eyesight!

     "As Hoffstoddar noted, the stranger is always perceived as a
perfect model of malice, a kind of Armour-all Superman, sinister,
iniquitous, powerful, cruel, sensual, luxury-loving." Was he? He flew in
Kennedy's plane. His tax bill that he had to pay ran into four figures,
and five figures. "Hoffstoddar's observation is a striking description
of the F.B.I.'s stance in the King investigation, this time in regard to
the second phase, the obsession with King's personal life. The third
major strand of the cultural threat perspective is how the paranoid
style fears political change, just as much as it is obsessed with
foreign agents. These three stands of the paranoid style argument, and
the three apparently separate themes or phases of the F.B.I.'s behavior
in the King case, come together to form a wider understanding, not only
of the conduct of the F.B.I., but of how the F.B.I. accurately
represented many of the major beliefs and fears of American society."

     The man who told the truth and had the evidence was "paranoid," and
to prove he was "paranoid," and the villain was all right, they took
fourteen files of material on the villain and locked it up, so nobody
could check it.

     That's news reporting in the twentieth century.

     The F.B.I. said that Martin Luther King Jr. said, "I am a
communist." And Garrow says, "This probably will be discounted by most
observers as something that King could never have said. Actually,
however, such a statement would not have been surprising, for King made
mention of his distaste for the American economic order to many friends,
even in the 1950's. In a divinity school term paper..."

     Divinity school? This whore-hopping adulterer is a ministerial
student in a divinity school? "...King spoke of 'my present anti-
capitalistic feelings,' and reiterated this theme in several sermons in
1956 and 1957."

     He was a Marxist, and said so, and in the papers he wrote, showed
he was.

     Now, what is the truth of these matters? The truth of these matters
is, if you have hide fourteen files of information on a fellow in order
to make a national hero out of him, he must be a pretty sorry bum!
That's the truth of it.

     Here is a man who has been elevated to the highest honor his
country can bestow, who didn't believe in its system. And his life is
enshrouded in mystery. Why? Isn't that strange?

     Now, back to Weiskittel: "'There are as many communists in the
freedom movement as there are Eskimoes in Florida,' was Martin Luther
King's rejoiner to charges that civil rights activism was being used as
a vehicle for subversion. He blamed white racists for using McCarthy-
like tactics to destroy the movement."

     What was the truth? "In December of 1956 King made a keynote speech
for M.I.Aze Institute on Non-Violence, facing the challenging of a new
age, in which he attacked exploitation and envisioned a new era of world
community fast approaching. While he was making his address, Ruston was
in New York to consult friends like Stanley Levinson about a permanent
civil rights organization designed around Dr. King's charisma. Levinson,
a man who had been, according to the F.B.I., a secret benefactor of the
Communist Party between 1952 and 1955, would become King's right-hand
man as advisor, strategist and speech writer." And that's why he phoned
him when the riot broke out in Memphis.

     "In August of 1957 King founded the Southern Christian Leadership
Conference in Atlanta. On Labor Day of 1957, he attended a meeting at a
little-known institute of learning in Tennessee, the Highlander Folk
School. What was Highlander? It originated from another educational
outfit known as Commonwealth College operating in Arkansas. When the
college, which openly displayed the hammer-and-sickle, was cited as a
Communist front in 1949 by the U.S. attorney general, its faculty moved
to Tennessee and reopened the Highlander."

     Hammer and sickle!

     "Photos taken by a government undercover man"--here's your F.B.I.--
"during the Labor Day meeting showed identified Communist folk singer
Pete Seegar performing, and Dr. King listening to a speech seated behind
the Central Committee official, Abner Berry. The keynote address was
given by Martin Luther King."

     It was photographed! The photographs were distributed.

     Then there was the Southern Conference Educational Fund (S.C.E.F.),
an organization which had a clear impact on King's early career, whose
administrator was James Dumbrowski, an identified Communist. In 1962,
Dumbrowski and two other identified Communists, Carl and Ann Braden,
attended an S.C.L.C. meeting with King. And, in 1963, King endorsed a
$167 check made out to him for New York expenses co-signed by its
executive director, James Dumbrowski.

     There is no question Dr. King knew the sort of company he was
keeping.

     Another Red close to King was Hunter "Pits" Odell, who was
introduced to him by Levinson. Odell had Communist ties going back as
far as the 1940s, and was a member of the National Committee of the
Communist Party in 1959.

     But "the most notorious liar in the country" said, "There are as
many Communists in the freedom movement as there are Eskimoes in
Florida."

     King was warned about these people by the Kennedys. And it wasn't
only the Kennedys who cautioned Dr. King. When the New Orleans police
raided S.C.E.F. headquarters in 1961, they found documents implicating
King. A subsequent study of S.C.E.F. by the state's un-American
activities committee gave King the benefit of the doubt. They learned
that King had signed an affadavit in New Orleans attesting to the good
character of Dumbrowski and other S.C.E.F. staffers. Committee counselor
Jack Rogers sent him three copies of its report, showing undeniable
communist connections in leadership.

     He was warned!

     But King joked about Kennedy's suggestion to steer clear of the
Communists. After Odell resigned, he was found to be still employed at
the S.C.L.C. office in his old role, and he and Levinson kept in touch
through a third party.

     "That King's call for massive civil disobedience always conveyed an
implicit threat of violence is no more evident than when the Poor
People's March took place in 1968. When King and his force invaded
Chicago in July of 1966, riots were not far behind. Groups at the rally
included the Communist Party and its front, the Du Bois Club. Within two
days, the west side of Chicago was in flames.

     "After a 'peace civil disobedience' mission to Memphis by Dr. King
in 1968, one person was dead, sixty injured, 280 arrested, 155 stores
looted and vandalized by the time the rioting was quelled."

     Then the FBI warning was correct, and the people who didn't accept
it were not correct. And David Garrow didn't know what he was talking
about, and that's why he didn't give you the evidence on it.

     "The theme of Vietnam was included in Dr. King's Carnegie Hall
speech in February 23rd. It is one of the most revealing public
appearances he ever made. The occasion was the 100th anniversary of the
birth of W.E.B. Du Bois." W.E.B. Du Bois was an American black educator
and an open Marxist all of his adult life. He was a racist who spoke of
"blook-sucking whites," and said the salvation of the American Negro
lies in socialism (The Du Bois Reader, MacMillan, second printing, 1974,
pp. 191-193). He organized the NAACP, and sought to use the black
churches as an instrument of subversion, and he amassed 96 communist-
front citations. That's the NAACP. "Blood-sucking whites," 96 communist-
front citations founded by a man who openly professed to be a hardshell
communist all of his life.

     During the Montgomery bus boycott, Du Bois corresponded with King,
and was impressed, and praised him as an honest, straightforward, and
well-trained individual. The feeling was mutual. Coretta King said, "Du
Bois was a great man whom Martin had long admired, and was our hero." An
open, professing communist who spoke about blood-sucking whites! That's
the man whose birthday you celebrate every year. A vicious racist! And
his wife was just like him.

     At the Carnegie Hall speech, King let his audience know where he
stood from the start, calling Du Bois "a militant genius."

     Jim Bishop in his work on The Days of Martin Luther King describes
matters as follows: "Then came the words that they had hoped to hear:
'So many would like to know of the fact that Du Bois was a communist in
his last years.' A roar of approval came from many throats. 'Our
irrational, obsessive anti-communism has led us into too many quagmires.
All over the world we must live together as brothers, or we will perish
as fools.' People stood, stamped, whistled, applauded. King tried to
speak of the senseless, cruel, unjust war in Vietnam, but the radicals
were giving him a standing ovation. His mouth moved, but the deep bell
tones were overwhelmed by the accolade of the audience, and only a tape
recorder caught the end of the speech when he said, 'Du Bois will be
with us when we go to Washington in April.'"

     Du Bois, the founder of the anti-"blood-sucking white" communist
party with 96 communist-front citations, was with Martin Luther King
throughout his entire career.

     And "the most notorious liar" said, "There are as many communists
in the freedom movement as there are Eskimoes in Florida."

     Who were they? Abner Berry, identified as a member of the national
committee of the Communist Party on July 21, 1947; Carl and Ann Braden:
FBI undercover agent Albert A. Ernd identified the Bradens as communists
in the 1954 that convicted Carl Braden of sedition in the bombing of a
Negro home, which he had attempted to blame on whites. James Dumbrowski:
John Butler, a former SPUCL official in Alabama testified at the end of
the 1954 SCEF hearings that Dumbrowski was introduced as a Party member
at Birmingham, Alabama. David Ruston: openly admitted having been an
organizer for the Young Communist League in 1938, which he joined in
1936. Hunter Pitts and Jack Odell are both Communists identified as
members of the Party's national committee. Odell invoked the Fifth
Amendment on April 12, 1956, when asked whether or not he was a Southern
District organizer of the Communist Party.

     And the foremost legal bulwark of the Communist Party in the United
States, the National Lawyers Guild, is cited in 1950 among the HCUA's
Guide to Subversive Organizations and Publications.

     Carl Prushin, an FBI counterspy from 1947 to 1960--oh, here's what
the FBI was doing! They weren't just taping and bugging apartments where
King was fornicating with whores and stepping out on his wife. They were
doing a lot more than that. Carl Prushin, an FBI counterspy, signed a
sworn affadavit on September 28, 1963, detailing five party cell
meetings he attended in California during the 1950s, wherein he said
that at all meetings, one Reverend Martin Luther King always was set
forth as the individual to whom Communists would look and rally around
in the Communist struggle on many racial issues.

     The FBI began investigating Dr. King in 1963, and its surveillance
of him continued until his death. The probe was within the law, because
an issue of national security was involved.

     Garrow tried to make you think it was paranoid! It was within the
law. What he could not perceive was what would be revealed in the six
years of gathering evidence. Not just constant companionship and
fellowship with communists, and not constant teaching of the communist
doctrines, but "a sordid string of prostitutes employed, a drunken orgy
thrown, adulterous affairs engaged in, and civil rights contributions
embezzled or misapplied." Some of the material in the sealed files you
can't look at is called "obscene."

     But not the National Endowment of the Arts! Christ in urine is not
obscene; pornographic art is not obscene. So you can look at it.

     But you can't look at the files on Martin Lucifer Coon! Marked
obscene--and there are fourteen of them!
 
     Finally, we have the testimony of Julia Brown. While living in
Cleveland, this Negro woman joined in 1947 a group calling itself the
Civil Rights Congress. And this Negro thought it was a legitimate
organization. "Like any good American, she was horrified when she found
out it was a Communist front, but agreed to go undercover for the FBI
and remained in the role until 1960." Thirteen years. "Before the Senate
Judiciary Committee in 1979, she testified, 'The Communist cell that I
was associated with in Cleveland were continually being asked to raise
money for Martin Luther King's activities and to support his movement.
While I was in the Communist Party as a loyal American Negro, I knew
Martin Luther King to be closely connected with the Communist Party."

     Never got in the newspapers. Never got on CBS. Never got on ABC.

     Isn't that something?

     What did the black fornicating communist tell his followers? Well,
whatever he told them, I'll tell you what the South African communist
Bishop Tutu said while he was undermining the South African government.
He said, "They don't like you. They say you're communist-inspired. That
means you're effective."

     Who went to the Philippines to visit Corizone Aquino, to support a
non-violent revolution against Marcos? Coretta King.

     Dr. King's best-known protege, Jesse Jackson, has paid twenty
visits to Cuba and Nicaragua, employed Hunter "Pitts" Odell as
international advisor in 1984, and this year was represented at the
communist newspaper People's World's banquet by his Rainbow Coalition.
It was his sponsor.

     Atlanta mayor Andrew Young, a Highlander alumnus (the communist
school) and King aide, was remembered for U.N. remarks that Cuban and
Soviet-block troops in Africa are a stabilizing force.

     Coleman Young, mayor of Detroit, head of the National Negro Labor
Council of the 1950s, refused to answer questions about the group when
asked by the House Committee on Un-American Activities, and disbanded it
rather than allow the U.S. attorney general to see its membership list.

     Young, Young, Jackson, and King--solid Marxists to the core!

     The truth of the matter is, as Patrick Buchanan writes, "Martin
Luther King does not deserve a national holiday--not remotely. The only
it has come about is by flagrant, willful ignoring of his record." That
is, the newspapers refusing to print the news.

     Were this for a canonization, such suppression of evidence would
have ground the process to a screeching halt. King, who professed non-
violence, said Representative Lawrence MacDonald, in fact "was wedded to
violence." And as another late Congressman, John Askbrook, put it in
1967, "King has done more for the Communist Party than any other person
in this decade."

     He is the greatest fornicating communist that America ever
produced. And that's why the name of this essay is "America's Greatest
Fornicating Communist."

     Martin Luther King Jr. was the greatest fornicating communist
America ever produced, and, as Hoover said, "the most notorious liar in
America." What's the proof? Fourteen files of it. And the reason you
can't look at it is because Hoover told the truth.

     Weiskittel says, "It is difficult for us to believe that someone as
brilliant as Dr. King was a dupe for more than a decade. On more than
one occasion, he was told by those in the know that he was in bad
company. His remarks frequently followed the Communist line to the
letter, or praised Communists. And his activities gave the Reds much of
what they aimed to secure. Whether he was winning or not isn't relevant,
but when it comes to honoring him--that's something else. You can't
honor a man that stupid--if it was stupidity."

     Weiskittel says, "We hope every reader feels as strongly about this
as we do. It is high time we make an all-out effort to educate our
fellow citizen regarding the real Martin Luther King Jr. Every year that
goes by without greater awareness by Americans means that this
manufactured hero will grow in stature, and that a massive lie will
gradually become truth to millions of unsuspecting youngsters. It means
too that many of the false perceptions of our society promoted by King
will become ingrained. And most importantly, it means that the
conspiracy striving to conquer our land will be ever closer to its
goal."

     There's the material on the greatest fornicating communist in
America--a man who went by an alias all his life (his name is really
Michael, not Martin); a man whose fornication and adultery and whore-
mongering was justified as "simple animal pleasure;" a man whose enemies
were attacked by the press as "paranoid" because they thought that if a
man was an habitual fornicator and adulterer, he shouldn't be made a
national hero; and a man whose personal record of his personal life was
so obscene and filthy and vulgar that you couldn't even let the
newspaper know how the man lived.

     However, all the details of Reagan's life were available every day-
-and he was not made a national hero. All the details of Bush's life and
Suder's life and Bork's life were made available to everybody on four
networks, seven days a week. But here are fourteen file cabinets hidden
for thirty-five years since the death of this fornicating communist,
that you can't look at.

     Why? Why?

     I said, why?

     You have access to information about all the Republicans, and Jimmy
Swaggart. And there are books and magazines written about Jim and Tammy
Bakker. Where's the material on Martin Luther King Jr.? He was made into
a national hero. Why didn't somebody make a national hero out of Jimmy
Swaggart?

     You say, "Because of the evidence." What evidence? Why, all the
evidence against Swaggart came from paranoia; didn't you know that? You
said it did on King. All the evidence against Swaggart came from
puritanical bigots who couldn't appreciate a "healthy animal life."
That's what they said about King. All of Jimmy Swaggart's enemies were
"sexually obsessed," were they? That's what you said about King! Do you
know why you cover up for one man and sink the other man? Because of
their color!

     You're a racist!

     That's what a racist does.

     The NAACP is a racist organization, founded by a racist who was a
communist. And the reason why you hang Swaggart for one or two misdeeds,
and let this continual lying fornicator go for a dozen (it's in the
files), is because he was black and Jimmy was white.

     On January 15, don't forget that this fornicating communist's
birthday was also the birthday of Andrew Jackson. And when January comes
around, celebrate Andrew Jackson's birthday. But don't celebrate the
birthday of a man whose vile, filthy, obscene, wicked life was so
corrupt that even his own people couldn't read the record. That would be
the worst mistake you possibly could make.

     And if the person reading these words is a Christian, then take
heed and take warning. Don't you stand before the Judgment Seat of
Christ and be held accountable for observing the holiday in honor of a
fornicating communist who is one of the biggest religious hypocrites who
ever lived in this country. I say that to you whether you're black or
white.

     A whore-hopping adulterer who will lie about his political
affiliations, when they're known and can be proved, and whose life is so
obscene it can't even bear examination by his own friends in his own
race, is not the kind of a man you'd better have been found supporting
at the Judgment Seat of Christ.

     "What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?"




------------------------------------------------------------------------

(transcribed from a tape, "America's Greatest Fornicating Communist," by
Dr. Peter S. Ruckman. Bible Baptist Bookstore, Pensacola, FL.)
