“Full truth of the assassination revealed and adjudicated in a court of law.”

In 1999 a US court found that the United States government was directly involved in the murder of the most significant American black public figure of the twentieth century: Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. As attorney William Pepper observes in his 2003 book, An Act of State: The Execution of Martin Luther King, the civil rights leader was the focus of US “[Military Intelligence Group] officers” who “were responsible for eye-to-eye surveillance operations which included audio and video recordings of people and events designated as targets. Dr. King was a target and throughout the last year of his life was under surveillance by one or another MIG team.”

This and similar historical revelations were almost entirely censored by US corporate media and have thus been largely expunged from the official historical record, popular memory, and the curriculum of most every grade and high school history class, where students are still incorrectly told that an angry white man, James Earl Ray, was the sole assassin. In fact, as discussed below, Ray was entirely vindicated by these very court proceedings.

Like the assassinations of JFK and RFK, or the events of 9/11, the US public is assured of its innocence and consoled by government, mass media, and its very educational institutions with myths springing from a demonstrably false historical record.-JFT

The Transcription of the King Family Press Conference on the MLK Assassination Trial Verdict

The King Center
December 9, 1999
Atlanta, GA

H/t Washingtons Blog

CORETTA SCOTT KING: There is abundant evidence of a major high level conspiracy in the assassination of my husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. And the civil court’s unanimous verdict has validated our belief. I wholeheartedly applaud the verdict of the jury and I feel that justice has been well served in their deliberations. This verdict is not only a great victory for my family, but also a great victory for America. mlkIt is a great victory for truth itself. It is important to know that this was a SWIFT verdict, delivered after about an hour of jury deliberation. The jury was clearly convinced by the extensive evidence that was presented during the trial that, in addition to Mr. Jowers, the conspiracy of the Mafia, local, state and federal government agencies, were deeply involved in the assassination of my husband. The jury also affirmed overwhelming evidence that identified someone else, not James Earl Ray, as the shooter, and that Mr. Ray was set up to take the blame.

I want to make it clear that my family has no interest in retribution. Instead, our sole concern has been that the full truth of the assassination has been revealed and adjudicated in a court of law. As we pursued this case, some wondered why we would spend the time and energy addressing such a painful part of the past. For both our family and the nation, the short answer is that we had to get involved because the system did not work. Those who are responsible for the assassination were not held to account for their involvement. This verdict, therefore, is a great victory for justice and truth. It has been a difficult and painful experience to revisit this tragedy, but we felt we had an obligation to do everything in our power to seek the truth. Not only for the peace of mind of our family but to also bring closure and healing to the nation. We have done what we can to reveal the truth, and we now urge you as members of the media, and we call upon elected officials, and other persons of influence to do what they can to share the revelation of this case to the widest possible audience. I know that this has been a difficult case for everyone involved. I thank the jury and Judge Swearington for their commitment to reach a just verdict, I want to also thank our attorneys, Dr. William Pepper and his associates for their hard work and tireless dedication in bringing this case to justice. Dr. Pepper has put many years of his life, as well as his financial resources, into this case. He has made significant personal sacrifices to pursue the search for the truth about my husband’s assassination.

I want to thank my son Dexter, who showed great courage and perseverance and who took a lot of unmerited and personal attacks so we could get to the truth about the assassination. And I want to thank my other children, Yolanda, Martin and Bernice who have kept the faith, refused to become embittered and have remained steadfast in their efforts to pursue the truth of their father’s assassination. My husband once said, “The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” Today, almost 32 years after my husband and the father of my four children was assassinated, I feel that the jury’s verdict clearly affirms this principle. With this faith, we can begin the 21st century and the new millennium with a new spirit of hope and healing.

DEXTER KING: I would just like to say that this is such a heavy moment for me. Yet while my heart is heavy, and this is a bittersweet occasion, bitter because we are dealing with tragedy, a tragedy that occurred some 32 years ago, but, yet today, we are still dealing with it. It is sweet because finally we know what happened. Sweet because this family has been vindicated, sweet because we can say that we are truly free at last. We can now move on with our lives. I want to give a real thanks to my mother, for her leadership and her tireless effort in carrying this burden all this time. You know we as children at that time were so young that we did not really understand what was going on. To my siblings, who have been here and been steadfast, to my aunt, we as a family have been unified around this effort. We finally got what we have been asking for, the opportunity to present evidence that we always felt would bring the truth out in a court of law. To have had 12 individual jurors to bear what we have been saying, that if the American public were allowed to really hear, they too would conclude what has now been concluded by those 12. I want to make a special thanks to Dr. William Pepper, for really if it were not for his efforts, we would not have known about this. We really would not have gotten involved. We can say that because of the evidence and information obtained in Memphis we believe that this case is over. This is a period in the chapter. We constantly hear reports, which troubles me, that this verdict creates more questions than answers. That is totally false. Anyone who sat in on almost four weeks of testimony, with over seventy witnesses, credible witnesses I might add, from several judges to other very credible witnesses, would know that the truth is here. The question now is, “What will you do with that?” We as a family have done our part. We have carried this mantle for as long as we can carry it. We know what happened. It is on public record. The transcripts will be available; we will make them available on the Web at some point. Any serious researcher who wants to know what happened can find out.

And I just want to state for the record for once and for all, that those of you in the media who may innocently be reporting that inaccuracy, you know, because you may be legitimately ignorant about the facts, I want to clear that up now. Those of you who may be a part of the media manipulation, you too can hear this. The word that always comes forth first, that James Earl Ray confessed, is not true. He never confessed. He plea bargained. Any of you that understand the legal process understand that plea bargain is not the same as a confession. Why? Essentially it is put forth in an effort to get a lenient sentence. Also, it is an admission to having committed the crime. The second thing, is that this verdict was not, as has been reported, a conspiracy that said others were involved other than James Earl Ray. That is not what that jury voted on. I want to be clear about that. They clearly voted on evidence that stated that James Earl Ray was not the shooter, that he was set up, that he was an unknown patsy. That Lloyd Jowers, along with his coconspirators, that the jury also concluded involved state, local and federal agencies. I want to be clear about that, because you keep hearing duplicitous reports. I also want to put to rest for once and for all, that no one is qualified to speak on this case except the people who were there, the jurors, the family and, of course, the legal team. Just because someone says they marched with Dr. King does not make them an authority on this subject, whether they are political conduits or government publicists who continue to recycle these lies and continue to discredit this family. This is what happened to my father. There is a very distinct process or protocol that happens when there is an issue of national security. First, there is an attempt to discredit ones credibility. Second, there is harassment. And finally, if that does not work, termination or elimination. That is what happened to our loved one, because he challenged the establishment. He spoke out against the war in Vietnam. He talked about dealing with poverty, by taking poor people to Washington. There was also an interest in the political process. He became too powerful. Let us not forget, as my mother said, that it was the failure of the system to do the right thing by its citizens, who first and foremost caused and created a Martin Luther King Jr. and others to get out on the front line and be beaten, brutalized and even killed. And now, it is the failure of the system to do the right thing, which is now to find out who killed this man. Because they themselves will have to show bloody hands. So it is left up to our efforts as private citizens, as he was a private citizen who had to seek other means through private regress. We thank God for democracy. There is still in America a system, even with all of its shortcomings, that in some cases justice can be achieved. So we believe that this verdict speaks to that last bastion of this democracy. Where 12 independent people could hear something and that you and I am also given the opportunity to hear and to know. So in that regard we celebrate.

Finally, we know that because this has occurred after 32 years, we can finally move on with our lives. We don’t care what the justice department does. This is another misnomer. We did not do this to force their hand. I doubt seriously that they will indict themselves, for who polices the police? That is up to the American public. We, [the King family] have done our part. Those of you, if you find it in your hearts to get the “powers that be” to officialize what 12 independent people have already done, that is your business. We know what happened. This is the period at the end of the sentence. Please, after today, we do not want questions like; “do you believe that James Earl Ray killed your father?” I have been hearing that all of my life. No, I don’t. This is the end of it. Thank you.

MARTIN LUTHER KING, III: First I want to say, well done brother, well said. On behalf of all of the persons who worked with my father and as the spokesperson of the organization that he cofounded, SCLC, I don’t think that I can say much more than what my brother Dexter has said, and what my mother has said. Certainly this has been a very, very long time coming. It essentially says that the truth can in fact come through. It essentially says that if you keep working forward, sometimes for some, even in the twilight, that one day you will reach the conclusion of truth. This could not have happened without a lot of people. I too, want to thank Dr. Pepper and his team, who have been working on this for almost 20 plus years. I too, must thank my brother, who basically sat us down and had the courage to encourage us to take on this issue that we knew was going to be a process of maybe, attempting to discredit this family. Some people have said that we are crazy. Some have stated that we were trying to do other things. The only thing we have ever tried to do was to seek that which is true. So while this is in a sense closing for us, or may be the end of a chapter for us, it might be just the beginning for others, as my brother Dexter has stated and my mother has stated.

We are very pleased this day. I hope that this will give others encouragement to always seek that which is true. Thank you.

BERNICE KING: I guess I will speak, for I have never spoken before regarding the assassination of my father. I was only 3 years old. You may remember me as the one in my mother’s lap at the funeral. I don’t have much to say, because in a real sense I recall words that were spoken when the decision came down from the Supreme Court, regarding the bus boycott in Montgomery, Alabama. The words spoken were that “God had spoken” from the Supreme Court. I think that God has spoken from 12 independent jurors in Memphis, Tennessee concerning my father’s assassination. As somewhat the spiritual leader for this family, because I am an ordained Christian Minister, I have to truly give praise to God for what has happened. We cannot know that God is not a liar. He has spoken his word that I will never leave you, not forsake you, that I will be with you until the end of the earth. So I praise God for what may happen. I thank God for my family. My family praises God for Attorney William Pepper, for his diligent and tireless efforts. There is a word in scripture that says do not be weary in what you are doing, for in due season you will reap if you faint not. Today, we have reaped a harvest, not only for us alone, but also for this nation. And I believe that ultimately God is going to speak even more truth in regards to the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., because as we said from the beginning, even though we needed a sense of peace and satisfaction to have the record set straight, the reality is that it is not who killed Martin Luther King, Jr., but as we go forth into the new millennium, as a nation, but what killed Martin Luther King, Jr. Because whenever we get to what killed Martin Luther King, Jr., then we will deal with the various injustices that we face as a nation and ultimately as a nation that leads this world. So I thank God for what has happened. I thank the American people for their voices that have been relentless in this pursuit in various ways. Even to those who have not been able to speak at this point, I thank God for their prayers.

WILLIAM PEPPER: Ladies and Gentlemen, this great republic has throughout its history, has been afraid to face the issues that Martin Luther King tried to confront at the end of his life. Dexter King said quite frankly, that Martin King opposed the war in Vietnam, and sought to bring the poor to Washington to rally for their cause in the halls of Congress. They took up tents in the shadow of the Washington Memorial to remind the lawmakers that forces of power in this land that do exist, and they have rights which were being denied to them.

Because he took on those forces, powerful economic forces that dominated politics in this land, they killed him. He was killed because he could not be stopped. He was killed because they feared that half a million people would rise in revolution in the capitol of this country, and do what Mr. Jefferson said needed to be done every 20 years, to cleanse this land. This land has not been cleansed. This nation has not faced the problems that Martin Luther King, Jr. died trying to face and confront. They still exist today, the forces of evil, the powerful economic forces that dominate the government of this land and make money on war and deprive the poor of what is their right, their birthright. They still abound and they rule.

The jury heard the background of Dr. King’s crust. They understood, finally, the reason why he was stained. He was not a civil rights leader when he was stained. He was an international figure of great stature. He had a moral banner that he was waving and it was heard and seen all over the land. Here and in Europe, Southeast Asia. He had that kind of compelling presence. He was a danger and a threat to the status quo. So he was eliminated.

What the jury also heard, from all of those witnesses for almost four weeks, was that he was assassinated because of the removal of the all police protection when he was in the city of Memphis. Even Black Firemen were taken away. His body guard staff were removed. Attack forces were moved back. On and on it went. And then the Mafia involvement with Jowers was put forth in excruciating detail of how this was planned and who was behind this.

The man who controlled James Earl Ray was identified by independent witnesses from spreads of photographs they had seen. Like a British journalist showed a photograph of this man to his daughter and she said anybody could get this photo of my father identifying him heading others. A Portuguese journalist met with the family and was told how the government of the United States was protecting this man. Now, in their homes protecting their phones. Who is this person? Who is this person that the government continues to protect? Against what kind of assault? Then the proof goes into the broader conspiracy. The fact that had you known that there were photographers on the roof of the fire station. Had you known that two army photographers were on the roof of the fire station photographing everything. Two cameras, one on the balcony and one whisking around the driveway and into the brush area. Did you know ladies and gentlemen that the assassination was photographed? That there were photographs buried in the archives at the Department of Defense? No you did not know. And you know why you did not know? Because there was no police investigation in this case. No house to house investigation. Neighbors as late as two weeks later stated “they never knocked on my door, now let me tell you what I saw.” And she takes the stand and she tells what she saw. She tells that she saw a fireman tell the police that the shot came from those bushes there, and the police ignored him. Seeing a man run from an alley and get into a car and is whipped away right in front of the police. And the police not bothering at all to stop him. No, no, no, you did not know about any of this did you? They didn’t talk to the Captain who ran the fire station. No one talked to that man in thirty years. He put the photographers up there. He took the stand and stated, “yeah I put them up there. They showed me credentials saying they wanted to take pictures.” Where are those pictures? That proof has existed for all of these years.

It’s there. It has been buried.

The tragedy of the death of Martin Luther King, Jr. is a tragedy for this family here. This family in my view is America’s first family because of their struggle and for what they have stood for, going back for generations, going back to 1917, the first world war period, this family was under surveillance by military intelligence back then. Up to the present time they have been feared. So that is a tragedy for this family. It is a tragedy for this nation and to the world that this man was taken from us when he was.

The third tragedy was the failure of representative democracy to deal with this as a political act. This type of act which was covered up. How was it covered up? Well, the jury heard evidence as to how it was covered up for 31 years. And ladies and gentlemen, the evidence they heard ranged from murder, murder of a poor innocent cab driver who was putting luggage into a taxi cab in the driveway of the Loraine Motel and who saw the shooter come down over the wall, run down Mulberry Street and get into a waiting Memphis Police traffic car to be driven away. He told his dispatcher, “Oh, they got the killer. I saw him being driven away in a Memphis Police Department traffic car.” What happened to that poor taxi cab driver? He was interviewed by the police that night and they found his body the next morning. NO record of that death exists. NO record exists. If we had not found people whom he had told that story, who heard him on the very night we would have never known about this.

Then we have to go to the directories and find out who was his wife and who he was. To see his listings in the directories in 66 and 67, and then in 68, see “Betty” his widow. He is dead, he is gone and he is history. So it goes from murder, down through bribery. James Earl Ray was offered large sums of money on two occasions: when he was in prison and a pardon if he would plead guilty. He did not do it.

There was evidence of attempted assassination of James when he was in prison. Evidence was produced of how they tried to get rid of James, how they tried to kill him when he was in prison. We went all through all of that. Then ladies and gentlemen, the media. Because this could not have been covered up without the help of the media. This is not a condemnation of the good works of journalists who come and write stories and put them through to your editors and watch them publish, or television cameramen who do your jobs as you are supposed to do it. It has to do with forces that ultimately decide what gets on the air, what gets in print and what the slant is. So we put Bill Shat who is one of the leading experts on media this information and propaganda used by government on the stand, and he explained in detail how governments have done this historically and how they have done it down to the present time. He explained how they took this family on when they decided they were going to come out for a trial for James Earl Ray. And how they took Martin King on when he came out against the war in Vietnam.

And remember, when Dr. King came out against that war, it made everyone come out against him. The media attacked him like there was no tomorrow. Just like the media attacked his family like there is no tomorrow when they did what was right. It is the job of the media to disclose. Not the job to hide. This has been covered up, it has been hidden all of these years. Now the jury has spoken. And what did the verdict say? And they are going to be trotted out and here comes the spins, “Oh the Judge was asleep during a lot of the trial and he didn’t hear a lot of the evidence. Oh there was a lot of hearsay there.” Not mentioning the admissions against interest are omitted if there is hearsay.

One thing after another like this by people who have never seen him, who have never heard him, who are not interested in the efforts, but who have got a locked in position that says that there was a lone assassin and that is always the way it is going to be. Well let us hope that together we can somehow make a step so that we can end this nonsense. We can end this nonsense. We can end this cover up. We can say for once and for all that a jury has spoken. They heard everything. If there is any decency left in this system, it is the fact that you can get 12 people who can hear what other people have to say, they can review documents, there are about 50 exhibits that they were able to review, and they can make up their own minds.

The defense tried several times to have the case dismissed. The Judge refused. So it did go to a jury and that jury has spoken. Let’s hope this is a forum, which we can say, is healing. We have reached the truth. The family is satisfied. What the government does, the government can do. The government may do now what it has never done before. If they want to take it up now, let them take it up. The real, real ongoing, almost criminal aspect of the case that still exists, is the fact that this family privately had to do what the government has not done and would not do. Make no mistake about it, all the evidence that was heard in that court over the course of the last 30 days has been available for 32 years. It has been there right in front of them. All they had to do was look, ask questions, believe credible people who were willing to talk to them, and not further go away because there were black shop owners and they didn’t know what they heard when he heard the man say, shoot the son of a B when he comes on the balcony. He didn’t know and he didn’t understand that. This was a businessman from Somerville.

In the traditional history of the country, where a person who was a friend and a colleague of a victim, only for one year, the last year of his life, but during that year the friend and colleague of the victim decided 20 years later the convicted murderer of that victim. Then eventually came to represent the family in the final quest of justice. That has been the process that I follow. That has been the result. We have at last obtained justice. Martin King was always fond of saying in moments of trial, that truth crushed to earth, no matter how much it is crushed, will always rise again. Ladies and Gentlemen, in that courtroom yesterday in Memphis, Tennessee, finally that truth crushed to earth rose again. Today we acknowledge that truth.

DEXTER KING: I want to thank all of you for being so patient and for coming out to cover this. At this moment, we have now ended our formal statements and would now like to open it up for questions.

Answer to Question by Dexter King: What should happen next as you have heard, we really have no control over. I don’t mean to sound rash or insensitive, but we really don’t care at this time. As my father used to say, in healthy self-interest, this family is now hoping to cleanse and to heal and move. Closure. This is it for us. We are here to say that we feel that we can move on from here.

Answer to Question by Dexter King: No, no, Mr. Jowers did name names. That is another misnomer. Why is there so much misinformation. The only thing I can say is that if anybody wants to really take time they should read these transcripts. Ironically, I happen to get a call from Mr. Jowers on my way over here on my cell phone. He called to basically say that he wanted the family to know and to express to you, Mother Dear, that he never wanted nor intended any harm to us and that he is glad this is off of his chest. He is glad the jury ruled the way they did. He said that his attorney does not even know that I am talking to you, and I don’t care. I don’t have much longer and I don’t care what is going to happen to me now. He is very afraid of an indictment. That is the reason he was never willing to come forward. Dr. Pepper kept telling him that he did not have to worry, because they do not want the truth, so you are not going to get indicted. If they indict you, that will throw away all the “official” story, which we now know is not.

Question: There are many people out there who feel that as long as these conspirators remain nameless and faceless there is no true closure, and no justice.

Dexter King: No, he named the shooter. The shooter was the Memphis Police Department Officer, Lt. Earl Clark who he named as the killer. Once again, beyond that you had credible witnesses that named members of a Special Forces team who didn’t have to act because the contract killer succeeded, with plausible denial, a Mafia contracted killer.

Question: I’m sorry, my question goes to the family’s feelings. There are those who feel that as long as this greater conspiracy that has remained faceless and nameless and until there are faces and names attached to that conspiracy that justice will not be served. The family doesn’t share that view?

Dexter King: Well no, because we know. I guess I am not making myself clear. There is an institutional framework on how these things happen. So if you want to go back and do the research for those who want to know who gives an order. I do know certain things about the military, and the commander in chief has to make certain commitments for certain troops to be committed domestically. In this instance, there was denial that the troops were not there, Special Forces were not there. But in fact, with the Captain of the Firehouse, which Atty. Pepper had on the stand, said he put the Army Special Ops. photographers on the roof. There was another witness that talked about all the Army Officers, a Memphis Police Officer, an inspector who talked about all the army brass that was there. He said that he had never seen that much Army Brass in his office ever before. So all of this information is there. It’s just that no one has really looked. This is the most incredible cover up of the century. I can’t even believe it. It is mindboggling. But again, if anybody wants to go do the research, and we do live in an age of microwave society and everybody wants things like that (very quickly), but if anyone is serious about sitting down and going through this, they will come up with the same conclusions as we did and 12 other people did as well.

Question: So the family doesn’t necessarily want to see those people spend time in jail?

Dexter King: No, we were never in this for a retribution of justice. We follow the spirit of our loved one. He forgave the woman who almost took his life, if you recall, when he was stabbed. I personally witnessed my grandfather forgiving the killer of his wife when I was 13 years of age. The only thing that this family and I have ever talked about is reconciliation. We are a family of love. We try to walk the walk and not just talk the talk. We are never looking to put people in jail. What we are looking to do is cleanse the society because these ills still exist. Just as my sister stated so eloquently, it is not who killed Martin Luther King, Jr., but what killed him and why was he killed. He was killed because he was addressing injustices that today still have not been addressed.

Dexter King: So once again, we want to thank each and every one of you for coming out. We are hopeful about whatever the powers that be decide, but that is on them. But we caution you, be wary. You will be hearing attacks that the family is in this for money. I can tell you and I can show you the receipts. We have spent a lot of money. And we have lost a lot of money because of this. There is no gain. As you know, the verdict rendered a small, nominal sum. We requested a hundred dollars because there had to be some damages, because it was a wrongful death suit. We did that because we were never in this for money. We spent money. We had to pay for some 70 odd witnesses to appear and all their expenses.

But you cannot put a price on freedom. And certainly you cannot place a price on death. So the thing we hope for is that we can move forward into this new millennium, coming into the Christmas Season.

Question: Can you tell us something from your conversation this morning with Mr. Jowers?

Dexter King: He simply stated that he wanted me to know, as well as my family and my mother (he asked me about my mother), that he is sorry for all of this. But he said that he is glad that it turned out the way it did. He said what happens, happens. That he does not know what will happen to him as he gets to his age. He is still fearful as a result of all of this that he is going to go to prison. The first time I met with him, that was the first thing he was concerned about. He said, “I don’t want to go to jail. I am an old man and I am so afraid.” Even though the Justice Department granted him federal immunity, he is concerned and worried about the issue of state immunity, the state of Tennessee. We assured him that if that were the case, we would certainly make a stand to grant immunity. We would support that kind of thing.

Question: Did he say anything in this conversation about his role in the assassination?

Dexter King: Well not in this conversation, but on several other occasions. At least two occasions that I met with him. At another time he actually called names. It was somewhat of a confessional thing, because he would call me sometimes late into the evening just to talk. You could tell it was a cleansing process. Why does a person who is almost, you know, terminal in a sense….even James Earl Ray was offered a liver transplant he would’ve just said that he did it. Why would someone take that to their graves? Especially if they had a chance to have a little more life?

Question: This is to Mr. Pepper. Was there anything that came out in the trial that you didn’t know about?

William Pepper: Lydia Cayton came forward when the trial was about to begin. She lived just down the street from the Lorraine Motel. On the afternoon of the shooting, she heard the shots and grabbed her two children and ran down to the corner, about 8 minutes after the shooting. One of her neighbors stood with her. She was the one who saw a man run from an alley that connected to a building of the rooming house, and get into a Chevrolet Corvair and drive around the corner, while the police stood there on the corner of Mulberry. She also saw a fireman screaming at the police that a shot came from the bushes. Ms. Cayton’s evidence and courage is very important. The courage of the Fire Department Captain to come forward and talk about putting the photographers up on the roof. These people were concerned and frightened. That I think was significant. The testimony of the main witness who talked to the cab driver who was killed, Louis Ward. And the taxi driver who talked about the network television team, who drove to the airport after they had given Mr. Jowers a lie detector test. This was very important. They gave Mr. Jowers a lie detector test at one point, and you will hear that Mr. Jowers failed the lie detector test. They came in and told him that he failed at the end of it. While this team was being driven to the airport, they were talking about Jowers, and because he knew Mr. Jowers, his ear perked up. He heard the examiner in the front seat say, “There is nothing I can do to get him to waver.” And the passengers in the back, asking, “Well how does a man retain so much detail like that? How can he recollect that so accurately?” The front seat passenger said in reply, “I don’t know, I couldn’t get him to

lie.” And when a program aired, Jowers was still shown as failing the lie detector test. That cab driver came forward. Another cab driver and security guard, who lived another 15 years, a man called James McGraw, came forward and he tried not to testify, but eventually he did. He said, that a close friend of Mr. Jowers got drunk and every time he was intoxicated over a period of 15 years, and they lived together, he would always go back to one thing he did, that he, McGraw, after the assassination, was told by Jowers to take this rifle and get rid of it. He threw it off of the Memphis-Arkansas Bridge into the Mississippi River. That is where the murder weapon has lain for 32 years. McGraw said he would never talk about it when he was sober, always when he got drunk and the details were always the same. Always the same. He found him credible and McGraw was very close with Jowers. That is the kind of evidence that emerged as the trial went on. The jury found all of this persuasive. A Head of Intelligence, The United States Department admitted that he had no trained intelligence officers in his office and that even they were a nuisance at one point and time. The man who headed the Protective Unit for Dr. King was never informed of the last visit. He stated that they were told to protect him every time he came in early, but not the last time. The man who learned about the change in Dr. King’s ,that he was supposed to be in room 201, a courtyard room. That was then changed to room 206, which was an exposed balcony room.

Then there is the whole thing about the bushes…the bushes. So many witnesses saw figures in the bushes and the shooter coming down over the bushes and running. You know the next morning at 7 o’clock, Inspector Sam Evans, from the Memphis Police Department pulled Maynard Styles, the Administrator of the Public Works Department and told Mr. Styles to get a team out there and cut those bushes down. At seven a.m., on the 5th of April, a team is sent to cut down the bushes. Now what does that mean in police terms? It means that you have totally devastated and changed the scene of a crime so that it is never the same. If there are no bushes, there can be no sniper. So that is the kind of thing that they did. This unfolded throughout.

The most moving testimony was probably that of a former government operative, a very credible guy of the National Security Council, who is now dying of liver cancer. His best friend was on the sniper unit, 20 Special Forces team there. He told how he learned about that unit and how they were assigned and what they were to do from his buddy back in the seventies. His testimony was riveting, even though it was on a screen, because he was dying from liver cancer and could not attend. There is so much evidence that emerged in the court about a whole range of activity that if I summarize I am going to leave something out. I encourage anyone who is interested to go and review the records, to digest the records and look over them, and the exhibits that are all available. There are certain military documents and certain names in there, even some of my working papers are available. I am asked to remind you that if anyone wants to communicate with me by email, you can at: wpinclawus@aol.com. So I am happy to receive any inquiries at any time and any information at any time. We have come to the end of a long road. I encourage you to go and put questions to whoever you want to in government, for it is now in the hands of the government to do whatever they will do. Hopefully, it will not be to continue covering this up. But I would have to be skeptical of any other result. Thank you.

Leave a Reply

95 thought on “The Execution of Martin Luther King”
  1. All intelligence units, from the FBI Intelligence Units, to state and local law enforcement intelligence units (“LEIU”) are a de facto arm of the CIA and military intelligence. The military and CIA are prohibited from domestic operations per posse comitatus and statutory mandate (although we have noted a withering of posse comitatus). These types of domestic military operations, including targeted assassinations, are a direct result of the failure to preserve a legally mandated firewall between the military, and their proxy agencies, and, civilian policing by the FBI Criminal Units, et. al.

  2. On Fetzer’s show 5 years ago, Herman discussed the Pepper book and court judgement, and Pepper’s and the King family’s view that King was assassinated because of his social policies and the possibility that he might inspire a prolonged mass-protest in D.C.

    In the discussion thread I laid out an alternative motive that better fits ALL the known facts, including the complicity of the media, government and academy that Fetzer and Herman were right to say have been complicit in the cover-up.

    I began,

    “What spurred me to join this discussion was the idea voiced at around the 16/17 minute mark by host and guest that we should not judge Martin Luther King on the content of his character. Kind of ironic. And silly. You certainly get a better estimate of a man’s character from the way he conducts his daily, private affairs, than by what slogans he signs up to publicly. ‘End Poverty’ — we’d all echo that, but not all of us live on the donations of religious and political supporters, some no doubt quite poor themselves, spending their contributions on prostitutes and booze!

    “But there is a better reason to dwell momentarily on the matter of MLK’s known peccadilloes. Political enemies of MLK, those who opposed him on race, Vietnam, or poverty, could quite easily have destroyed his reputation and by association tarnished his ideas, by simply revealing what was known to everyone in Washington about the man: the many adulterous affairs, the prostitutes, the violence against women, the communist handlers, the kind of language he used in private … To expose these facts to the public at large would have been quite simple and would destroy completely King’s credibility and the ‘moral’ force behind his political crusades, so why on earth would political enemies bother with an assassination and all its attendant risks? It makes no sense — especially as history has unfolded in the decades since. The same political, media, legal, and academic establishment we all agree is responsible for the assassination and cover-up also made King into a secular saint and his headline politics taboo to question.

    “Think also of the man they framed for his murder – James Earl Ray. Even if King’s political opponents had decided on a complex and risky assassination plot rather than simply expose him for the degenerate thug he was – which seems unlikely – why wouldn’t they frame one of their own opponents for the crime, one of King’s political fellow-travellers, another Black activist, or a drugged out peacenik or a communist? Why frame Ray and bring King’s opposition into disrepute? What kind of frame-up was this? William Pepper has expressed surprise at the fact that Ray, who’s White of course, was not a racist motivated by opposition to the ‘civil rights’ movement. And why did he suppose Ray to be a racist? Because that’s the impression we’ve all been implanted with by the controlled corporate media that Carl Herman rightly says has lied to us about these affairs for five decades. It would appear that the racial element of King’s crusading matters more to the criminal establishment than the anti-war or anti-poverty stances — and that they side with King.

    “For these reasons it has always seemed to me that, all else being equal, the evidence suggests that the elements within the government involved in the King assassination and cover-up were vastly more likely to have been King’s fellows in left-wing, ‘civil rights’, or anti-war politics than to have been opposed to these initiatives. And there are obvious potential motives that stand out for assassination by these elements:

    “1) Fear that the right, or the pro-war faction, would expose the truth about the content of King’s character, damaging the common interests he shared with the conspirators.

    “2) Fear that King, having been built up into a chief spokesman for these common interests was about to go off the reservation on some or other issue in opposition to the conspirators.

    “The first speaks for itself and I think it’s very likely that the King assassination was designed in part to prevent such an occurrence. The second I shall flesh out in another post.”

    1. If one understands the Israeli/Zionist playbook it makes perfect sense that the Mossad would set up this execution, they killed and straffed our sailors of the USS Liberty in this period, not to mention other heinous terrorists acts,
      and the power of Martin Luther King to turn the world’s attention upon the Palestinians, and the can of worms that was going to open-these people would destroy the planet to prevent this from coming out-much less one black man

      1. The Israelis attacked the USS Liberty because Lyndon Johnson ordered them to. Just as he successfully used a made-up event (Gulf of Tonkin) to ramp up war in Vietnam, he intended to create a real atrocity off the coast of Egypt, blame it on Egypt, thus getting America into Egypt–the intent being to kick out the Soviets. It was a Cold War plot.

        What “other heinous terrorists acts” you nave in mind, I’d certainly like to hear about. I know of none.

        As for the Arabs who recently started to call themselves “Palestinians” (that was what immigrant Jews who returned to Zion had always called themselves), until the Six Day War they were all in territories controlled by Egypt (Gaza) and Jordan (Judea and Samaria). So they were not Israel’s problem yet. If King thought they needed attention, prior to June 1967, it would have been Egypt and Jordan he’d be talking about, not Israel. Why he would have taken a sudden interest in them in the few months after the War is beyond me.

        You say King was going to “turn the world’s attention upon the Palestinians”; is it only because they were now under a new administration that he thought that would be an important thing to do? Did he not care when Arabs ruled over that particular bunch of Arabs, but only became interested when they became the responsibility of Jews? If so, why? Was he an anti-Semite, looking for an excuse to make trouble for the Jewish state? This is a very strange theory you have, sunaj.

        1. Patrick
          According to Loftus & Aarons the attackers of Uss Liberty wanted to silence the transmitter which had been transmitting intel to the arabs (Egypts) informing them about some of Israels removal of tanks from Gaza for the Golans in order for Egypt to be able to strike at the now weakened area. The Liberty had an NSA crew and their position was optimized for listening to those weak transmitters in the Israeli tanks.
          Secret war against the jews p 179-186
          This doesnt outrule that Johnson could have been in on it but that would make it akin to the complex type of deception familiar from British escapades like Gallipoli. I mean some branch of the Us elites maybe wanted an authentic cooperation with the egypts while another branch would make sure it failed but with the egyptians not suspecting their collaborator.

        2. Johnson allowed the Israelis to get away with cold blooded murder and an act of wa,r no doubt for fear of Jewish power and influence,
          there isn’t any evidence that Johnson was responsible for ordering it, if so p[lease post it
          none of it makes any difference as far as the blood in Israel’s hands, and American soldiers and citizens are still waiting for these murderers to be held accountable

        3. More ridiculous nonsense. How on Earth could Israel benefit by an insane attack on its chief benefactor? It’s just idiocy to think that. Blind Jew-hatred. It WAS indeed “cold blooded murder” because Israel was ordered to do it, like a hit man in the Mafia.

          You say “there isn’t any evidence that Johnson was responsible for ordering it,” but he was quoted as saying, in his rage when he learned that the ship was not sinking, “I want that god damned ship on the ocean floor” You want documentation? Here are the results of a search on that phrase: https://startpage.com/do/search

          I’m guessing Israel did it because Johnson made them an offer they couldn’t refuse. He was one of the most evil men ever to hold power in America. Israel was a new country, still relatively weak. Israel needed America in 1967 (it no longer does). Johnson “needed” to get the Soviets out of Egypt. A false flag would do the trick, he thought.

        4. I don’t know your credentials but your comment is absurd,
          the Israelis came to be hated by the British soldiers in Palestine , whom they committed acts of terroism against up until the establishment of Israel, then their campaign against the Palestinians became brutal, killing, murdering, robbing, displacing-
          if you are denying this then as far as I am concerned you’re nothing but a paid debunker, denying what is evident for even the least capable researchers,
          for anyones information I wish to introduce you to the Jewish Internet Defense Force which was referenced to earlier on this blog,
          who infiltrates blogs, chatroons etc. for the purpose of debunking any information that is critical of Zionist/Jewish interests-that an organization like this is even sanctioned at all is outrageous,
          and more evidence of the Jewish criminal controls in our society

        5. In your reply to Peter, you asked for documentation that Johnson ordered the attack on the USS Liberty. I replied, but the comment went straight to moderation. While we wait, here’s part of what I said, so you can look it up:

          You say “there isn’t any evidence that Johnson was responsible for ordering it,” but he was quoted as saying, in his rage when he learned that the ship was not sinking, “I want that god damned ship on the ocean floor”

          Do a search on that quote. You will find that it has been well reported.

          As for what you say here, to me, you are an historical ignoramus, motivated by irrational hate. You present a ridiculous list of lies, and than say “if you are denying this….” Of course I’m denying it. It’s total rubbish. And if someone is paying me to correct your lies, they must have lost my address, because the check hasn’t arrived.

          Perhaps you have heard of the “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement.” Jed Babbin has written a book about it: http://www.amazon.com/The-BDS-War-Against-Israel-ebook/dp/B00KHECSFY

          You apparently think any attempt to counter such a coordinated existential threat is illegitimate. I don’t. If the world is ganging up against someone through a massive propaganda campaign, the only logical thing to do is point out the lies as fast as they come, which takes an equally coordinated effort. If you don’t agree, I can only assume it’s because you hate the people being lied about, and want the liars to win.

        6. Well Johnson was certainly part of the cover-up, and it is possible he did order it, after all he is one of the important players in this event, although I haven’t seen definitive proof he ordered it,
          but that doesn’t change anything, except that not only would Johnson be a criminal for covering this up he would also then be guilty of ordering it-if he did he had no more authority as president to order the deliberate killing of soldiers than Israel did-the Israelis attacked an American ship in neutral waters, they clearly new this was an act of war, and when our soldiers were in the water they strafed and killed many of those in the water,
          ‘anyone who wants to study this one incident among countless others can see what the survivors of the USS Liberty say about the crime http://www.usslibertyveterans.org/index.html
          and your ridiculous tirade is typical of what one encounters when arguing with Zionists, who refute every crime and evil deed Israel does, and attempt to rewrite history to suite the Zionist agenda,
          I suggest any readers who have any question about the brutal takeover of Palestine by the Rothschilds Zionist then and now to do their own research-it is abundant and irrefutable,
          despite the schills and paid debunkers like the Jewish Internet Defense Force, which of course is a rabid harassment cell that attempts to stifle any criticism of Zionist crimes

          Now you talk about hate?
          I’ll tell you what hate is-
          A criminal Banking Syndicate that controls, steals, manipulates our money supply, that installed itself into our government by murder, deceit, blackmail, bribes, etc, that causes wars for profit,causing the untold misery and death of millions of humans,
          a Zionist takeover of our media, politics, academia, banking, steering billions of taxpayer dollars (stolen) as aid to Israel, to pay for their wars of aggression,
          the deaths of our us soldiers in these dirty criminal wars,
          US taxpayers funding the nuclear arsenal of Israel (we have passed nuclear weapons and technology to Israel),
          the list goes on-I’m sure I’ll be listing many more…..

        7. I’ll say it again, you apparently think any attempt to counter the “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement” is something de facto wrong–that lies should go uncorrected.

          I think you are a tad bit selective when it comes to the principle behind your dudgeon in this matter, sunaj. For example, do you apply the same principle to the systematic, organized, agenda of lies James Tracy has been subjected to, with the same intended result–his total destruction? Do you feel the same disgust when he defends himself, refuting the lies as systematically?

          I didn’t think so.

          Hate explains it. One you hate, the other you don’t. Same situation, different analysis.

          You are obviously someone whose words are deeply worthy of taking seriously on this subject. Thanks for sharing.

          (Of course, essentially everything you say on this topic is false, libelous and ignorant, so be advised that that last line was sarcasm, in case you couldn’t detect it.)

      2. ” and the power of Martin Luther King to turn the world’s attention upon the Palestinians, and the can of worms that was going to open — these people would destroy the planet to prevent this from coming out-much less one black man”

        Yes, I think “these people” really would “destroy the planet”. That is why I describe them as nihilistic. THEY are already well on their way in the destruction of the planet. THEY are megalomaniacs.

      3. sunaj, I asked you for evidence that Martin King developed an interest in the the Arabs Israel took under its wing in the nine months after the Six Days War, as you assert. Please provide it. And don’t keep changing the subject. If you have such proof, provide it. If not, retract the assertion.

  3. continued …

    I thereafter demonstrate the Jewish role policing all sides of the Sixties’ debates and managing King, and also how King was,1) about to turn away from the Jewish-run ‘Civil Rights’ integrationist movement and adopt the more traditional positions of Black leaders and propose self-reliance and separatism; 2) intending to speak out in defense of the Palestinians. Then I point out how Pepper himself exposed a direct Jewish and Mossad link to the assassination, quoting alleged killer James Earl Ray,

    “Then, making the Palestinian issue much more solid, there’s Michael Collins Piper in Final Judgement who writes about Pepper’s findings:

    “William Pepper has noted, in his book, An Act of State, connections between Jack Ruby and James Earl Ray’s ubiquitous handler, “Raul,” to a Mossad-linked arms smuggling operation that was active at the time of the JFK assassination. So that’s a Mossad connection [to the MLK assassination] any way you cut it.

    “Pepper’s assertion involving the Mossad link to the arms smuggling operation involving Ruby is based on statements made to one of Pepper’s investigators by former Colonel John Downie of the 902nd Military Intelligence Group, a unit based inside the Department of Defense.

    “According to Downie, the mysterious figure “Raul”—whom King’s accused assassin, James Earl Ray, claimed had helped frame him (Ray) for King’s murder—was part of a U.S.-based international arms smuggling operation that Pepper had already determined—through other sources—involved Jack Ruby.

    “The link between “Raul” and Ruby was by no means tenuous: “Raul” and Ruby were placed together by Pepper’s sources on numerous occasions prior to the JFK assassination—five years before King’s murder.”

    /endquote Final Judgement

    Piper goes into some detail on this and related evidence that would be too confusing to post here. But then he quotes James Earl Ray in an early appeal conviction, claiming his handler ‘Raul’ was:

    “among other things, an agent of a Mideast organization distressed because of King’s reported, forthcoming, before his death, public support of the Palestinian Arab cause.”


    And Ray again to the House Assassinations Committee:

    “I don’t want to get into this libel area again and say something that might be embarrassing to—disservice some group or organizations . . . he [King] intended, like Vietnam, to support the Arab cause . . . someone in his organization making contact with the Palestinians for an alliance.”


    Ray is obviously an important witness for the Pepper thesis so these statements should be very significant to defenders of that book. If Ray is dishonest Act of State is much less credible, but if he was telling the truth, than his handler was an agent of the Mossad, anxious about King’s imminent declaration of solidarity with the Palestinians, and we have another potential Jewish motive for the assassination worthy of serious study.

  4. Thank you Dr. Tracy, for providing us with this transcript of the King`s family press conference. It was an eye opener when I first read it five years ago, doing some research into MLK murder and the conspiracy surrounding his death.

    What I think every reader or blogger should take from this transcript is the Kings` family powerful message of forgiveness and love. As Dexter King stated, when asked about why didn’t the family revealed names ? he said that his father was addressing the injustices in America, that to this day has never been addressed, and that no one can put a price on freedom or place a price on death.
    I hope and pray that one day in the near future my fellow African & European descendant Americans would espoused this type of living and wake up from the American nightmare, that we have been lulled into.

    I had the pleasure of meeting Ansil Saunders about 17 years ago , and I thought this video would be so relevant to the message of Martin Luther King Jr. and his acceptance of his coming death and forgiveness of those that murdered him.


    There is the connection of Adam Clayton Powell, but that`s a rabbit hole for another day.

  5. No disrespect to Martin.. Malcolm is a person to admire. Much more of an inspiration and the King family has copy wrighted so much no one can use his words!! That’s right wing. Historically King got into the movement after much pressure from activists, he liked his life just the way it was. He also made fun of JFK’s funeral. Obviously he was shot by the usual suspects, and the media never covered it. Nor have I hear any King member mention it on “alternative radio”. (And the Kennedys told him he was being taped/ they could not stop Hoover so they told him.) Sorry. But the decontextualization of all these easily known facts really bother me and it is ramping up, the zombie nature of “culture.”

    1. I have Betty’s comments on video tape, and she profoundly insisted that Malcolm DID NOT come back from travel, and “change”. Into say someone who would use while labels like “poor”, ect. That is another lie on top of many. We do not hear about Malcolm much more brutal murder by the same people because he was always ahead of the “game”. So to speak.

      1. I typed holding ltp on my knees.. White I meant. I also meant that in the best way. (I felt that way before. But was studying a media hit from early 2000s/ and CGI was bad/ the women dressed covered and their clothes didn’t always match.. It hit that — this supra ultra rich phoniness becoming normalized — is much more recent than imagined, and [frankly preachers never help IMO.]

    2. No disrespect taken, Stephanieanne.
      No one is stating that MLK was a saint. And I totally agree with you about Malcolm X, I remember as a young man growing up, with a father that was born during the depression, he would always say that the civil rights movement was co-opted by the socialist party and the Phelps Stokes Fund, and he was right.

  6. Just think: Coretta Scott King believed in Truth. She was a “truther” and thus hated. No wonder the suppression of truth continues. Perhaps there are hoaxes now, but in the past there were far more murders out in the open and known as such. The patsy era gave way to the hoax era, but we are no better off.

    Yesterday, I had a conversation with some naive (?) relatives of my husband, a generation younger than myself. Without ever having examined Sandy Hook deeply, the young woman said – “I thought that at least Sandy Hook would work to convince everyone to disarm, but I was wrong.” In other words, these events were trial balloons that flopped, and accomplished the opposite of what they must have set out to do. No, she would not have wanted to examine the hoax behind it, if it had worked to promote a policy she approved of.

    I played devil’s advocate (because I personally have no interest in owning a gun and never have) – to say that Prohibition seems to have accomplished the opposite of its intent. Well, she said, at least afterwards we had more regulation of drinking. I suppose we have more regulation of public drinking, but certainly not private, after it was repealed. And it left an entire generation convinced it was cool to get drunk as often as possible. I don’t like to think what her Prohibition of weapons would accomplish. But let’s face it, the police in our country would NEVER disarm as the pretty much are in that model antigun monarchy, Britain, where bobbies are unarmed. I note in passing that for her birthday, Prince William took Kate on a shooting trip and was proud of her bagging a bird. I also note that poaching in England was a hangable or deportable offense, and may still be heavily penalized, for all I know. There is not here, and the Battle Road of Lexington helped to make it so.

    You cannot wish away our own history and replace it with someone else’s, but I am not a Second Amendment absolutist either.

    It’s just frustrating to talk to people who live in their own idealist bubble, and I thought I needed to let some air in, and cordially challenge them a la Socratic method. I wonder if they think I am a monster now. It would be their loss, not mine. Oh, and tell them Sandy Hook is a hoax? Don’t be funny. The student must find out some things for himself, if he is truly a seeker of truth.

    1. More and more, I think the point of Sandy Hook was not gun control, but a test of the panopticon media’s efficacy. Gun control was just the subject of the test. There is now a seamlessness across all media platforms and all levels of government, and they were practicing it, working out the bugs, training.

      Certainly, part of that test included an attempt to get a substantial number of people to wish for their right to keep and bear arms to be infringed, and that failed utterly. It is perhaps the one right of a free people remaining in America that is not subject to compromise by the independent-minded. This will be very difficult for our masters to overcome.

      I am certain that they REALLY wanted to find out what it will take; that is, they threw everything they had, all the tools at their disposal, into the game, and came up pretty much empty. The right to defend oneself and one’s family is a part of our DNA in America, going right back to the 1620s. As we systematically pushed the Indians out of the way, it was always done with guns in the hands of the common man. Today, outside of street gangs and suicides, we have astonishingly little gun violence in America, largely because bad guys have no idea if their potential victim is armed (obviously, I’m referring to that majority of places where concealed carry permits are easy to obtain). The number of crimes thwarted when the victim draws a weapon is truly astonishing. Dumb criminals look like fools when that old lady draws a gun out of her purse and places a lump of lead in his chest, as we have seen many times on surveillance videos. The fools always look shocked; I don’t hold to Darwinism, but if I did, I’d call that a good example of the culling of the stupid through natural selection.

      It was surprisingly easy to get the socialistic-minded people of Britain to give up this god-given right, after a single hoax massacre, and even more so when the same thing was done in Australia–which has the reputation of being kind of independence-minded in the American mold. Magna Carta must have passed its sell-by date, sad to say. So the social engineers must be really flummoxed when it comes to America, in this regard. No matter how hard our masters try to manipulate our minds on this subject, they simply cannot convert people who are intent on defending themselves into passive weenies like your relative.

      1. I agree with your sentiments that many of these hoaxes seem designed to detect weaknesses and leaks in the system – I’d say we have to define what we mean by “system” here, but I’d include academe (dependent on grants), the public services, and the spoon-fed media. Anyone deviating will be fired or deprived of access to officials.

        Nevertheless, there are historic reasons why we will never behave like Brits about firearms.

        Also – you’d think Australian geography (vast in its way), might influence the need for defense, but let’s face it, the place in spite of its Mad Max posturing, is about as homogeneous as some pre-Euro Scandinavian country, with such isolation that it allowed the marsupials to survive when evolution mostly superseded them elsewhere. When everybody looks like you and acts like you, and those who are outlaws are folk heroes, the need for weaponry is not as perceived in your – as you say it – DNA. Therefore, it is a simple matter to get people to give up weapons. The only warfare likely to break out, is class warfare. The aborigines were hard done by, indeed, and they are “different”, but as harmless, always, as the marsupials themselves. They never turned into Apache raiding parties that scalped settlers and burned their homes, so the Australians only have a history of callous putdown of innocent people, government fencing, and merciless annihilation. The thing is, the descendants of convicts and Potato Famine refugees have no fear their overlords will do the same to them, because they are always willing to stand up and die in distant wars for them. Go figure.

      2. It was about gun confiscation (disarmament). You will soon see how the “mental health” meme fits. They are working it into the narrative as we speak.

        They are going to say that this “isn’t a Second Amendment issue”. It is a “health” issue. They will say that the precedent exists for government to intervene on behalf of the public to preserve “health”.

        The end result will be what they want. Medical doctors will be writing prescriptions for disarming people. Anyone who opposes this will be shouted down as “extremist”.

        Those with better skills will not participate in this “argument”. We do not have to prove a need or convince anyone about what we can own to defend ourselves, period. People need to reach into their brain and throw that little toggle switch that tells them that they must have permission.

        There is no way to cooperate with this nonsense without a total loss. This is one of those few issues where NO is the answer. It has nothing to do with crime. It has everything to do with parasite protection and making it easier to abuse the citizenry.

        We do not need, nor should we seek, the Government’s blessing. For my money I have a God-given right to do as I like. I have a Constitutionally protected, God-given right to have a gun, or guns, if I like. I do not have to justify why or explain my reasoning to anyone.

        The NRA and other gun groups do a disservice to the citizens by cooperating in discussions on this. There is no room for discussion here. If these idiots don’t want to own firearms, fine, don’t buy them. They do not have the right to force their desires onto the rest of us.

    1. That’s a good summary, Ted. I read the whole transcript too. It is pretty obvious how they set up James Earl Ray. It was a lot like Oswald.

      The cop shooter actually “escaped” in a police car. The mysterious “Raul” was the government agent. He paid for the Mustang, the gun, and had Ray get noticed by going to sporting goods stores to buy things.

      There were two Mustangs. The city was there at 0700 the next morning mowing all the brush to the ground, totally destroying the crime scene.

      But, as we see, it all doesn’t matter. When officialdom conspires to break the law, who’s gonna prosecute? The delusional part it that, at some level, most still believe that those sort of things don’t happen here.

      1. Thanks, Lophatt. It was. And what’s intriguing is the machination of the education system in America ,that wholeheartedly promotes the current narrative of MLK execution.
        I happens to have a copy of Antony Sutton ,little known book ; “How the Order controls Education ” excellent read, I’ll recommend. Prof. Tracy dismissal was a result of their ideology.

  7. I found this statement by Mr. Pepper very interesting as 1917 was not just WW1 era, but also the beginning of the Russian Revolution:

    “… The tragedy of the death of Martin Luther King, Jr. is a tragedy for this family here. This family in my view is America’s first family because of their struggle and for what they have stood for, going back for generations, going back to 1917, the first world war period, this family was under surveillance by military intelligence back then. Up to the present time they have been feared.

    Is the insinuation that the King family was anti-war even back then or Marxist sympathizers or both?

  8. I have encountered intense propaganda about King from both the left and the right. The left’s is unavoidable. For the first time I entertained a seemingly less biased expose on King posted by a right leaning website (Destroy ZOG) and his legacy is degraded for me forever:


    While it doesn’t follow so closely that someone who plagiarized at all or even repeatedly somehow can’t still get a PhD (I know one who teaches at an elite university who cheated off me big time to win a writing award at the college we attended undergrad), it still undermines King’s message to find out he stole from other people so chronically.

    I haven’t read the post in detail and am left to wonder why the FBI killed him if he was such a useful tool.

    1. The video that you linked Sue, has been around for a while. But the message is very disparaging in nature and defeats the message that MLK preached before he was killed.
      There has been no religious/civil leaders in the history of America, that has a clean slate or don’t fight their inner demons on a daily basis.
      He may have been a useful tool for the agenda in the beginning, but he like Malcolm X, realized that speaking the truth and promoting it, would be the death of them.

  9. Thanks for providing this. It is appropriate to take a few minutes to reflect on his life and what sort of world we live in that will not tolerate its citizens making their own choices.

    Today there are still those who use the term “conspiracy theorist” in a disparaging way, as if conspiracies do not and never have existed. The evidence is clearly irrefutable that conspiracies are how the PTB rule their herd.

    From JFK (and before), there is an unbroken, proven string of killings and other forms of retribution exacted against anyone posing threats to the status quo. Were it not for the complicity of the corporate media, these revelations would result in cries for change.

    Yet, here we are. Frequently we are involved in analyzing yet another lie produced to further an agenda that is not in the people’s best interest. Again we hear the howls of “conspiracy theorist”, and various attempts to punish those who have the temerity to question.

    I pray for Dr. King, although I’m certain he’s in a better place than we occupy. May we all take a lesson from the short life of someone courageous and faithful. In his death he was victorious. No one can ever take that from him.

    1. Just think, what are the chances of the not, one, not two, not three, but 4 assassinations of major pubic figures in 3 short years…JFK, MLK Jr, Robert Kennedy and Malcom X ..it must be in the billions….same chance of 2 skyscrapers crumbling to the ground in a matter of minutes

      1. Just to be picky, it is a 5-year period – but still… And there were others too, less famous. Note that all that time, Vietnam is ramping up. Another thing Vietnam and Afghanistan harvested was a drug supply which could be used for liquid cash for secret wars and operations. CIA has a great affinity for the opium poppy. And for Poppy, too.

        1. On reflection, Musings, narcotics may have played a pivotal role in turning US power into a gangster state. Capitalism historically usually had one big commodity where the big money was. Cotton was instrumental in slavery, oil replaced coal, and weapons were a major staple of the military-industrial complex. But the current money in drugs may have outstripped them all.

          Afghanistan produces 90+% of the world’s heroin, and Colombia is right up there in cocaine. And the US controls them both. It’s banks launder hundreds of billions of dollars in drug money, US arms the drugsters as in Oporation Fast and Furiious, and the US bribes or kills the political leaders to protect its trade. How, for example, could Senn Penn find El Chapo when US power ostensibly couldn’t.

          Once you accept the drug lord prescription that we make you rich or we make you dead, you are outside of any law or restriction or accountability, and can steal endlessly from everyone.

        2. about half the Americans imprisoned by US power are imprisoned for drug related offenses. The War on Drugs, is largely a war on the American population, especially non-Whites.

        3. folktruther … “The War on Drugs, is largely a war on the American population, especially non-Whites.”

          More White Americans than Asian Americans are imprisoned per capita, so what you say cannot be true and what you imply – that White Americans are using the drug laws to attack non-Whites is an irresponsible and objectively racist slander.

          If you insist on racializing the issue it would clearly be more justified to say that Asians are attacking non-Asians with this phoney ‘war on drugs.’ I am 100% certain that you won’t do that, which would rather confirm an anti-White motive behind your comment.

          Are you atlanta bill from Fetzer’s blog by any chance?

        4. Nick Dean, who are you? You’re too cool.

          (you don’t have to say who you are – that’s rhetorical – unless you’re the boyband kid of the same name; that would really be impressive)

    2. IN fact it was after the Kennedy assassination and widespread rejection of the Warren Commission Report (which was a fraud and cover-up) that the media began to use this term to belittle anyone who didn’t espouse the official narrative,
      that has only intensified today

  10. So what does this mean? That 12 people on a jury believed there was a conspiracy involving government officials,
    or is the Court making an official proclamation that there is evidence for high crimes?
    It would be very helpful if we heard from some of the lawyers following this blog on this point

  11. Why did US power assassinate Martin Luther King? He was about to integrate a people’s movement that was growing stronger in the Poor People’s Movement. He was set to lead the integration of three different groups; the Blacks of Civil Rights, the White students of anti-war, and the working class. This, for the first time in US-America would have unified a movement across race, which the oligarchy has always gone to great lengths to prevent.

    War since ww2 has also been conducted against non-White people, so the religious attack on racist violence, which traditionally has supported it, was an attack on the basis of American imperialism. The integration of an anti-war and anti-corporate movement was very dangerous for the oligarchy, so the threat united them to support its elimination.

    This cross race integration still has to be achieved to grow a viable movement that can challenge US power, and it must unite a domestic and international movement as well. This can only be developed over historical time as the USA sinks further into reaction and racist violence.

    the USA is now being governed under the War on Terror by an Orwellian gangster state, completely lawless and unaccountable to the American people. It’s naked function is to steal, both from the American people and people of the world. The increasing economic impoverishment this entails can only be maintained by political violence and brutality, and both the impoverishment and brutality can only be justified by increasing ideological untruth. Orwellian untruth occurs when the Proclaimed or Pretend truth is precisely contrary to the reality-based truth.

    This reaction could have been fought more effectively if King had united the American people across races, but just as the Kennedy assassination led to the Vietnam war, so the King assassination led to the powerless and disunity of the American people. One of the most amazing historical talents of the US oligarchy is how effectively it is able to get the American people to identify with their own oppression. The assassination of King facilitated this achievement right up to the present time. His murder has world historic implications.

    1. This racial integrationist line was forced upon Americans at gunpoint by the very same regime that killed MLK, so it is easy to see that you must be wrong. Please, think again!

      If the ‘US power’ had serious disagreement with King and feared his potential threat it would have been easiest to simply broadcast far and wide the criminal, immoral and un-Christian truth of King’s character and conduct. They need not have killed him, would not have set up a patsy who would discredit their own side, and would not have made him appear to be a Saint and the only American with a national day set aside to worship him.

      And read up here: http://radiofetzer.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/car-hermann.html — King was not heading in the direction you suggest, which fully half the country was already arrived at, anyway!

      King was about to do the right thing racially, contrary to his previous Jewish-authored positions. He was proposing to leave White people alone who wanted to be left alone; to preach to Blacks a message of self-reliance and independence, rather than to demand from Whites what belonged to Whites; and was going to speak up for Palestinians.

      The Jewish authors of the ‘civil rights’ movement had created a monster who was turning on them and on the Jewish program globally.

      That is a motive for killing him, that crucially is is also consistent with the cultural developments which followed and which we know were under the control of the same interests who killed King and covered up the truth of his assassination.

      1. “and was going to speak up for Palestinians.”

        In reply to a comment of sunaj57, I said this:

        “As for the Arabs who recently started to call themselves “Palestinians” (that was what immigrant Jews who returned to Zion had always called themselves), until the Six Day War they were all in territories controlled by Egypt (Gaza) and Jordan (Judea and Samaria). So they were not Israel’s problem yet. If King thought they needed attention, prior to June 1967, it would have been Egypt and Jordan he’d be talking about, not Israel. Why he would have taken a sudden interest in them in the few months after the War is beyond me.

        “You say King was going to “turn the world’s attention upon the Palestinians”; is it only because they were now under a new administration that he thought that would be an important thing to do? Did he not care when Arabs ruled over that particular bunch of Arabs, but only became interested when they became the responsibility of Jews? If so, why? Was he an anti-Semite, looking for an excuse to make trouble for the Jewish state?”

        He/she did not answer. Since you share the same unique, even bizarre, notion, perhaps YOU would be so kind as to explain where you get that idea.

        Leaving aside that the Arabs in Zion who were ruled by Egypt and Jordan did not call themselves “Palestinians” until sometime after Israel won those lands in the Six Day War, the fact is that King was killed only 9 months later. There was no Israeli/Arab conflict within Israel to “speak up” about–yet. It would take Yasser (that’s my baby!) Arafat a lot more time to drum up the requisite state of hostility for your premise to become conceivable, by which time King was long since dead. You can look it up.

        The fact is, that nine months between the War and King’s death was a period of afterglow, when Israel was greatly admired internationally for the swiftness of its miraculous win, against what seemed at first to be impossible odds. No one had any idea how rotten the Arab armies were at fighting before that. The diabolical hatred Israel today endures took decades to generate, so your premise is anachronistic.

        If you have some evidence that King became deeply concerned about those Arabs over the course of that 9 months, I’d like to see it. And if so, I’d like to know why he didn’t give a rip about them when it was Egypt and Jordan ruling over them.


        1. Excuse me but that is absurd to state that Palestinians didn’t have anything to worry about until 1967-the Israelis began attacking, routing, committing acts of terror from the beginning, its not like they arrived to an empty land, they pushed out the inhabitants that were already living there in their typical brutal fashion that they have demonstrated time and time again

        2. “…that is absurd to state that Palestinians didn’t have anything to worry about until 1967”

          First, until the propaganda machine kicked into high gear in the 1970s “the Palestinians” were the Jews who had returned to Zion after 2,000 years. Golda Meir is a famous example of a Zionist migrant who proudly uses that label. There was no such thing as a “Palestinian,” as the term is used today. They are all just the descendants of Arabs who migrated to the land because the Jews created opportunities.

          Second, my point is that even IF those Arabs had something “to worry about” prior to 1967, they were ruled by Egypt and Jordan, so you are looking for the source of the trouble in the wrong place. In the war that followed Israel’s independence declaration (Israel was invaded by the surrounding Arab countries), the invading Arab leaders advised the Arabs residing in the new nation of Israel to flee, so as not to be drowned in the sea by accident with all the Jews, who they were planning to murder. Many took that advice, and they fled to Lebanon, Jordan and Gaza (Egyptian territory), becoming refugees. These heartless countries refused to resettle them there, granting them citizenship, as is always done with peoples displaced by war. They wanted them to be a permanent tool in the arsenal of maniacal Moslem Jew-hatred, because Islam cannot abide people who are supposed to be dhimmies to be independent and free in its midst. The misery of those displaced people must be maintained, as a weapon to be used in Israel’s destruction.

          “…-the Israelis began attacking, routing, committing acts of terror from the beginning,”

          This is utter and complete nonsense. From 1879 until the League of Nations gave the land of Israel to Britain as a Mandate to create a country for the Jewish people, it was part of the Ottoman Empire, subject to its laws. After that, until Israel declared its independence in 1948, it was the British who were in charge there. Britain, perfidious as always, betrayed its Mandate, severely restricting Jewish immigration and encouraging massive illegal immigration of Arabs, to dilute the Jewish population. This was due, largely, to the politics of the post-WWI environment.

          ” …its not like they arrived to an empty land”

          Ah, but it IS like that. Precisely. Many people toured the region, in the years before Zionism began, and took pictures of that desolate waste. Mark Twain was one. He wrote about it.

          Zionism began when the first European Jews began to arrive in 1879. Their activities attracted Arabs from surrounding regions, looking for work. These immigrants are the people who started calling themselves “Palestinians” after the Six Day War.

          “…they pushed out the inhabitants that were already living there”

          Where do you get this stuff? Do you just make it up?

          Jew-hatred is a terrible thing. It makes people stupid.

        3. Well after your tirade defending the Israelis and their brutal takeover of Palestine (which cannot be justified) you have no credibility,
          as far as your remarks re: so called “Jew hating”-
          that’s part of the Zionist program, isn’t it folks?
          In the light of the worst atrocities, the Israelis/Zionists typically blame other people (frequently their victims),
          and play the victim, and call detractors “JEW HATERS”
          that ridiculous ploy will not work in here,
          and I suspect people at large are getting wise to this BS
          Good day

        4. “brutal takeover,” was it?

          The internet can actually cure ignorance, if you learn how to use a search engine. This took me five seconds to find (https://zionismandisrael.wordpress.com/2008/08/28/mark-twain-in-the-holy-land/):

          Mark Twain visited Israel in 1867, and published his impressions in Innocents Abroad. He described a desolate country – devoid of both vegetation and human population:

          “….. A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds… a silent mournful expanse…. a desolation…. we never saw a human being on the whole route…. hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country.”

          He was amazed by the smallness of the city of Jerusalem:

          “A fast walker could go outside the walls of Jerusalem and walk entirely around the city in an hour. I do not know how else to make one understand how small it is.”

          And he described the Temple Mount thus:

          “The mighty Mosque of Omar, and the paved court around it, occupy a fourth part of Jerusalem. They are upon Mount Moriah, where King Solomon’s Temple stood. This Mosque is the holiest place the Mohammedan knows, outside of Mecca. Up to within a year or two past, no christian could gain admission to it or its court for love or money. But the prohibition has been removed, and we entered freely for backsheesh.”

          End of quote.

          Of course, as I said, he’s not the only one who toured that desolate waste in those days, and wrote about its dearth of people and took pictures.

          The brutality it required to “take over” that place must have been awful. I’m certain the Sultan, whose land it was, simply could not fight back against those savage Zionist hoards, sunaj. He probably wept himself to sleep, knowing that there was nothing he could do in the face of that awesome Power.

          Now, if the hatred you feel has not blinded you, you should re-read what I wrote, stepping through a summary of the history. Everything I say is true, and as in this example, I can prove it.

        5. “Leaving aside that the Arabs in Zion who were ruled by Egypt and Jordan did not call themselves “Palestinians” until sometime after Israel won those lands in the Six Day War, the fact is that King was killed only 9 months later. There was no Israeli/Arab conflict within Israel to “speak up” about–yet.”

          I guess the Nabka of 1948 doesn’t hold any meaning for you…and as to “Israel (having) won those lands in the Six Day War” – that;’s not how you “win” anything, by way of false flags and murdering Americans.

          Remember the U.S.S. Liberty.

        6. No, the “Nabka” means nothing to me, because it’s propaganda. Islam at its core hates the people group the League of Nations Mandate was intended to create a country for. Moslems hate those people because it’s central to Islam. My reply to Mr./Miss/Mrs. “sunaj57” is in moderation, so you will have to wait for much of your answer.

          It may come as a surprise to you, Vincent, although it shouldn’t, that Israel’s winning its defensive perimeter has no connection with the attack on the USS Liberty. Johnson was trying to ride Israel’s victory’s coattails, to evict the Soviets from Egypt. He was a monster, and he didn’t give a damn about our sailors. He forced Israel to do his dirty work.

          It’s fine if you didn’t know that. Hardly anyone does.

          But what’s not fine is your not knowing that countries, throughout history, that win wars also win new lands. That’s the tough thing about losing.

          Still, in Israel’s case, Gaza and Judea and Samaria were not actually owned by Egypt and Jordan. They were administered by them, as they were by Israel, after the War. They were beyond the 1948 Armistice lines, but they were a part of the Palestinian Mandate of the League of Nations.

          I hate having to spell out the most basic elements of historical fact. The people around here should already know these things.

        7. patrickchatsamiably, “Did he not care when Arabs ruled over that particular bunch of Arabs, but only became interested when they became the responsibility of Jews? If so, why? Was he an anti-Semite, looking for an excuse to make trouble for the Jewish state?”

          This is nothing but a claim that Jews should enjoy self-determination, freedom from rule by ‘gentiles’, while ‘gentiles’ should meekly accept being ruled over by Jews. Nought but that assumption lies behind the ‘reasoning’.

        8. fellist is me, Nick Dean. WordPress knew me first as fellist and reverts after first comment.

        9. Actually, your logic is flawed. I made no such claim. I do not care one way or the other about the desire of Jews for their own country. I was only pointing out that between Israel’s declaration of Independence and the Six Day War, the Arabs who now call themselves “Palestinians” were no business of Israel’s. They were the responsibility of Egypt and Jordan.

          In fact, your implication goes deeper than anything in the quote you provide, but I will guess at your thought. It probably has to do with the idea of Zionism itself.

          If so, I also don’t care about that, either. It is a fact, is all, and must be understood in its historical actuality. SHOULD it have eventuated? I don’t care. It DID. And events followed. It caused an empty land to fill up with Zionists and also a plethora of Arabs whom it attracted. Then things got complicated.

          Whether Zionism should have happened is irrelevant. It did. Islam found itself faced with a country of people it thinks should be dhimmies in its midst, independent and free, and Islam hates that fact. Should WE hate that fact? Our opinion is immaterial. All we can do is observe the show.

          As for Sabbatianism, it should be understood, and put into this context. It is a very bad thing.

        10. patrickchatsamiably, why then the concern about antisemitism that might make trouble for the Jewish ethnostate, coupled with a dismissal of equivalent Arab interest in ruling themselves? Those attitudes were clearly observable and combined in your mind. I quote,

          “Did he not care when Arabs ruled over that particular bunch of Arabs, but only became interested when they became the responsibility of Jews? If so, why? Was he an anti-Semite, looking for an excuse to make trouble for the Jewish state?”

          “It caused an empty land to fill up” — this apologetic is so transparently false a study should be done into its origins, propagation and miraculous staying power. I think we’d also discover it does more to discredit Israel than justify it, being so obvious a lie.

        11. Well, Nick, this is a little difficult to untangle. I’ll try to keep it simple.

          Let’s start with this:

          ” “It caused an empty land to fill up” — this apologetic is so transparently false a study should be done into its origins, propagation and miraculous staying power. I think we’d also discover it does more to discredit Israel than justify it, being so obvious a lie.”

          It is NOT “transparently false.” It is historically true. And because it is true, it in fact establishes Israel’s legitimacy (although, as I say, I don’t care one way or the other). The visitors to the land prior to 1879 testify to this. It cannot be gainsaid; eye witnesses testify to the lack of inhabitants. Almost no one was living there in the 1870s. If you deny this, you deny historical fact. Almost no one was living in the ancestral homeland of the Jews when they returned. We know this, because it was documented before they returned to the land.

          As for the rest of your remarks (and allow me to say that I admire them all, highly, even if we will continue to disagree–I like your mind), the issue is the fact of Israel, both the modern state and the race (serendipitously, I spelled that part out in a nutshell for our folkie friend in this same thread, above, so refer to those thoughts as you listen to this). Israel IS. All must deal with it. Both the people and the state.

          Well, Islam came to be, too (unfortunately) in the seventh century. And a core principle of Islam is Jew-hatred. That is, anti-Semitism is impossible to extricate from the situation, because Mohammed’s hoards stole the land of Israel from the Christians, and the descendants of those pirates think it is therefore theirs forever, and can’t forgive the Jews for now possessing it. This is because, according to Islam, the Jews are supposed to be dhimmies–people who must endure the status of sub-humans, who are allowed to stay alive, so long as they display their submission all the time.

          That the Jews are independent and self-ruling, and remarkably successful on top of it, right in the center of the Moslem world, while the Moslem countries are hopeless basket cases, well, it’s too humiliating to endure. Allah is shamed. It enrages them.

          You ask “why then the concern about antisemitism that might make trouble for the Jewish ethnostate, coupled with a dismissal of equivalent Arab interest in ruling themselves?” THAT’S why. Jews do great. Arabs, not so much. It’s even more reason for Arabs to hate the Jews (if Islam itself was not enough). The success of Israel is too humiliating for the Moslem world to endure. It drives them insane.

          Is that enough?

        1. patrickchatsamiably, Why not read the link already provided in the comment to which you responded? I also quoted the relevant portion from the link in a prior post on this very page. ↓

        2. I listened to the linked to interview. Nothing remotely touched on it. Obviously, since that was a complete dead end, I did not read the comments about it.

          As for your comment down below, it is very difficult to see how it speaks to my question. At all. You say:

          “2) intending to speak out in defense of the Palestinians.

          “…Then, making the Palestinian issue much more solid,…”

          This, as I say, is an anachronism. The Arabs, for one thing, again, were not called “Palestinians” in those days, and in any event had only come under Israel’s authority in June 1967. They had never been Israel’s responsibility. I doubt King had any idea who they were.

          My question to you is why King would have suddenly taken such an interest in that handful of Arabs in the nine months prior to his death? There was no political “Palestinian” issue at the time. You do not establish this basis. At all.

          Next, skipping the unrelated text, you say:

          “Piper goes into some detail on this…. …he quotes James Earl Ray in an early appeal conviction, claiming his handler ‘Raul’ was:

          “among other things, an agent of a Mideast organization distressed because of King’s reported, forthcoming, before his death, public support of the Palestinian Arab cause.”

          But there WAS no “Palestinian Arab cause” at the time. All that came later. Israel had no authority over those Arabs until nine months before King was killed. This verbiage makes it sound like today, when the PLO is presented as always having been an important political force. But it didn’t even exist at the time. As I say, the people Arafat came to represent were ruled by Jordan and Egypt until June 1967, and no one gave a damn about them–because they were just Arabs ruled by Arabs.

          Your last reference to this issue reads as follows:

          “And Ray again to the House Assassinations Committee:

          “I don’t want to get into this libel area again and say something that might be embarrassing to—disservice some group or organizations . . . he [King] intended, like Vietnam, to support the Arab cause . . . someone in his organization making contact with the Palestinians for an alliance.”

          Again, this makes no sense. It is an anachronism. It sounds like the way people talk about these issues today. Those Arabs WERE NOT called “Palestinians” yet.

          Certainly, King was, and always had been, a dedicated communist, and the Soviets definitely had buyer’s remorse in having voted Israel into the UN, so communists were certainly now on the side of the Arabs against Israel. That makes sense. But there was no “Palestinian” movement to side with. Not yet. Was he supposedly going to be a key linchpin in the creation of it? I can believe that.

          My point is that this all completely twists the reality, to make it conform with how people think about the issue today.

          What it looks like to me is that you have been hoodwinked. There is no way that the guy developed a heartfelt feeling for those hapless Arabs in the nine months before he died. It looks like Moscow set up a fake story that everyone now believes, after the fact–or that he was slated to generate the fake “plight” of the “Palestinians.” He apparently never gave a thought to those Arabs in the past, and after he was dead he was said to supposedly have been inspired by the Six Day War to take a keen interest in them for some reason. What a crock.

        3. Squid ink.

          No-one here but you, pca, thinks of the Palestinians as only those who came under Israeli occupation in 1967. The Arabs of Palestine within and without the Jewish state had been called Palestinians quite routinely for decades. Even if they had not, see how King is called an African American today and not autistically labelled ‘negro’ so that we stay in period. And no-one thinks you’re sincere when you say there was no Israel/Palestine conflict before 1967, or that people around the world were not discussing the issue with some taking sides. This is total nonsense.

          None of which is even a pertinent issue anyway, I hope people note and ponder. Is it just coincidence that the attempt to distract from an accusation of Jewish involvement in the King assassination happens to take the form of a dishonest defense of Jews elsewhere and their crimes, their state, their wars?

        4. Dishonest?

          Why were those Arabs treated so badly by Egypt and Jordan? Why does no one ever look into that? Ever even notice? Why?

          There’s the REAL dishonesty.

          It’s an agenda. An agenda that has by now developed into something called the “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement.” No one gives a damn how Arabs treat Arabs. Just how Jews treat Arabs. Are you capable of asking yourself why that is, Nick?

          No one honestly looks at any of this (except maybe me), so I could not care less if no one here but me knows the truth about that history, and thus disagrees with me about it. So what? They can look it up, if they want to know. Read Barry Chamish. If they don’t want to know, is that supposed to affect my feelings?

          I have a well developed opinion about Zionism’s history, and won’t lay all it out it here, but suffice it that the first time Jesus came to Earth, Israel’s spiritual and political leadership was evil, and what is today called the “West Bank” (Judea and Samaria) was full of an alien race holding to an incompatible, alien, religion (religious Jews–with the notable exception of Jesus–would not even walk through it, even if it would save them many day’s journey).

          Just as the Bible predicted–precisely–the second time He comes the situation will be very much the same. And it is. The first Zionists moved to an empty, barren, waste, and turned it into a land flowing with milk and honey–but it also attracted the Samaritans’ equivalent.

          Could the Zionists of the 19th century have foreseen that Britain would inject itself into the project and flood the place with immigrant Arabs in the 20th? No. But by that point, there was no going back, so they went on to declare independence and set up a nation-state, regardless of the inevitable “Samaritan” trouble. And the world gradually came to hate them for it. The displaced persons from the war independence drew, for the first time in history, were not absorbed and normalized in the lands they suddenly found themselves in–even though they were ethnically and linguistically and culturally and religiously identical to the people they now found themselves amongst. From then on, they were kept at a low boil, a restive, resentful, potential tool in the hand of Allah.

          Only hate can explain that.

          Why didn’t Martin King focus on THAT, supposed Christian that he was?

          Now, I don’t hold an opinion one way or the other if any of this SHOULD have happened, as I have mentioned before. I know that it was inevitable, because the Bible predicted it; those people were all acting out of free will, playing out the scenario God foresaw and inspired His prophets to write down for us to read 3,000 years later and marvel at. But everyone (outside of the first, idealistic, Zionists) is most likely a bad player in this scenario. The Bible doesn’t call any of them “good,” incidentally. It just says it would happen in the future. And it did. And when Jesus arrives the second time, things are going to be worse than ever before in the history of the world. You can look it up.

          I truly hate Islam, because it is a prison for human souls, but I truly love its prisoners–individual Moslems who grew up in that horrible prison; I’d like to see them released. I truly love Judaism, because it is the nation God used to rescue the world through, but I hate the Talmud, and especially Shabbataianism–because it perverts and reverses all the good in Judaism, and has controlled modern Israel from the beginning of the State.

          As I say, it’s exactly like the first time He came. The second time is thus very, very, soon. We should be ready, like the Wise Virgins of Matthew 25.

          You say my remarks are off point–but that’s not true. You have told us that Martin King was going to make an issue out of the Arabs who had been ruled by Egypt and Jordan all the way up to a mere nine months before he was killed. Don’t you find this even a teensy bit suspicious? That he never cared how Egypt and Jordan were treating them? That they were maintained as refugees, as a political weapon? Especially since King was a life-long communist, and Lyndon Johnson was willing to murder hundreds of American sailors to force the Soviets out of Egypt?

          Do you have no curiosity about this?

          Certainly, King was a pawn. A tool. Absolutely, completely blackmailable.

          Stalin felt insane rage, as if he had been tricked, when Israel did not land in his camp after he allowed its admission into the UN. It was the cold war, in 1967, when the fate of that bunch of Arabs fell into Israel’s hands. America used Israel to create a false flag to accuse Egypt of an atrocity, so America could enter Egypt and kick out the Soviets. And a few months later, supposedly, the black face of anti-Americanism in America, we are told, was planning to do to Israel what he did to America.

          None of this is remotely interesting to you, Nick? You can’t connect the dots?

          And i am the one being accused of dishonesty. That’s a good one.

    2. King was your kind of guy Folk, a follower of communism back when the khazars controlled it. He was seen in Mexico meeting with bolsheviks.

      He was caught drunk chasing women down the halls of hotels in Norway. He was a hero to the brain damaged.

      He was probably another Sandy Hook. There is no telling where he retired too.

  12. I saw this lot of newspapers from June, 1968 for sale today. It carries the story of RFK’s funeral and the column on the left reports that James Earl Ray was picked up in London.

    Looks like they’ve been running all their false events into each other for a long time.


  13. I’m surprised that no one on THIS thought-provoking site even suggested the following. MLK JR. WAS NOT MURDERED! It was a very clearly staged hoax just like the modern day headlines. As with Sandy Hook and other fake shootings, MLK Jr.’s family are all smiles and cheer after the alleged murder. On a video just posted by Russianvids you can hear his wife quoting their 13-year-old daughter who said she “wasn’t going to cry because her father wasn’t dead.”
    We must break through the deeper layers of propaganda! We must understand and keep in mind that because a storyline counters the official narrative and might even point fingers at some bad guys, it doesn’t make it the REAL thruth. THE FAMILY WAS IN ON THE HOAX. It’s all about divide and conquer.
    Yesterday a friend mentioned her admiration for Rosa Parks. I then explained she was a communist agitator and with her employer, the NAACP (jew started and jew run for many years), they staged the event. A woman taking a stand against a corrupt system and trying to fight for equal rights? Or maybe helping push more division? Hmmm.
    Think deeper, my fellow truth seekers.

        1. No,rabbit hole tripping here, Greg. Just more comical banter from you. And not all narratives are machination based. If you continue to promote that xenophobic ,eugenic ideology, you may experience that “boiling fog effect”

          Deeper rabbit holes does not always reveal the truth, my friend.

      1. Many fundamental truth researchers have documented through history the role of the Jews, and directly in the planning and carrying out of the World Wars and other crimes against humanity,
        coming into this august body of bloggers and researchers and attempting to spread the Zionist propaganda of denial, subterfuge, and victimization isn’t going to fly
        no apology is neccessary to the courageous citizens who are outing the Jewish Syndicate that rules the western world through their banking empire, and their many outlets such as AIPAC, a foreign spy agency working in the open with traitorous American Zionist shills,
        its time to name names and remove this stain upon our Republic and restore the Constitution

  14. While searching through the public library in Newark, DE around 2007 I found the book titled “An Act of State: The Execution of Martin Luther King” and how it revealed “The Truth from the Trial” of 1999. As a conscientious activist I was surprised that I had not been informed of this years before. I decided to write a song about it and I sent a recording to William Pepper, the lawyer who won the trial for the King Family. I asked if he could provide me with photos to make a music video. He gave me permission to scan the photos in the book, and he asked me to send him the link at YouTube when the video got posted.

    I got this email back from William Pepper: “Thanks so much for the effort you and others are making in the common struggle to air the truth about how this Republic, and each one of us, lost Martin. Thank you for taking the time to put some important history into a ballad. This, of course, is the role of the Balladeer without whom much of history would be lost, especially in our time with the consolidation of control of the mainstream media. I am grateful. Bill Pepper”

    An Act of State: The Execution of Martin Luther King (2013) by Vic Sadot on Truth Troubadour Channel in the Truth & Struggle Heritage playlist: http://youtu.be/fcoZ3jMXrww?list=PLE14BFC2C412E750F

    Second edition updated video for this song with a new soundtrack featuring Eric Golub on viola! The song is based on the book of the same title that was written by King family lawyer, William Pepper. The book tells the story of the trial that Pepper won on behalf of the King family in 1999 in a Memphis court where a jury of 6 black and 6 white jurors unanimously found Loyd Jowers and unnamed government conspirators guilty of murdering Martin Luther King. The King family had long determined that James Earl Ray was not the lone-nut gunman in acting on racist hate, but rather that Ray was a patsy in a conspiracy to decapitate the unifying justice movement that Dr King represented. It was the oligarchy’s hate for social justice and an “act of state”. Lloyd Jowers, a former Memphis cop, was the owner of the restaurant across the street from the Lorraine Motel where MLK was gunned down in broad daylight while in support of the struggle of the sanitation workers union for decent wages. Rather than a “lone nut” act of hate, the execution of Martin Luther King was a well-planned “act of state”. The soundtrack was recorded in Berkeley by Sammy Fielding of Robot Envy Studio. The beautiful viola work is by Eric Golub. Singer-songwriter Vic Sadot is on the vocals and acoustic guitar using a gentle finger picking style.

    1. “Thank you for taking the time to put some important history into a ballad. This, of course, is the role of the Balladeer without whom much of history would be lost.”

      So true. Thanks, Vic.

  15. Powerful stuff! Thank you for reminding us of this. Just one more piece of the puzzle…one more false narrative which, when considered with others like 9/11 and Sandy Hook, amounts to an overwhelming damnation of the existed power structure in the United States and the cynical lengths to which they will go to achieve their traitorous goals. –Paul

  16. Anti-Semitism appears to be a central meme of the White racist story, as illustrated in this thread. It is currently being promoted by US power in Ukraine, having imposed an oligarch-Nazi regime. Congress passed a law against supporting the Nazis in Ukraine, but the Obama administration had it removed, so it can finance Nazi parties. The anti-Semitism of the Nazis, actually directed against the Russians, is moving into Europe and the USA, supported by Israel to unite Jews to support Israeli imperialism.

    Anti-Semitism has a religious basis. The Old Testament, the Jewish bible, told the story of Yahweh, who had to be placated by blood sacrifices. The bloodthirstiness extended to Hebrew racism and imperialism, Yahweh commanding the Hebrews to steal the lands of other peoples, and to slaughter them all. The homicidal racism imperialism was later incorporated in Western imperialism, inspiring the Puritans to the democide of indigenous Americans.

    However, Christianity incorporated more benign ideologies into its story, influenced by the Greeks where the gods tended to mate with humans, virgins giving birth in mythic ways, such as Athena being born form the forehead of Zeus. And a more general sense of rationalism was incorporated among the myths. This ideology was made a state religion in the Roman empire by Constantine, and integrated and made uniform at the Council of Nicea.

    A problem however was the execution of Jesus. He and his disciples were Hebrews at a time that Palestine was ruled by the Romans, and Jesus was crucified by the Romans, a horrible form of torture. But the Christians of Constantine’s time, from the +4th century on, were now Romans themselves, including the Hebrews that had converted to the new religion, some doing so, some not.

    Therefore a new story had to be told, that the Jews murdered Jesus, not the Romans as in the Bible story, eliding the understanding that that Jesus and his disciples were themselves Jews. As Patrick put it, the Jews killed our Lord. The history is told by John Carroll, a former priest, in CONSTANTINE’S SWORD. He traces the relation of the religion’s bigotry to the Nazi holocaust and argues for its religious repudiation.

    However anti-Semitism is currently included in the intellectual dregs of the White story. One commenter argues that the Jews killed Martin Luther King because he was going advocate black segregation. That this is utterly preposterous from a reality-based perspective does not detract from the credibility of the story, because racism has always been based on intellectual garbage. Toni, for example, likes this story. And it has brought forth the usual smears from the other proponents of racist violence, but the violence is primarily directed at African Americans and dark-skinned Muslims.

    Some truthers genuinely believe that this stuff is the reality-based truth. They fail to distinguish between the leadership of power and the masses of the people ruled or led by power. It is quite true that Jewish billionaires own the banks, along with non-Jewish billionaires, but the Jewish people are not billionaires, any more than Protestants are when oppressed Protestant billionaires. There is a great deal of concealment as to who actually owns the banks, a very important point, the US declaring to one truther that this secrecy was a question of “national security.” In a sense it is true, because these bankers control the Federal Reserve.

    Americans, and Westerns, learn anti-Semitism as a cultural truth of their families, driven by religion. It is currently being supported by Israel and US imperialism, each for their own purposes. Since it is deeply embedded in the recesses of consciousness of the Western, and especially US-American people, I expect it will drag on as the Western tradition peters out, especially among the stupid, and cynical. It will be part of the justification for racist violence, torture, mass imprisonment, and impoverishing of non-White people.

    1. “As Patrick put it, the Jews killed our Lord.”

      My premise, my folkie friend, is that the Bible is true and accurate. If so (and it is), this is a correct statement of yours. Bravo!

      Jesus is Yahweh, the god who created the world, made man, to rescue the human race the only way possible, from the consequences of sin. As a model of that future, perfect, atonement, He put in place a temporary system of substitute atonement, through the blood sacrifice of animals. Blood for blood–but only for a while.

      Yahweh selected/created a nation for Himself, unique and separate, through Abraham, giving them, through Moses, at Sinai very specific laws regarding faith and practice that made them completely separate from all other nations. They were to show the way to the whole world how to restore their relationship with God. But meanwhile, their animal sacrifices were a starkly unique difference between them and everyone else.

      They retain that separateness, supernaturally, to this day, even though the Temple and its sacrifices are long gone. As you can personally attest. The anti-Semitism that runs wild in the conspiracy world, and, sadly, at MHB, also attests to that. They are different because God made them to be different. They can’t stop being separate. You, an avowed communist and atheist, for instance, when your much hoped-for revolution comes, will be murdered because you are one of them–no matter how eloquently to argue, like George Soros, that you disavow your racial heritage. You can’t stop being what you are, anymore than I can stop being Irish.

      During the Babylonian sojourn, they wrote the Talmud, even as they were finalizing the last edits of the Bible. When Cyrus allowed them to return to the land (only 10% of them bothered), the Pharisees arose, preaching the Talmud. Jesus, when he arrived, exactly on the year the Bible predicted, he told them they were misconstruing the Bible because of their holding to these “traditions” (see Matthew 5:17,18, among other places). If He came for the first time today, he’d also be telling them to stop preaching the Kabbalah and Sabbateanism. Stick with the Bible, the Word of God, and you can’t go wrong. Adhering to the words of men is a train wreck waiting to happen. Their Messiah told them that, and they killed him for it.

      Throughout the Gospels, the Scribes and Pharisees are shown to be plotting His murder. This is ostensibly because they thought it was blasphemy for Him to claim to be God (which He in fact was), but more importantly, because they would lose their vile game, if they acknowledged that He was the Messiah they were awaiting. The jig would be up.

      So, Mark, it boils down to this, painful as it might be for your self-loathing self: they killed him for the same reason the establishment today kills anyone who threatens their game. You find it just peachy to hold that the establishment killed John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin King, and Malcolm Little, for exactly that reason your ancestors killed Jesus. But for some reason you find odious the premise that an equally evil cabal executed Jesus, whom you don’t care for, under identical conditions.

      And you expect us to take you seriously.

Leave a Reply