MLK – another CIA fake production

MLK was shot in the face.  Yet in his coffin at his funeral, there were no signs of such a wound.  That’s just hint number one that the whole thing was faked.  See the rest of the evidence.
TAP – Watching CNN on Martin Luther King today caught my attention, when they ran the speech the day before his ‘assassination’, in which he made it quite clear he didn’t expect to live much longer, and wasn’t that bothered about the prospect.  His voice didn’t quiver, and he sounded resigned to his fate – that the role he was currently playing wouldn;t run very much longer.  That in turn reminded me of the Miles Mathis writings about MLK so I went and dug them out again.  Here’s some extracts.

Let’s move on to the crime scene. It also makes no sense. We are told MLK always stayed at room 306 at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis. Wikipedia says it was known as the King/Abernathy suite. That contradicts earlier parts of the history, where it is admitted that King was known to be a target. He had allegedly survived previous assassination attempts. Given that, it would be the height of stupidity to

stay in the same room at the same hotel that often. It breaches all rules of security. You might as well call up the hitmen in advance. His loitering on the balcony is also against all rules of security, besides being illogical. There was nothing to see, so why would he be out on the balcony? It is not like he was on the West Bank of the Seine or the Palazzo San Marco. He might as well have worn a bulleye on his chest. This indicates the whole thing was a set-up.

Another thing that indicates that is that he was allegedly shot at 6:01pm. Dopey criminals who leave their rifles in plain site after a murder aren’t normally that punctual, but military intelligence is. The military does things by the clock.

We are told the King was shot in the face. Right cheek. Breaking his jaw. Curious then that we have open-casket photos of him, with no face damage.

That’s his right cheek.

Again, both cheeks looks fine. What isn’t fine is the coffin, which has changed. Not only is the frill different, we seem to have some sort of box within a box here. Whereas, in the first one, you couldn’t see the wood at all. They are both faked, but the two fakes don’t match.

Also convenient that they had a photographer onhand to capture the event.

That was taken by Joseph Louw before Ray has even left the premises. Louw was there so fast because he was staying three doors down. Louw was a photographer and filmmaker working on a documentary about King, and he just happened to be there ready to roll—even though it was dinner time. We are told these people are pointing to Ray as he runs off. And you believe that? Why then are they all pointing, but not one is running after him? He is supposed to be visible to them, just across the street, but no one thinks to give chase? But of course they are black men and Ray is a white man: they have no chance of catching him on foot, right? I’m sorry, I have to insert some humor in here or we would all go mad.

That photo is probably a paste-up. Why? Well, study the people on the ground. They don’t seem too concerned, do they? You have a dying man above them bleeding to death, shot by a high-caliber rifle, and at least six people screaming and pointing, but the people on the ground are just continuing their casual conversations. Look at the group of maids over there having a smoke, totally unaware of the scene around them.

So it may interest you to know that this Joseph Louw rushed to the studio of fellow King photographer Ernest Withers to develop his four rolls of film. Withers was at the Lorraine with Louw, and is one of those going in and out of room 306. Withers was posthumously outed as an FBI informant. The mainstream media tried to spin that revelation in 2008, claiming Withers was spy against King. But of course the better explanation is that all these people were FBI or CIA, including King. The whole event was a project.

As has been said before by others before me, the people in the photo above are pointing in the wrong direction, so the script must have been in transition. They aren’t pointing to the rooming house across the street. Others have used this to theorize a different shooter from the Gattis penthouse or other places, but you can now see we have a more likely explanation: there were no shots from anywhere. These people are just pointing where they were instructed to point. It is all staged.

Same with other evidence later used by others as misdirection. It is now known the rifle and binoculars

found by police were dumped before the alleged murder—that according to testimony of the owner of the Memphis amusement shop, who watched it being dropped. Furthermore, the slug that allegedly killed King didn’t match the rifle, and the scope on the rifle was not focused. The King family itself has used that to accuse the US Government of a conspiracy in the murder; but again, a better explanation is that the event was faked in a sloppy manner. They simply didn’t bother to match details, because they knew from past experience they didn’t need to. The American public would believe whatever it was told. It always has.

So let’s return to the WHY of this event. Another desired outcome of this faked assassination was race wars, which they came nearer achieving back then than they do now. Although they are still at it, as we saw with the Trayvon Martin hoax and the Charleston hoax. But now very few blacks or whites even look up. Some shake their heads, but no one even thinks of starting a race war. So all we see is the news writers writing for one another. They are hired to supply the required outrage. They create the event and then create the response, so it is OK if you sleep through it. It doesn’t matter any more.

All along, they have been faking these things to keep your eyes off the real events. In 1968, they wanted your eyes off the bankers and their conjobs, and that is still the main reason for running these fakes. Anything to keep you from realizing the bankers, the military, and Intelligence are just three big money pits, siphoning money directly out of the treasuries and giving you absolutely nothing in return. We can now add science to that list, since it has become the fourth largest conjob on the planet.

Martin Luther King

by Miles Mathis


MLK got his PhD from Boston University in the summer of 1955, and by December of that
year he was already elected as President of the MIA, over Edgar Nixon? But he had only been back in
Montgomery a matter of months.
Of course, nothing about MLK’s early bio makes any sense. For instance, he is supposed to have
gotten a BA (4 years), a BDiv (3 years), and a PhD (5-6 years) by the time he was 26. Even if he did
the BA in 3 years and the PhD in 4, that is still 10 years in college at age 26. Sounds like a tale to me.
You will say he was a genius, but if so why did he need to plagiarize his dissertation? They insert all
sorts of apologetics to explain that, but to me it is simply evidence of a larger fake. The dissertation
was probably inserted later as part of his fake bio, and I doubt he wrote any of it. It was written by the
cubicle spooks at the CIA, and they got sloppy. We will see more on that below.
Furthermore, it is admitted his paternal line is Irish. That means the name King is Irish. Well, that
links him to the Kings in my recent papers on
C. S. Lewis and F. Scott Fitzgerald. The Kings in those
families were also from Ireland—and they were nobles!
And spooks. MLK’s wife was a Scott,
remember, which is another of these names from the same families. We will also see them again below.
Which makes us look at the name Martin Luther King in a new way.
MLK and his father were both named Michael, not Martin Luther. We are told Michael, Sr., changed both names in 1934 after a trip to Berlin for a Baptist Conference. But the names were never legally
changed, so it was basically an alias. So many problems with the Berlin story I don’t know where to start. First of all, Martin Luther wasn’t from Berlin. He was from Wittenberg. Second, American Baptists aren’t known for their
affinities to Lutherans. Michael King should have traveled to Amsterdam and changed his name to
John Smyth King, the first Baptist. Third, Hitler was head of Germany in 1934, and he was in Berlin.
I doubt he would welcome American blacks for this conference. He telegrammed the conference, so he
was well aware of it. Frankly, I don’t believe MLK, Sr., was in Berlin, and I looked to see if there were
minutes published. There is
a book by James Henry Rushbrooke, but I found no copies at Ebay or Abebooks.
To understand why MLK’s father changed his name to Martin Luther, it helps to remember that Martin
Luther’s mother was a Lindemann. That name may be Jewish, and Luther was accused in his own time
of being a Jewish agent out to damage Rome. Although I have found no evidence to confirm that, it
would fit the overall history we are unwinding.
It is also never explained how MLK could be hired to be a pastor in Montgomery in 1954, when he was
in Boston working on his PhD until June of 1955. Another problem is found on the Dexter Avenue
Baptist Church page, where we find that the previous pastor had resigned in 1952. MLK was hired in
1954. What? Did they just shut down for two years?
For now, let me just say that the whole Civil Rights movement looks managed. The governors could
probably see they had to do something, but rather than let things proceed naturally and risk fast and
meaningful change, they took control of events and managed them for minimal inconvenience to
themselves. As usual, they needed to give the appearance of progress, while stifling most real progress.
It is very easy to see this with the Rosa Parks event, which they pretty much admit was staged. Even
Southpark did a show on it, all but admitting the event was staged. Parks had worked at Maxwell Air
Force Base, and after that she lived with Clifford and Virginia Durr. Clifford just happened to be the
attorney who later represented Parks. That’s convenient: Rosa was living with a prominent attorney
when this happened. Just a funny coincidence, right?
Durr was a Rhodes Scholar who was appointed to the FCC by Roosevelt. He and his wife were friends
of the Mitfords, who we have seen before. They were connected to Hitler. The Durrs were also friends
of Alger Hiss. Clifford represented Frank Oppenheimer in the fake HUAC trials. Virginia was née Foster
, linking her to John Foster Dulles and the other famous Fosters, including Stephen Foster and
John Foster, 1st Baron Oriel, an
Irish peer. She was also a
Rice, a Turner, a Pryor, a Higginson, a Windsor, a Hickman, a Plume, a Heard, and a Kerr. Clifford Durr was also a Rice, a Plume, a Saunders, a Holt, a Hemingway, a Crawford, a Lewis, a
Robinson, a Foster, and a Burke. So he and
Virginia were cousins through several lines.
My regular readers must be astonished at some of those names. We are getting
a lot of repeaters, aren’t
We have seen many of those names in my last two papers. It seems like no matter who I research
—no matter how unrelated they might at first seem to be—they come from the same families.
I encourage you to study Rosa Parks’ Wiki page, which admits she was not the first to refuse to move
bus seats. In fact, her trial fizzled, and was probably intended to fizzle. The court case that decided
desegregation on buses was the federal trial Browder v. Gayle , and she wasn’t even a party to it. It
wasn’t argued by Durr, but by the black attorney Fred Gray. A young girl by the name of Claudette
Colvin had refused to move nine months before Parks did so, but she was not considered photogenic
enough. Apparently she had the wrong hair and a big mouth, so she didn’t suit the directors.
If we return to Coretta Scott, we find she was the daughter of a McMurray. Wikipedia misspells it
McMurry, but it is given as McMurray at That is a variation of McMurrey, and we have
seen them before recently, too. They are related to the Palmers that keep coming up. A Lorraine
McMurrey married the 4th Baron Palmer in 2006. These Palmers descend from Hannah Clark and
Mary Isaac, among others. They are also related to the Herberts, Reeds, Millers, Sutherlands, and
Turners. They are also related to the Murrays, since McMurray just means “son of Murray”. It is the
Scots equivalent of the Irish “O’”, which also means “son of”.
We saw the Murrays in my previous paper, didn’t we? They were the Barons Kincraig and Earls of Dunmore, and one of them married a Sellers. They were also related to the Fords and Rabinoviches. Actor Fred McMurray probably
descended from them, among many others.That’s Coretta Scott’s mother, Bernice. Not very black, is she? Maybe   90-100% white? Bernice’s father was Martin van Buren McMurray. That’s not a black name. Does it link him to the van Burens, or were his parents just referencing the President? We don’t know, because he is scrubbed. He
is the end of the line. His parents are not given either at Wiki or at Geni. But I don’t think his parents
were referencing the President when they named him, since they were about a century too late with a
minor President. Blacks commonly referenced Washington or Lincoln, not van Buren. Van Buren was
no friend of the blacks. In 1832 he denied the right of Congress to abolish slavery in DC without the
consent of Southern States. He opposed abolition, and was also on the wrong side in the Amistad case.
This of course indicates Coretta Scott’s grandfather was not just named for van Buren, but was
actually related to him.
They claim McMurray was half-black, but admit he looked white. That’s almost unheard of. People
who are half-black never look completely white. Bernice’s mother was Mollie Smith, daughter of
Adaline (maiden name not given). Bernice’s father is not given, which is strange. For once, Wiki has
more information than Geni, telling us Adaline’s name was Blackburn. Mollie’s father was Jim
Blackburn, a white plantation owner. So we don’t really know where the name Smith came from. If
Adaline’s father was a Smith, we aren’t told who he was. Coretta Scott’s paternal grandmother is given
as Cora McLaughlin, but we aren’t told if she was black or white. That name isn’t black, it is
Geni gives us her father and mother, but no maiden name for the mother, so basically a
scrubbing. In the Scott line, we have more strangeness, since her great-grandfather is a Tubbs. So her
grandfather took his mother’s name instead of his father’s. We aren’t told why. However, it gets
weirder, because Tubb’s wife Delia Scott isn’t a Scott, either. She is a
Clements. Her other husband was the Scott, which means Coretta Scott’s grandfather took the name of his step-father instead of his father. If we try to follow this Willis Scott to find if he was black or white, we hit a deadend. His parents are given, but again no maiden name for his mother and his father is the end of the line. The
name Clements may be a clue, since it is another of the names we keep hitting. Mark Twain was a
Clemen(t)s, and Clemens/Clements has come up many times since then, connecting him to the top
families on both sides of the pond.
If we then switch to Wikitree, we can keep going, since we find that
Delia Clements was the daughter of a Melvina Scott. Since she also married a Scott, she must have
married a cousin. We find her father given as Burton Clements, which may be a clue, linking her to the
Burtons as well. In the top families, the Burtons and Clements are related.
But let’s return to the name McLaughlin for a moment. It is quite curious to find both McMurray and
McLaughlin in Coretta Scott’s recent lineage. I doubt any other blacks could say the same—except
maybe other famous blacks. It is curious because not only are both names Scots/Irish, they are also
both of the peerage.
There are 163 McLaughlins in the peerage, in fact. We saw one of their
descendants recently in my paper on Brad Pitt: Sarah McLachlan. The McLaughlins in the peerage are
related to the Crofton Baronets, and through them to the Stewarts, Earls of Galloway. Also the
Dashwood Baronets, and through them the Spencers and the Pagets, Earls of Uxbridge. Through the
Stewarts, they are related to everyone, including the
Somersets, Dukes of Beaufort, the Berkeleys, the Bacons, the Cranes, the Tates, the Nevilles, and the Cecils, Earls of Exeter.
As the Murrays are related to the McMurrays, the Laughlins are related to the McLaughlins. Which
brings in the Laughlins of the Jones and Laughlin
steel dynasty. They are related to the Carnegies and
all the others. Also note the name Jones, which links us to many previous papers also. They were from
Wales and were related to the Swifts, Owens, Dunhams, Stanleys, etc.
All that nobility in the line of Coretta Scott leads us to look in the peerage to try to skirt the
genealogical blockade on MLK. Let’s start with the name Linsey, which is a variation of
Lindsey/Lindsay. There are almost 1,200 of them in the peerage! Can we guess which ones might be
ancestors of King? Yes, since we can look for ones most closely tied to Coretta Scott’s ancestry. These
people very often marry cousins, as we have seen. The most promising may be the Lindsay Baronets,
since we immediately find a Clarke. The 26th Earl of Crawford had a son named Robert Hamilton
Lindsay, and he married Mary Janet Clarke in 1903. She was the daughter of the 1st Baronet Clarke, of
Somerset. His grandmother was Sarah Turner, and his mother was Elizabeth Dowling. His wife was
Mary Walker. All the same names again, not only from above, but from recent papers.
The Lindsays were also related to the Trotters. Lt. Gen. Sir James Lindsay married Anne
Trotter in 1823. She was his second wife. His first wife was Mary
Grant. The Trotters were related to the Gordons, which links us back up to George Gordon, Lord
Byron. Do you recognize the name Trotter?
Brad Pitt is a Trotter.
This means that it is possible that MLK is related to Brad Pitt through the
Linseys.  The Lindsays are also related to the Taylors;
the Earls of Wemyss (who we saw last week); the
Howards, Earls of Carlisle; and the Cavendishes, Dukes of Devonshire.
MLK was also a Daniel. There are many Daniel/Daniels in the peerage, related to the same families.
They are related to the Stanleys. John Stuart Daniel married Juliet Henley in 1944. She was the
daughter of Sylvia Stanley, who was the daughter of the Baron Stanley of Alderley. This links us back
to the Owens, etc. In 1991, Christopher Daniel married Lucy Tennant Arundel, daughter of the 10th
Baron Talbot and Laura Tennant. The Tennants were related to the Reids/Reeds, as we have seen
recently. Also the Winsloes, Walters and Moncktons, ditto. In 1974, Herbert Jackson Daniel married
Jane Stuart, daughter of Lt. Col. Godfrey Walter Burleigh Stuart, of the Earls of Castle Stewart. They
were related to the Coles, Barons Mountflorence. One of them married an Elizabeth Montgomery in
And here’s a double hit: in 1885 Escourt Buxton
Daniel married Eily Long, daughter of Edward Morton Long of Monkton Farleigh, Wiltshire. Look above: another of MLK’s great-grandparents was a Long. Coincidence? Maybe. Or maybe MLK’s posted ancestry is fudged.
The Daniels of the peerage are also related to theTrumans. Clifton Daniel of Zebulon, NC, married
Margaret Truman, the daughter of the President, in 1956. Remember, Truman’s wife Bess was a
Wallace. Her grandmother was a Percy. She is scrubbed, but the Percys are high in the British
peerage. We saw them yesterday, related to the Peytons and Egremonts. They are from
Northumberland. Bess Truman was also a Madison, a near cousin of President James Madison. She
was also a Todd, as in Mary Todd Lincoln. The two first ladies were cousins. She is also descended
from the Barnes, Lord Mayors of London in the 1500s, and the Peytons, Walsinghams, and Rivers.
Also Jane Eyre, b. 1454. These Eyres were related to the Newtons, the Goldings, and the Wolffs. And
are you ready for this. You might want to sit down.
Harry S. Truman was a Scott. His great-
grandmother was Sarah Scott. She is scrubbed at Geni. So it is possible Truman was related to Coretta Scott.
But let’s move beyond the genealogies.
At Wikipedia, we are told MLK and the other founders of the
SCLC were inspired by Billy Graham. Right. Why would these guys be inspired by Billy Graham?
Please ask yourself if that makes any sense. Billy Graham, who started his “Crusades” in
1947, year one of the CIA. Just a coincidence, right? Graham’s maternal grandmother was a
Robinson. He was also a Robinson on his father’s side, though further back. This indicates his parents were cousins. The Robinsons on this father’s side go back to Massachusetts, linking him to the Salem Witch hoax. He
was also related to Morrows on his mother’s side. See above, where Clifford Durr—Rosa Parks’ attorney—was a Robinson.  Get ready for this. Hold on tight. On his father’s side, Graham’s aunt was Ida
Parks Graham. You now see why Billy Graham is mentioned on MLK’s page, I guess? MLK was also a Parks.
So Billy Graham may have been related to MLK and Rosa Parks.  Graham was also a Walker, a
Stewart, a Crawford, a McKinley, a Powell, a Franklin and a
Billy Graham’s daughter Gigi married a man
named Stephan Tchividjian, an Armenian millionaire. My guess is he is Jewish. In support of that, we
find a Liv Tchvidjian at Geni, daughter of a Grimsby and wife of a
Marinoff. Marinoff is a Jewish
name. See Fania Marinoff, a friend of the Jewish/Nazi
Gertrude Stein. Marinoff’s father was Mayer Marinoff of Russia. Graham’s other daughter Anne married Daniel Lotz. That is also a Jewish name.
See for example Wolfgang Lotz, an Israeli spy in Egypt during the Six-Day War in 1967. Also see
here, showing the Lotz were prominent Jewish families in Prague. Also
here, in Poland. Also see
here,where Anne Graham Lotz is promoting the Jewish mystic Honi ha-M’agel. Also
here,where the Jerusalem Post reports Anne Graham Lotz is calling on the world’s Christians to pray for the Jewish
We are told Billy Graham befriended MLK after he attended one of Graham’s Crusades in New York in
1957. That doesn’t really fit what we were taught about MLK, does it? MLK was supposed to be very
progressive. Was Graham progressive? Did I miss something? Graham attended Bob Jones
University: I encourage you to visit its Wikipedia page. It was founded by a guy who never attended
college, and was opened in Panama City, FL, with 88
students. Can you say “ANOTHER SPOOK
PRODUCTION”. Panama City is the home of Tyndall AFB, which includes Naval Support Activity.
Other than that, there is no reason for Jones to have opened the school there. He had no prior
connections to Florida, according to his bio. Bob Jones University moved to Greenville, SC, in 1947.
Note the date. Conveniently, Donaldson AFB is just south of Greenville.
BJU is probably the most backwards “university” on the planet. They have a Chinese-style internet
filter on all campus computers, denying access to any sites the directors deem offensive. And those
aren’t just porn sites. I am probably on that list. But more to the point here, BJU did not admit blacks
until 1975, and then began admitting them only because the IRS told them they couldn’t keep their tax-
exempt status unless they did. This was in response to Runyon V. McCrary, which prohibited racial
discrimination at private schools. Although BJU began admitting black students, it didn’t allow them to
date whites.
The IRS revoked their tax status and the case went to the Supreme Court in
Bob Jones University v. United States. They lost and had to pay a million dollars in back taxes.
They kept this interracial dating rule until the year 2000!
Do these really seem like the kind of people MLK would
be hanging out with? Slap yourself hard until you give yourself a reasonable answer to that.
What kind of black person would apply to Bob Jones University? Can you say, “NO ONE”. I would
bet not one real black person has ever applied, and the Board of Regents probably has to hire a handful
of black actors to pretend to be students.
Although they now try to sell Billy Graham as a promoter of civil rights, that was not the case. In the
time of MLK, Graham preached to segregated audiences and had no problem with it. If you don’t
believe me, read the comments
of this current black preacher, Rev. Shockley. He says,
As the high priest of American civil religion he, more than any other figure, had
the moral authority to usher the nation from its racist past to a new multicultural
future. But rather than lead, he made only the most modest accommodations possible
to the social change happening all around him. From the very beginning of the
civil rights movement Graham cautioned caution, patience, non-intervention, and
voluntary change rather than the legislative, direct action, and civil disobedience
that actually brought about change. He made many disparaging remarks about the
marches and sit-ins and warned against moving too fast.
And that is actually putting it kindly.
Unfortunately, we could say almost the same thing about MLK,
who inhibited progress while seeming to promote it. MLK’s project was very different from Graham’s
on the surface, but its endgame was the same: protecting the vested interests of the ruling elite by
preventing, stalling, or misdirecting any meaningful change. But we will get to that below.
Billy Graham’s entire career confirms my recent findings that evangelical Christianity was started by or
infiltrated by Jewish interests, with the express intent of sullying it and making it look foolish. But let
us return to MLK. We will collect data on the evangelicals as we go.
Just as with Graham, MLK’s bio is replete with numerology markers. He gave his first sermon in 1947
at Ebenezer Baptist Church. In it, he “borrowed” heavily from Harry Emerson Fosdick. Some have
claimed this was another instance of plagiarism, although—having not studied the question—I cannot
judge. I assume they are referring to a 1989 Washington Post article
, but “adopting themes and quotations” is not necessarily plagiarism, unless the quotations are lifted directly from Fosdick himself, without attribution. Another reading of the article might be that MLK used the same quotations
Fosdick did, which is not plagiarism. At any rate, it is a curious admission. Taken alone, we might
ignore it. But taken with the admitted plagiarism in his doctoral thesis, in his book
Stride Towards Freedom
, and even in his “I Have a Dream” speech
, there must be an assumption of guilt regarding his
older sermons.
As I said above, for myself I see it not as simply as a sympton of laziness regarding the
customs of referencing, but as a clue that King’s entire output was ghost-written by ghosts—that is to
say, the cubicle spooks. I have no documentary proof of that, of course, and don’t expect any: my
conclusion is circumstantial, and relies on compiling loads of surrounding evidence. Which is what
this paper is about.
More support for that comes from this admission by the editors of the
Martin Luther King, Jr. Papers,
who said that the failure of MLK’s teachers to notice his plagiarism was remarkable. But given
my reading, it isn’t remarkable at all. They likely knew the papers were written by the CIA, and so
were in no position to downgrade them. This is also interesting:
That has been reprinted by some websites I have nothing in common with, but it is useful nonetheless.
Since I have shown you that
Communism is a fake organisation
and always has been, I reprint that not
to prove MLK was Communist. I reprint it to prove MLK was in Intel, like these people he is sitting
with. While they were faking and controlling the Communism Project, MLK was faking and
controlling the Civil Rights Project.
If you are starting to get hot under the collar in my direction, remind yourself what my thesis is here.
Unlike others attacking MLK, I am not arguing against the Civil Rights Movement or against racial
equality. I am a progressive and a liberal, and am getting moreso every year. I am not a liberal by
Rush Limbaugh’s definition, I am a liberal by the old definition, which means I am against both
aristocracy and plutocracy. I am for fairness and advancement on merit, not a government of privilege.
On the question at hand, I am on the side of the blacks, so much so that I am risking my neck by telling
them a hard truth: they—like the rest of us—have been hoodwinked. We have all been fooled by our
leaders and heroes. None of them are who we thought they were. They are all actors sent in to control
us. In the case of Civil Rights, we have been controlled to celebrate a progress that is illusory. We are
assured things are getting better as they stay the same or get worse. We are spoonfed some
meaningless “advances”, while all meaningful change is denied us. That applies equally to men and
women, black and white, young and old. Blacks see Tiger Woods and Oprah getting rich and famous
and think things are changing. They see Obama become President and think things are changing. But
those are just sweetened pacifiers. They are meaningless, since those people are just actors. They are
puppets on a stage, dangled to divert you.
Unlike the others attacking MLK, I am not complaining that a black man got a holiday named after
him. I am complaining that they apparently named the holiday after the wrong guy. They should have
picked a real black leader, not this propped-up white-creation actor who did nothing for Civil Rights
but sully it and misdirect it. [You will see more evidence of that below.] MLK is the ultimate oreo
cookie: black on the outside and Jewish on the inside. Just study his photos. He has a strange look for
a black man, doesn’t he? His eyes especially, which slope up on the corners. He may have been more
African than Coretta, but that isn’t saying much.
It is the same with Rosa Parks. She was a propped-up white-creation actor, and her promotion has only
harmed the movement. It would have been much better to promote the little loudmouth Claudette
Colvin, since that would have told us how things really are. The truth is always better than a stageplay.
Why have Civil Rights led by these ¾ whites pretending to be black, when the movement could have
been led by real blacks? I have already told you why: the “progress” was all on a stage. It was meant
for the whitest blacks only. And even that isn’t stating it clearly enough:
it was meant for the most Jewish blacks only.
We have seen the same applies to whites: progress was meant for the most Jewish
whites only, the rest of us be damned. Like Nature, we are only here to be fleeced.
“But how did MLK harm the movement?” you will ask. Well, beyond the link to Billy Graham, which
couldn’t help, and many other things—some of which we may touch upon below—the greatest damage
MLK did was with his fake death. I will show you proof of that fake in a moment, but if you
understand why it was faked, you may understand better the
how.  Basically, it was faked as a warning
to uppity blacks: this is what will happen to you if you push for real change.
Some dopey white guy will shoot you when you aren’t paying attention. Like most of the other events we have unwound, itwas staged to create fear. The KKK was invented for the same purpose. Intelligence discovered long
 ago that a fake event beat a real event everytime. In this way, they could create all the fear without any
risk to themselves. You can’t be prosecuted for a fake crime, can you? You can’t be prosecuted for a
fake murder, a fake beating, or a fake lynching. But the fakes create the same fear and chaos as the real
thing. It is all part of Operation Chaos.
If you entered my site with this paper, I can only say you are coming in on the third act. To understand
what I am talking about you have to read my other major papers on fake events. Only then can you
comprehend the enormity of the con. Any one of these papers, taken alone, must read like a jump to a
conclusion, and I realize that. The evidence I am able to compile in any one event—even if conclusive
—is too much to assimilate by itself. It “doesn’t fit”. But if you read my deconstruction of many
similar events, all these events begin to “fit”. Your old world crumbles and a newer, more rational
world is created. Though at first it is hard to believe, later it will be hard to believe you didn’t see it
yourself. The red pill, though difficult to swallow at first, later becomes far easier to digest than the
blue pill. This is because the blue pill, though familiar, was indigestible to start with. It was a pill of
contradictions, impossibilities, and absurdities, and you could have never advanced past a certain level
while trying to make it your sustenance.

2 Responses to “MLK – another CIA fake production”

  1. Tom74 says:

    I heard the speech on the radio – a remarkably eloquent and courageous piece of oratory. I still find it incredible that the American state got away with murdering MLK – but I guess as with Kennedy, the moon landings and all the other ‘big lies’ of the 1960s, the truth has only been allowed to emerge gradually and unofficially.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.