Archives‎ > ‎

Dr Wlm. Pepper on the assassination of MLK - and JFK, RFK and 911, from Peter Myers

(1) Dr William Pepper is a barrister (attorney) who exposed the real killers of King(2) Pepper address in 2006 -  eloquent and powerful (video)(3) Pepper interview with Kevin Barrett (audio / transcript)(4) Pepper's audio interview on the Corbett Report(5) King's "Beyond Vietnam" speech at Riverside Church, NYC, Apr 4, 1967(6) New York Times editorial 'Dr. King's Error' - April 7, 1967(7) New York Times revisits King's speech, 50 years later (2017)(1) Dr William Pepper is a barrister (attorney) who exposed the real killers of King- Peter Myers, January 17, 2018William Pepper is a barrister (attorney) who acted for the family of Martin Luther King, and for the man accused of killing him.It was Pepper, then a journalist newly returned from Vietnam, who first persuaded King to come out against the Vietnam War. Pepper explained that the war was a nationalist war which the US could not win, and presented photos showing the devastation wrought in the attempt.King being a powerful orator - the most outstanding black American of the century - his coming out against the war, combined with his plan to bring half a million blacks to Washington to press lawmakers, made him a marked man in Deep State circles (FBI & CIA). Despite King's advocacy of Non-Violence, they saw him as a great danger.Pepper acted for the defendants incarcerated for the murders of King and Robert Kennedy. He represented these defendants only because he believed then innocent, framed by the CIA.Confronting state agencies who were the real assassinations of King, JFK and Robert Kennedy, Pepper also became an investigator - particularly in the King case, to which he devoted 30 years of his life.Pepper has written three books on the King Assassination, branding it An Act 0f State.In his book The Plot to Kill King, Pepper shares the evidence and testimonies that prove that James Earl Ray was a fall guy chosen by those who viewed King as a dangerous revolutionary.(2) Pepper address in 2006 -  eloquent and powerful (video)The following address by Pepper is eloquent and powerful. I urge you to watch it. It deals mainly with King, but also touches on William F. Pepper, Keynote Address from the "9/11: Revealing the Truth / Reclaiming Our Future" conference, held in Chicago, June 2-4th, 2006William F. Pepper, an international lawyer, was the attorney for James Earl Ray, the supposed killer of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Ray was charged with King's murder, confessing to the assassination on March 10, 1969, (though he recanted this confession three days later) and was sentenced to 99 years in prison.Dr. William F. Pepper is also the lawyer who successfully acted for the family of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in a 1999 Memphis Circuit Court trial. The trial, Kings v. Jowers, etal, aka "the Martin Luther King, Jr. Assassination Conspiracy Trial" resulted in this jury verdict;THE COURT: In answer to the question did Loyd Jowers participate in a conspiracy to do harm to Dr. Martin Luther King, your answer is yes. Do you also find that others, including governmental agencies, were parties to this conspiracy as alleged by the defendant? Your answer to that one is also yes... Pepper interview with Kevin Barrett (audio / transcript) / audio. Here's a bit of it:Dr Kevin Barrett:  When I was being attacked by the mainstream media as a 9/11 truth researcher and soon to be ex-professor, I was attacked partly for having mentioned that I thought these political assassinations of the ‘60’s, notably the Kennedys and Dr. King, were obviously not done by lone nuts as we were told.  I responded to their attacks by saying something like:Well, call me a ‘conspiracy theorist,’ but I don’t think Julius Caesar was stabbed by a lone nut."It’s obvious that there are so many motives for power players to kill people in political assassinations. And yet we have this orthodoxy that it’s always a lone nut.  And even people as smart as Noam Chomsky tell us: "Oh, it doesn’t really matter whether the Kennedys or King or anybody like that lives or dies.  It’s all a big distraction and we should just accept the official story." And he says similarly idiotic things about 9/11 and other false flags.  How could someone like Chomsky not get it?Dr. William Pepper:  Well, I think Chomsky gets it.  I think he just refuses to acknowledge it. And whatever his particular reasons are, he just will not deal with the truth when it comes to certain issues. Political assassination is one.  I’ve had more than one conversation with him and it’s been somewhat embarrassing, because he clearly knows more than he’s willing to admit, for whatever reason.  He and a lot of Left thinkers go only so far.  And activists even.  And broadcasters and political figures also go just so far, and they won’t go any further, and that’s a matter of great frustration. Because you then are coming up against (censorship) not only in the mainstream media but also in the progressive media, which itself is serving the cause of injustice. [...]Dr. William Pepper:  The access of public information to the public, generally, is so critical because they create and perpetuate historical myths, and that’s all the people hear.  That’s all people hear from the mainstream media.  That’s all people hear from the progressive media, really, for the most part.  I know the publishers will try to get me on a variety of different programs like Bill Maher and of course, Amy Goodman.  Amy has always refused to deal with this.Dr Kevin Barrett:  Likewise with 9/11.Dr. William Pepper:  Yes, that’s right.  And yes and these are issues they will not touch. And a lot of that has to do with funding, where their funds come from. And they do have their limits.  Just like Smiley said:  Well, I have my limits.  Hey.  They have their limits. But the point is:  It’s such a betrayal of the role of journalism.  Of journalists. There are virtually no exceptions in the mainstream today.   That I can see.  There was, of course, Bill Attwood. When I returned from Vietnam I came to know Bill Attwood, and had enormous respect for Bill when he was managing editor and publisher of Look Magazine. [...]Dr Kevin Barrett:  Didn’t he suddenly have a heart attack and after a little shuffle at Look Magazine the article didn’t come out?Dr. William Pepper:  Well, he called Bob Kennedy at one in the morning after he had a meeting, the subsequent meeting to the one with me.The following week after he had met with me, he had a meeting with (New Orleans DA and JFK assassination conspiracy prosecutor) Jim Garrison. And Attwood called Bob Kennedy and said: "This meeting with the District Attorney in New Orleans has just shaken me to my shoes with the evidence the CIA killed your brother." And Bobby reportedly said to him, "We know that Bill, but I’ve got to get the White House in order to reopen this." And that was a little after one in the morning.  Then he had a heart attack at 4 a.m.  Three hours later. [...](4) Pepper's audio interview on the Corbett Report: King's "Beyond Vietnam" speech at Riverside Church, New York, April 4, 1967 from Martin Luther King, Jr., "Beyond Vietnam": Speech at Riverside Church Meeting, New York, N.Y., April 4, 1967. In Clayborne Carson et al., eds., Eyes on the Prize: A Reader and Guide (New York: Penguin, 1987), 201-04....I come to this platform tonight to make a passionate plea to my beloved nation. This speech is not addressed to Hanoi or to the National Liberation Front. It is not addressed to China or to Russia....Since I am a preacher by trade, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. * There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I, and others, have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor -- both black and white -- through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I watched this program broken and eviscerated, as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So, I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.Perhaps the more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem. And so we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools....My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettoes of the North over the last three years -- especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they ask -- and rightly so -- what about Vietnam? They ask if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government....For those who ask the question, "Aren't you a civil rights leader?" and thereby mean to exclude me from the movement for peace, I have this further answer. In 1957 when a group of us formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, we chose as our motto: "To save the soul of America." We were convinced that we could not limit our vision to certain rights for black people, but instead affirmed the conviction that America would never be free or saved from itself until the descendants of its slaves were loosed completely from the shackles they still wear....And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself for ways to understand and respond in compassion, my mind goes constantly to the people of that peninsula. I speak now not of the soldiers of each side, not of the ideologies of the Liberation Front, not of the junta in Saigon, but simply of the people who have been living under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think of them, too, because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution there until some attempt is made to know them and hear their broken cries. [...](6) New York Times editorial 'Dr. King's Error' - April 7, 1967 King's Error: New York Times Editorial-April 7, 1967The dominant media speak highly of Dr. King now that he's safely dead, but they weren't very enthusiastic about him when he opposed the war in Vietnam. Scanned and posted by Walter Lippmann, January 15, 2007. ----------Dr. King's ErrorIn recent speeches and statements the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. has linked his personal opposition to the war in Vietnam with the cause of Negro equality in the United States. The war, he argues, should be stopped not only because it is a futile war waged for the wrong ends but also because it is a barrier to social progress in this country and therefore prevents Negroes from achieving their just place in American life.This is a fusing of two public problems that are distinct and separate. By drawing them together, Dr. King has done a disservice to both. The moral issues in Vietnam are less clear-cut than he suggests; the political strategy of uniting the peace movement and the civil rights movement could very well be disastrous for both causes.Because American Negroes are a minority and have to overcome unique handicaps of racial antipathy and prolonged deprivation, they have a hard time in gaining their objectives even when their grievances are self-evident and their claims are indisputably just. As Dr. King knows from the Montgomery bus boycott and other civil rights struggles of the past dozen years, it takes almost infinite patience, persistence and courage to achieve the relatively simple aims that ought to be theirs by right.The movement toward racial equality is now in the more advanced and more difficult stage of fulfilling basic rights by finding more jobs, changing patterns of housing and upgrading education. The battle grounds in this struggle are Chicago and Harlem and Watts. The Negroes on these fronts need all the leadership, dedication and moral inspiration that they can summon; and under these circumstances to divert the energies of the civil rights movement to the Vietnam issue is both wasteful and self-defeating. Dr. King makes too facile a connection between the speeding up of the war in Vietnam and the slowing down of the war against poverty. The eradication of poverty is at best the task of a generation. This "war" inevitably meets diverse resistance such as the hostility of local political machines, the skepticism of conservatives in Congress and the intractability of slum mores and habits. The nation could afford to make more funds available to combat poverty even while the war in Vietnam continues, but there is no certainly that the coming of peace would automatically lead to a sharp increase in funds.Furthermore, Dr. King can only antagonize opinion in this country instead of winning recruits to the peace movement by recklessly comparing American military methods to those of the Nazis testing "new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe." The facts are harsh, but they do not justify such slander. Furthermore, it is possible to disagree with many aspects of United States policy in Vietnam without whitewashing Hanoi.As an individual, Dr. King has the right and even the moral obligation to explore the ethical implications of the war in Vietnam, but as one of the most respected leaders of the civil rights movement he has an equally weighty obligation to direct that movement's efforts in the most constructive and relevant way.There are no simple or easy answers to the war in Vietnam or to racial injustice in this country. Linking these hard, complex problems will lead not to solutions but to deeper confusion.(7) New York Times revisits King's speech, 50 years later (2017) Martin Luther King Came Out Against Vietnam [Vietnam '67], by David J. GarrowVIETNAM '67 APRIL 4, 2017Fifty years ago today — and one year to the day before his assassination — the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered the most politically charged speech of his life at Riverside Church in Upper Manhattan. It was a blistering attack on the government’s conduct of the Vietnam War that, among other things, compared American tactics to those of the Nazis during World War II.The speech drew widespread condemnation from across the political spectrum, including from this newspaper. Other civil rights leaders, who supported the war and sought to retain President Lyndon B. Johnson as a political ally, distanced themselves from Dr. King.Dr. King’s Riverside Church address exemplified how, throughout his final 18 months of life, he repeatedly rejected the sunny optimism of his 1963 "I Have a Dream" speech and instead mourned how that dream had "turned into a nightmare." But the speech also highlighted how for Dr. King, civil rights was never a discrete problem in American society, and that racism went hand in hand with the fellow evils of poverty and militarism that kept the country from living up to its ideals. Beyond signaling his growing radicalism, the Riverside speech reflected Dr. King’s increasing political courage — and shows why, half a century later, he remains a pivotal figure in American history.As early as the first months of 1965, even before Johnson had begun his troop buildup in Vietnam, Dr. King was calling for a negotiated settlement to the conflict, telling journalists, "I’m much more than a civil-rights leader." But his criticism of the government’s refusal to halt widespread aerial bombing and pursue peace talks attracted little public comment until that fall, when Senator Thomas Dodd of Connecticut, a close ally of Johnson, attacked Dr. King and cited an obscure 1799 criminal statute, the Logan Act, that prohibited private citizens from interacting with foreign governments.Dr. King was privately distraught over the war and Dodd’s response. The F.B.I.’s wiretapping of his closest advisers overheard him telling them "how immoral this is. I think someone should outline how wrong we are." But he reluctantly agreed that he should "withdraw temporarily" from denouncing the war. "Sometimes the public is not ready to digest the truth," he said.Dr. King remained relatively mute about the war through most of 1966, but by year’s end he was expressing private disgust at how increased military spending had torn a gaping budget hole in Johnson’s Great Society domestic programs. "Everything we’re talking about really boils down to the fact that we have this war on our hands," Dr. King said in yet another wiretapped phone call.Finally, in early 1967, he had had enough. One day Dr. King pushed aside a plate of food while paging through a magazine whose photographs depicted the burn wounds suffered by Vietnamese children who had been struck by napalm. The images were unforgettable, he said. "I came to the conclusion that I could no longer remain silent about an issue that was destroying the soul of our nation."Even at the time, antiwar opposition remained politically marginal, and Dr. King’s advisers were upset over his desire to participate in a forthcoming mid-April New York protest. In late February, Dr. King joined four antiwar senators — including a Republican, Mark Hatfield of Oregon — at a Los Angeles forum, and a month later he participated in an antiwar march in Chicago.Both events received modest press coverage, and in their wake Dr. King told Stanley Levison, long his closest adviser: "I can no longer be cautious about this matter. I feel so deep in my heart that we are so wrong in this country and the time has come for a real prophecy and I’m willing to go that road."Levison and others arranged for a respectable antiwar group, Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam, to schedule an appearance at Riverside Church, a bastion of establishment liberalism. For Dr. King, the speech couldn’t come soon enough. Three days prior he told a reporter, "We are merely marking time in the civil rights movement if we do not take a stand against the war."At Riverside, Dr. King told the 3,000-person overflow crowd that "my conscience leaves me no other choice" than to "break the betrayal of my own silences" over the past two years. Following the widespread urban riots that had marked the summer of 1966, "I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government."Dr. King acknowledged how his sense of prophetic obligation had been strengthened by his receipt of the 1964 Nobel Peace Prize, which represented "a commission to work harder than I had ever worked before for ‘the brotherhood of man’ " — a calling "that takes me beyond national allegiances." Dr. King emphasized that he counted himself among those who are "bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism."Dr. King then turned his full wrath against the war. He insisted that "we have no honorable intentions in Vietnam" and that "we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam." He alleged that the United States tested its latest weapons on Vietnamese peasants "just as the Germans tested out new medicines and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe," and he decried "the concentration camps we call fortified hamlets" in South Vietnam. Vietnam ’67He recommended that all young men confronting the military draft declare themselves conscientious objectors, and he called for the United States to halt all bombing and announce a unilateral cease-fire while preparing to "make what reparations we can for the damage we have done."But the war wasn’t just a mistake; it was "a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit." Civil rights, inequality and American policy in Southeast Asia were all of a larger piece. When "profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism and militarism are incapable of being conquered." He concluded by calling for "a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one’s tribe, race, class and nation."The Riverside crowd gave Dr. King a standing ovation, but editorial denunciations were swift and harsh. The Washington Post criticized his "sheer inventions of unsupported fantasy" and lamented how "many who have listened to him with respect will never again accord him the same confidence."The New York Times called Dr. King’s remarks both "facile" and "slander." It said the moral issues in Vietnam "are less clear-cut than he suggests" and warned that "to divert the energies of the civil rights movement to the Vietnam issue is both wasteful and self-defeating," given how the movement needed to confront what the paper called "the intractability of slum mores and habits."Even some of the black press lined up against him: The Pittsburgh Courier warned that Dr. King was "tragically misleading" African-Americans on issues that were "too complex for simple debate."Dr. King was unmoved. He told Levison that "I was politically unwise but morally wise. I think I have a role to play which may be unpopular," for "I really feel that someone of influence has to say that the United States is wrong, and everybody is afraid to say it."Dr. King was indeed ahead of his time, but not for long. A year later, antiwar sentiment pushed Johnson out of his re-election bid, and today we remember opposition to the war as a widespread phenomenon, so much so that Dr. King’s Riverside Church speech is often overlooked as just one more statement against an unpopular conflict.But it would be a mistake to read Dr. King’s speech as merely an antiwar statement. It reflected his widening worldview that chronic domestic poverty and military adventurism overseas infected the wealthiest nation on earth just as indelibly as did deep-rooted racism. It went to the heart of the multilayered social and political conflicts of the 1960s — and, like all great rhetoric, continues to speak to us today. Correction: April 4, 2017An earlier version of the photo caption misstated the placement of Dr. Benjamin Spock; he is on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s right, not his left. The caption also misstated the time of the demonstration; it was April 1967, not March 1967.David J. Garrow is the author of "Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King Jr. and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference" and the forthcoming "Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama."Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTOpinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.A version of this op-ed appears in print on April 4, 2017, on Page A27 of the New York edition with the headline: When Dr. King Came Out Against Vietnam.-- Peter Myerswebsite: