Pulitzer prize winning author and MLK biographer David Garrow has written a disturbing piece in the British magazine Standpoint on his review of secret tapes of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. There have long been stories about MLK’s affairs and even discussions of reexamining his standing in the MeToo period. However, the details in this article are different and deeply unsettling, if true. If not, Garrow has ruined his own celebrated career and defamed an American icon. Either way, one would think that there would a huge amount of coverage of the allegations in the mainstream media. Instead, there has been very little coverage of the story. While Yahoo and MSN ran foreign-based stories, most of the coverage has come from newspapers outside of the United States.
Garrow is a renowned author who won the Pulitzer Prize in 1987 for his book Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (1986). He is a liberal writer who is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. He has taught at a variety of leading universities and published in newspapers from The New York Times to the New Republic. In other words, this is someone who comes with considerable background and expertise.
Garrow says that he has reviewed the new information and detailed how MLK allegedly discussed extramarital affairs with “40 to 45 women” and reportedly spoke openly about having sex with women working with the NAACP, which Garrow said he called “International Association for the Advancement of P***y-Eaters.” Given the coverage of the infamous Trump campaign statements, that would seem something that many publications would cover but they have not.
Then there is Garrow’s recounting of what he describes as a rape committed with MLK’s support. The FBI had placed two transmitters in lamps in MLK’s hotel room, according to The Sunday Times. In the room at the Willard was King’s friend, Logan Kearse, the pastor of Baltimore’s Cornerstone Baptist church. Garrow says that the two discussed “which women among the parishioners would be suitable for natural and unnatural sex acts.” He says that the FBI report says that “When one of the women protested that she did not approve, the Baptist minister immediately and forcefully raped her” with King looking on and laughing and even offering advice. The agents also reported that King engaged in orgies in the hotel room. There is also the account of a prostitute involved in one such alleged orgy.
Garrow even tracked down an alleged daughter of King in Los Angeles though neither the mother nor child would speak with him.
There is no question that the FBI was hostile to MLK and J. Edgar Hoover viewed him as a threat. For that reason, I would not be inclined to simply accept a 302 form or internal memo on its face value. There is also the question of why the FBI would sit next door to a rape scene and not take any action. However, this is news either way. If it is false, it is an elaborate effort to frame MLK and a failure by a leading MLK biographer. If true, it means that an American hero was hiding a despicable and contempt-worthy life. So why the limited coverage? These files are now available for review.
Of course, no claim of actual libel could be brought if untrue. I have long advocated the statutory elimination of the torts doctrine barring defamation actions on the part of the deceased. The rule that “you can’t defame the dead” often protects outrageous lies written about famous deceased persons as detailed in this prior column. However, it remains the common law and the parents could not file such an action even if the filing was within the statute of limitations (which it is not).
Yet, there remains the court of public opinion and Garrow has raised questions that should be answered. If there were true, there may still be former agents or witnesses alive. There is also the question of the original tapes. This should not simply be a news story for the European press.
Thankfully we have Sputnik News to report that the FBI had huge trove of FBI documents on MLK.
At least the Democrats will rightly defend the FBI reports since they dutifully believe the FBI…AMIRIGHT?
😉
——-
FBI Files Reveal Martin Luther King, Jr. ‘Laughed’ at Rape, Revelled in Orgies
A huge trove of previously little-known FBI documents have reportedly exposed the dark traits of Martin Luther King’s personality, including his indifference to rape and dozens of extramarital sexual affairs he had while campaigning across the country.
A senior official with the FBI once acknowledged that Martin Luther King was the target of an intensive counterintelligence campaign to “neutralise him as an effective civil rights leader” from late 1963 up until his assassination in April 1968.
https://sputniknews.com/us/201905261075358592-marthin-luther-king-revelations/
Without confirmation and/or evidence, why is JT publishing this? The reputation of the author has value, but not value equal to the salacious nature and damage done – whether proven false or not. This is complete;y irresponsible on JT’s part at this point – wait for the confirmation and/or evidence – and one wonders what his compulsion is to publish it.
The reputation of the author has value, but not value equal to the salacious nature and damage done – whether proven false or not.
Yeah, Brett Kavanaugh gives you a +1000 on that comment.
wait for the confirmation and/or evidence – and one wonders what his compulsion is to publish it.
President Trump gives you a +1000 as well.
There is no comparison between this allegation against King and Kavanaugh – an alleged 1st person accusation by a reluctant and believable witness with nothing to gain (she requested the testimony of Bret’s wingman and highlighted the fantasy Kavanugh had constructed about his youth) about a lifetime appointment to the SC – and Trump – who’s lies and campaign collusion with Russia are now officially established, not to mention recordings of his PG bragging and porn star philandering with illegal payoffs. That’s not gossip, it’s facts.
If the King allegation is substantiated, write about it. Until then, leave it the the National Enquirer.
by a reluctant and believable witness with nothing to gain
ROTFL.
If the insert name here allegation is substantiated, write about it. Until then, leave it the the National Enquirer.
Now that would be a principled position. That you cannot see the hypocrisy in your posts informs everyone of your embarrassing character. Also, something for which this blogs archives have captured time and again.
Olly, I’m sure you are amused by that which exists only in your imagination – or you would advance it here and now.
Anon, you have earned the label of hypocrite. Wear it
Allan,
Not just wear it, own it.
He’s another of those slaves-in-waiting that believes he has no rights other than what the government gives him. Damn, even the actual slaves had more sense of natural rights than this imbecile.
Olly, spit in one hand and wait for God to put rights in your other and see which overflows first.
I am completely grateful for my luck in being born in this time and in this country, and if you had a wit of perspective and a smidgen of common sense, you would as well.
I am completely grateful for my luck in being born in this time and in this country, and if you had a wit of perspective and a smidgen of common sense, you would as well.
Perspective and common sense? I demonstrated my gratitude by serving this country honorably and I have not been relieved of that duty. You on the other hand demonstrate your gratitude by advocating a position claimed by every tyrannical regime that has ever existed? Damn.
Olly, perhaps you can square that gratitude with your disparagement of our government as if it had nothing to do with those rights. I’d also be interested in how you think I share values with tyrannical regimes. Specificity isn’t your thing, so no doubt I ask in vain.
perhaps you can square that gratitude with your disparagement of our government as if it had nothing to do with those rights. I’d also be interested in how you think I share values with tyrannical regimes. Specificity isn’t your thing, so no doubt I ask in vain.
Anon,
Our government has everything to do with those rights. Specifically, That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted… The DoI doesn’t say “to create these rights, governments are instituted.” The governments primary reason for existence is to secure those rights that we have merely because we exist. If government didn’t exist. If we lived in the state of nature, those rights would still exist. If those rights to life, liberty and property were as secure in the state of nature as they are living in a civil society, then there would be no need for government.
You use the term disparagement, you word, not mine. Once again back to the DoI. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
We have a principled duty as citizens of this country to be vigilant over how our rights are being secured. Our duty is not to relinquish that oversight back to the very government given the power to infringe those rights. That would be insane. And taking that insanity to the suicidal extreme, imagine not only giving up the critical oversight of our government, but to openly advocate the citizens of this country have NO rights other than what our government provides.
All of this is in the historical records. That means you are able to access whatever you need for more specificity. But based on your record here, I no doubt have responded in vain.
Olly, as to your last post, nothing I have said or believe should lead you to your accusation. I have lived through many electoral disappointments – to say the least – and many victories and without losing faith in our system and our country. On the contrary. I believe changes can be made which would be both beneficial and for the greater good – who doesn’t – but the basic process of our government is sound and well worth defending. If I didn’t feel that way I wouldn’t waste so much time arguing here. It’s not like I get confirmation and pats on the back.
This imbecile (Anon) is a fine example of cognitive dissonance arrogantly and ignorantly displayed.
Allan,
There are times I would prefer the Anon’s of this country experienced for themselves the unintended consequences of all they desire.
Olly, maybe you can describe these unintended consequences for what you think I desire.
Probably not.
maybe you can describe these unintended consequences for what you think I desire.
I can, but why should I? There is nothing in your body of work on this blog that would convince anyone that your opinions would be any different based on new facts. That would require a hint of humility that you do not have. If you cannot imagine those unintended consequences that comes from advocating a belief that all rights come from government, then you have never studied history. Here’s a hint: what would be the behavior of people that believed as you do? They would be terrified if their candidate lost and they would do everything and anything imaginable to prevent that. Not that that terror would be justified; only that they would be projecting what power they believe that opposition party should have.
Olly, thanks for your response.
You are correct on the wording and philosophy in the DoI, but it is a fantasy – and not the law of the land – which claims as almost all governments do – tyrannical or like ours, mostly benign – to fulfilling God’s will. There is nothing unique about that claim,whether by kings or dictators, but what is unique in ours is it’s basis in reason and the 17th & 18th century Enlightenment. The Constitution makes no mention of God or natural rights and has served us well for well for over 200 years. In fact, those rights have not existed unless a society – and there may have been many though probably not most during our long existence – decided to recognize and grant them
As to your statement that we must be vigilant and not cede our rights to those in power and control of our government, I am in full agreement. Citizens have responsibilities as well as rights – the two are often conjoined – and it is true that in our democracy we often – not always – get the government we deserve.
Anon,
One does need to believe in God to believe in natural rights. Humans existed before any form of government was created. To believe all rights come from government, one would have to believe humans wandered around in the wilderness believing they had no legitimate right to defend one’s life, one’s property, one’s beliefs, and so on. Imagine that for a moment. Are you going to stand still while a bear charges at you? Are you going to do nothing to prevent another human from clubbing you to death or from taking all your gear? What would be logical for another human having the right to kill you and you not having the right to defend yourself? Nothing. It would be natural for you to defend your life, your freedom, your property, your speech, and so on. What you would eventually conclude is that this type of existence sucks. You might try to negotiate some form of peaceful coexistence with others. Maybe you or someone else gets the bright idea that an agreement is made that everyone can now defend their own life, liberty, property and so on. Did you need God or religion to reach this epiphany that you have rights? Not at all.
This is a very good article on how Christians should view government:
But Christianity says no: The state and its leaders are not divine, and while they deserve respect, they do not stand above natural or divine law. Christianity reminds us that the state’s agents are sinners just like the rest of us.
This does not mean that Christians view the state and politics as evil, or even a necessary evil. Contrary to James Madison, even angels would need some government even if it were only for coordination and to decide which side of the angelic road to drive on. For Christianity, politics plays an important role, but it is a limited one. Christians view the state as important for coordination, administration of justice, and security and defense. But the state is not the source of truth and law.
Christianity rebukes the idea that the dictator or the majority determines or equals truth and justice. Some things are intrinsically wrong, and no state power or majority vote can make this not so. Because of this, human law must always be subordinate to divine law and natural laws. As Augustine, Aquinas, and the vast majority of thinkers in the Christian tradition have always held: an unjust law is no law at all.
https://www.lawliberty.org/2019/05/29/five-insights-christianity-brings-to-politics/
Olly, I fully agree with your summary of rights before government, except human societies would have almost always had an equivalent of government in the form tribal elders, charismatic leaders, kings, etc., some benign and some despots and some enslaving. In all these forms members may have had rights we think essential and even ” natural”, or not. The point is these social orders have defined rights and realistically then the rights we claim now as citizens are an accomplishment that depend on our collective will to keep them and advance them to even our weakest members.
I am not a Christian – used to be – but I also agree with that passage concerning how we should view government and leaders, except for where our rights come from. I maintain they come from us and our higher aspirations toward fairness and a better life for all citizens to achieve. No matter where they come from though, I assume we agree that it is up to us to resist new tyrants and dark ages, which from our history we can see are always clear possibilities.
I fully agree with your summary of rights before government,…The point is these social orders have defined rights and realistically then the rights we claim now as citizens are an accomplishment that depend on our collective will to keep them and advance them to even our weakest members.
Anon,
Good. That rights before government is the important distinction. The crucial next step is as you say figuring out how to keep them (secure them) equally for all.
I had a discussion years ago with someone at the Constitution Society regarding natural rights. I had a question regarding what happens to our natural rights when we leave the state of nature and enter into civil society. In a nutshell, he said we retained full ownership of those rights, but we disabled a portion of the security of those rights over to the institutions (government) created by the people. The only purpose then for the government is to secure those rights. They have no authority to redefine what those rights are. They have only been provided the limited authority to define the best means to secure them. The people retain the most important feature of the security of those rights and that is our right to alter or to abolish the existing government if they violate their original purpose.
To that end, our government and both major political parties have lost sight of that original purpose and more importantly, so has a large portion of the people they supposedly serve. Would you agree with this?
Olly, in practice we favor the same thing though we don’t agree on the cause and character of our rights. I also don’t necessarily agree on your pessimism about the present day and how it compares to the past. In many ways and in the most important I believe – we have more rights now than in previous times, and a larger segment of our society enjoys them. We have problems and in many ways voters are more ignorant or biased though in other ways much more informed. I think the increased partisanship, partly due to what several media outlets sell and partly due to the skill of the parties in drawing up “safe seats” which only require a primary victory, is a big problem as in reality the large middle largely agrees on most issues.
in practice we favor the same thing though we don’t agree on the cause and character of our rights.
Please explain further what you mean by the cause and character of our rights.
For instance, I’ve presented my position on natural rights; inalienable rights. Do you believe we have rights these rights?
Olly, I thought I had been clear. We agree that all humans should have rights and probably pretty much the same rights, but as a matter of fact, these rights are human constructs, dependent on us and our spreading of their idea to more and more fellow humans, as well as our defense of those we hold. You say these rights exist whether we can exercise them or not and I say if we can’t exercise them, we don’t have them.
I imagine we both advocate for spreading and defending these rights, no matter our differences on their origin.
You say these rights exist whether we can exercise them or not and I say if we can’t exercise them, we don’t have them.
Anon,
Thank you for the response. Let me begin by rewording that statement:
You say these rights exist whether they are secure or not and I say if they are not secure, we don’t have them.
I would take a different position: You say these rights exist whether they are secure or not and I say if they are not secure, then we need to remove from office those charged to secure them and replace them with those that will do the job.
I don’t know if you intended it or not, but your statement really highlights a fundamental difference between those on the Left and those on the Right. (I don’t like the labels, but I’ll use it for this discussion). The difference drives the behavior of the people towards our government.
On the Left, the fear would be that if the wrong person was elected to office, then that person would legitimately be able to prevent me from exercising my rights. Reminiscent of this quote from Obama: Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.
On the Right, we don’t believe anyone can legitimately prevent us from exercising our rights. Not Obama, not Trump, not anyone. The Left would be fearful of who is in power because they see that power as the legitimate controller of their rights. They would be dependent on government; a position the government would prefer the people hold. The Right takes a more self-reliant view towards government. The less central government the better. A position the government clearly opposes.
I’m sure you are amused by that which exists only in your imagination
You exist, or at least whatever entity Anon represents does. And there is nothing humorous about your blatant hypocrisy, nor your rabid imagination.
OK Olly, I acknowledge again your failure to back up what you assert and your surrender.
That’s what the archives provide, a backup. You may not comprehend that fact, but they are available for all to see. Acknowledge whatever, assert all you like. Just keep digging. 🙂
Olly, I didn’t think so.
@anon
What are you afraid of? Truth stands or falls on its own accord.
There is no idea which is so dangerous that it cannot even be discussed or debated.
Some inconvenient truths or “hate facts” are too hot for leftists to handle, that is why they are so keen to ban or censor speech they don’t like.
It is well known that MLK was a philanderer, plagiarizer, and had known communist ties.
I just wonder when lefties will start calling old school liberals like JT a “fascist” for opposing their proposed hate speech laws.
antonio
Antonio, a lie makes it around the world before the truth gets started. Wait for the confirmation and/or credible evidence. This is not a difficult principle.
@anon
Good sir, I would refer you to the 1989 kiss and tell book by King associate, Ralph Abernathy (And the Walls Came Tumbling Down) regarding King’s sexual piccadillos.
I guess Abernathy is a “fascist” too.
Compare the MLK doctoral dissertation with the unattested documents from which it came. King lifted entire paragraphs without giving proper citations.
Both of the above are well known facts. Inconvenient ones, I admit, but facts nonetheless.
antonio
Antonio, the accusation is whether MLK laughed while witnessing a rape, not whether he was a philanderer. The latter does not imply the former.
This is not difficult
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2009/06/moreover-please-stop-the-mlk-worship/19866/
Earth to Anon, King’s transgressions have been a matter of public record since 1988-90. They include sexual misconduct and academic misconduct. What’s open to dispute is specific allegations, not the general picture. Again, the sources are Ralph David Abernathy, David Garrow, (and Taylor Branch, IIRC). His academic misconduct can be seen by putting texts from King’s dissertation side by side with passages from Paul Tillich’s work and John Boozer’s dissertation.
Absurd, the accusation is whether MLK laughed while witnessing a rape, not whether he was a philanderer. The latter does not imply the former.
I’m aware there’s an elaboration on an older set of accusations. I’m also aware that the author is an obsessive compulsive documentarian and generally favorably disposed toward the Official History of the era. I don’t imagine he published this without some due diligence, but it’s possible it will have to be revised later.
It’s an incremental adjustment in what was already known about King.
Absurd, your position is not logical. Laughing at a witnessed rape is not “an incremental adjustment” to philandering,
This is Absurd X 8…….I have a friend who lived with Tillich at one time.
I asked her, years later, what that was like. She replied: “He liked big-busted women”.
That’s all she said.
Liberation theology, stateside??
Tillich’s 70th birthday was in 1956. Your friend must be quite elderly.
My rough impression of Tillich is that he had a quite unsalutary effect on the development of protestant theology and he’s best forgotten. It raises a red flag that King plagiarized from him in particular.
This is absurd……….She is late 80’s. Her husband, also a theologian, and Tillich were good friends, and for some reason Tillich was living with them.
Antonio, since when is J T an ‘old school liberal’..??? Either you are being sarcastic again or you honestly think J T ‘is’ a liberal. In that case you reveal yourself as being a far-right wing nut.
@PH
Let’s just say I am causally acquainted with JT from various legal events and conferences, have read his writings extensively.
I can assure you that JT is not a conservative, mainstream or otherwise. Comes down left of center on most all issues (except traditional notions of free speech). It’s just that the Overton window has moved so extensively in the last 10 years.
Don’t worry people such as you will be calling him a “Nazi” soon enough.
antonio
Seriously, Antonio, Trump supporters are so far to the right that J.T. appears moderate by contrast. But I assure you that no ‘real’ liberal would mistake J.T. as a liberal. Instead J.T. is about where Republicans were in the George W era.
@PH
Honestly, I do not consider myself a conservative. WFB/Heritage Foundation conservatives actually “conserve” very little. Today’s “conservatism” was the liberalism of 20 years ago. When lefties start proposing the legalization of polygamy, “conservatives” will argue for the sanctity of homosexual marriage.
Come from a Hispanic family who left the worker’s paradise of Cuba in 1961. After losing most of our possessions, my father became a union worker.
As for Trump, I do not view Trump the way liberals viewed Obama in 2008. Trump cannot and won’t save us, only buys a little time.
Can’t go into Turley’s head but he is a self proclaimed liberal. That’s all I can say.
antonio
JT is quite plain about his perspective. He’s a conventional academic and in his public advocacy defends the prerogatives and preferred rubrics of lawyers. He doesn’t have any interest in inane projects of college diversicrats, but he limits his jabs on that subject to objections lodged to their attacks on political dissent (without ever connecting the dots or offering a more systemic critique).
Oh for crying out loud, Anon-breath. This is old news. We’ve heard about this for decades.
You are such an Aunt Pittypat
Nope. The rape allegation is new. Probably another reason Jackie Kennedy referred to King as “that terrible man” and couldn’t even look at photographs of him.
Haven…It’s not new to me.
Cindy, you heard about King witnessing rapes and not only not intervening but laughing?
Aunt Pittyanon……..You forget that it was a different time in history…..and that many did not consider those acts “rape”.
Dr. King’s private life was very disgusting. I’m sure Soros will pay good money to invent a new one for publication.
So Cindy, the answer is no. You did not hear that King witnessed a rape while laughing about it. Thanks for clarifying that and the sloppy low standards you employ for believing accusations, and especially against those who have political opinions you oppose. As a Trump supporter that is not surprising revelation, though one hopes others may be more rational as Karen’s post was..
Anonypat…..I didn’t say “no”, you confused little rugrat, you.
Let me repeat what I’ve said before: My brother was in the Bureau during this time.
His boss was the future Deep Throat.
Sorry, but I out-rank you, Private Pittypat.
At ease, soldier, and drink your milk.
.You forget that it was a different time in history…..and that many did not consider those acts “rape”.
Where? The definition of rape hasn’t changed. It is true that people’s conception of non-verbal social signals has changed and that the forensic technology has changed and that has altered how rape charges are evaluated.
Absurd…………..you had to have lived as a young woman back in the 50’s and 60’s to understand the accepted definitions of what was and was not rape, according to dominating men. I’m surprised by your comment.
LOL…go easy on him.
He has his quirks to be sure but he does provide some sage comments more often than not
Estovir……I agree. He just doesn’t care for me too much, but that’s ok.
I still think he’s very bright and adds a unique dynamic to this blog.
Yeah Absurd, besides Deep Throat told Cindy MLK witnessed a rape and laughed about it.
Anon…….If you paid attention, you know that I have always said that I revered Dr. King.
I have always referred to him as “Dr. King”, and not diminished him to a 3 letter moniker.
I have also seen the left abandon his message of someday having a colorblind society. Black Lives Matter has made a mockery of that message, and I have said so.
All of this respect for him, even knowing what I and many others have known about him.
You are truly idiotic to think I cannot appreciate someone because they were flawed
That’s your area of expertise as a liberal: feigned outrage and hypocrisy.
i like his old speeches, kind of like I enjoy Louis Farrakhan’s speaking style sometimes too. but i would not have a holiday for either one of them
old Jesse Helms made me happy when he stood up against it
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/articles/helms_stalls_kings_day.html
in retrospect maybe somebody should say Jesse was right
say that reminds me, I kind of like this speech too., people say that Malcolm X was talking about MLK. I wouldnt know but it’s kind of a funny speech
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ_VWpJj0Dw
Mr. Kurtz……..I loved Jesse’s Southern accent, of course, but rarely agreed with him politically.
But I’ll say this: He was genuine.
Yeah, sure Kurtz, why would we celebrate the one person singularly most responsible – there were millions of others involved no doubt, including me – in securing equal rights for all US citizens.
That’s ridiculous.
Anon writes: “there were millions of others involved no doubt, including me – in securing equal rights for all US citizens.”
I don’t know how many times we have to hear that Anon was in the Civil Rights movement, did his own taxes, had his own business, etc. He must have low self esteem to have to continuously promote himself among all of his mistruths. He is nothing but a hollow hypocrite that denies his own written words.
For the record, I relate my real life experiences as they apply to some subjects and don’t brag about them. I have stated I was no hero in the CR movement but know a little about the reality of that day. I am not a big business guy – which is partly why I do my own taxes – but have stayed alive and making payroll for a long time. I knew Bernie when – as accurately stated by absurd – he didn’t have a pot to….. My contact in the DOJ is someone I am very proud of, but their success in ringing up serious criminals it’s not of my doing.
anon you are free to believe my opinion that MLK day is not meritworthy holiday for federal recognition.
Lincoln by the way, is the one that did the most to “Free the slaves” over the nation’s history, than anybody, by sending 300 thousand or so white yankees to their death to crush the secession.
I shared what Malcolm X and some others had to say in order to show that not every black person regards him as the Supreme Hero either.It seems that they believe this was a sop to black folks to keep them pacified, if i understand him correctly.
i of course am not black. but i think they are not a monolithic community of opinion, even if they are usually presented that way. they are free to have their own individual opinions.
I might personally admire Marcus Garvey more. Or GW Carver. Or Booker T Washington more. Most people have never heard of them. LMK has become sainted and all others’ stars are dim in his bright glow. Stories like this will not change much, believe them or not.
since I am a white person, i am immediately suspect of evil intent, for my opinion on this ,and also that Columbus day should be retained
Cindy, it was always known that there was a dark side to Dr. King where some of the specifics were lacking. It was known that the FBI followed him and did so for some reasons that would not make Dr. King a hero.
However, he was a man with a message at the right time in history. His death probably preserved his legacy. I see nothing wrong with honoring the man for what he did for the Civil Rights movement and the legacy he left us with, colorblindness and peace. That doesn’t seem to be what the left practices so perhaps they have a reason to tear his legacy down along with his ideas that do not match the ideas promoted by today’s Democratic Party.
Good comment, Allan!
Allan…..P.S. Didn’t Anon invent the internet?😊
Cindy, I appreciate that the modern right, in an effort to not appear completely out of step with where the nation is on race has tried to pretend King agreed with them in their opposition to things like affirmative action – he was in support – or anything else designed to level the playing field for blacks who had been victimized for 400 years in America, but now, hey let’s all be equal!
That is irrelevant to your assumption of guilt in this case without confirmation and/or evidence beyond the claims of one author.
anon…..if you’re so offended, how about taking on BLM and tell them about what a disservice they are doing to his memory?
I am not right wing, you dear sweet lugnut. I am an intelligent critical thinker.
Try it sometime
King agreed with them in their opposition to things like affirmative action – he was in support
Thanks for the anachronism. Been an education.
Anon, there is a vast world outside of the left. That world encompases everyone else but we have to remember that it was the left that enslaved the blacks and the left that passed laws to keep the blacks in an inferior position. It was members of the other groups that wanted blacks treated equally and looked for a color blind society.
So far your words don’t match that color blind society or the words of MLK: “”I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
Cindy, it is hard to imagine you can be a Trump supporter without being right wing. It is surely not for his personal qualities.
I don’t agree with what you think King stood for, and if he were still alive, those on the right wouldn’t like him anymore than they did back then.
How are the actions of BLM doing a disservice to King’s memory? Are all blacks required to somehow uphold it, anymore than you and I are to uphold Lincoln’s because we’re white?
Allen’s post is beyond idiotic, hardly a comment worth making, though he has surpassed himself tonight.
“Allen’s post is beyond idiotic”
In other words, Anon, you are stupid enough to believe that the world is so small that there is only the left you belong to and the right that exists only in your mind. Fools may believe that but the majority live outside of that world. …And yes those outside of that world were the people that freed the slaves and wanted equality for all.
Do you know what constitutes the right wing? You really don’t and that was proven on prior postings. According to many things you have written you do not agree with what Dr. King promoted, but then again you are a hollow hypocrite that talks out of both sides of his mouth continuously denying what you have clearly written by your own hand
No, I don’t Cindy. The text of the goddamn Penal code hasn’t changed.
Absurd X 8 ………I stand by what I said.
Many people, especially in law enforcement, did not consider certain acts to be rape. Forget the “definition”.
That’s the way it was back then. The “definition” of rape did not matter!
It’s laughable to even discuss what it meant back then.
(The penal code did change in Texas in early 70’s…….. certain laws were codified)
Houston law enforcement also shrugged their shoulders at dozens of missing persons reports filed ca. 1972 by parents of adolescent sons. It later turned out they’d been abducted and murdered by a man named Dean Corrl. They never caught Corrl. His accomplices killed him and turned themselves in.
You know what? I’m pretty sure kidnapping, forcilble sodomy, and murder were frowned on in Texas in 1973.
The bad institutional culture of Texas police forces and Texas courts is regrettable, but it doesn’t say much about social life in this country generally.
Of course, I wasn’t a young woman in 1955, but my mother and aunts and all of their friends were. You put this notion that people fancied rape was all in good fun when they were young married women and you’d get puzzled looks.
Good lord, Absurd…..I was referring to the fact that the accusers, the women! were rarely believed!!! That’s why the definition didn’t matter…It was sporadically enforced!
Jeeze……reading comprehension on this blog is enjoying an extended holiday, apparently.
I did not put up the notion that rape was all in good fun.
Honeylamb, I am appalled by your assessment of what I wrote.
Good lord, Absurd…..I was referring to the fact that the accusers, the women! were rarely believed!!! That’s why the definition didn’t matter…It was sporadically enforced!
In Marilyn French’s imagination, they were ‘rarely’ believed.
There is, of course, a distinction between whether or not an accuser is believed by an authority and whether or not sufficient evidence is present to send someone to prison. Then as now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_Hebrew_Bible
Absurd………On more occasions than not, there was not a distinction between whether or not the accuser was believed and if there was evidence. I think you are young and most likely in a class of society that did not realize how women accusers were treated……..shunned and shut. Really, this is basic stuff, Absurd.
Absurd………On more occasions than not, there was not a distinction between whether or not the accuser was believed and if there was evidence. I think you are young and most likely in a class of society that did not realize how women accusers were treated……..shunned and shut. Really, this is basic stuff, Absurd.
1. I’m not young. Not that it matters.
2. My class in society then or now is not at issue.
3. It isn’t ‘basic stuff’. It’s propaganda tossed around by people like Susan Brownmiller.
Absurd……….
Of course your social status is an issue. Don’t be ridiculous.
Should I know who Susan Brownmiller is? Sorry, don’t remember her.
Again, this is basic stuff………you weren’t plugged in to the reality of it, and that’s fine. We can’t change the past.
It is not ‘basic stuff’. It is your imagination.
“The reality” in 1960 was that punishment was haphazard across the board. There were 9,000 homicides reported to law enforcement and 3,500 people sentenced to prison for homicide. There were 17,000 rapes reported, and 3,500 people sentenced to prison for rape. There were 108,000 robberies reported and 7,400 people remanded to prison for robbery. there were 154,000 aggravated assaults reported and 3,900 people remanded to prison for assault. (There were dozens of people on death row for rape in 1960 as well).
(See Historical Corrections Statistics in the United States, 1850-1984 by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, pg. 42 and compare with the Disaster Center crime rate data).
Absurd….”It is your imagination”
You say that, usually when you’ve stopped strutting and have run out of zings.
Reload, and enjoy what’s left of the evening.
Madam, you were the one resorting to status games, not me. First you tried playing the age card, then the class card. And to the actual data, you have no response.
Absurd…
Oh my god, Biff! Alright, I’ll play!
My stats show the opposite of yours. They’re from Criminal Justice.
I cannot copy and paste on this ipad, so you’ll have to take my word on that.
Since you have a need to always be correct, I announce you the winner.
If you had been my son, by the way, I would have worked on that attitude of yours.
You’re such a smart, witty kid. But those social skills need work.
If you had been my son, by the way, I would have worked on that attitude of yours.
My mother had not one proximate friend born after 1936. Some of them are dead, some are senile, and some are working on getting through everyday life. None of them were opinionated people in meatspace except in rarefied conditions with people they trusted in regard to the particular subject under discussion.
Absurd X infinity……………I have wondered if your mother was someone like Margaret Jay.
No, my mother wasn’t a British life peer.
This should be investigated. The allegation should be able to be proven or disproven, if such a tape exists.
If it is true, and the FBI declined to intervene in a rape in progress in order to protect their cover, then that, too, should be investigated. If the allegations prove true, then what are the FBI’s guidelines on blowing cover in a covert surveillance operation should they witness one crime while purportedly investigating another? In this case, MLK was not suspected of any crime to predicate surveillance, that I know of.
The treatment of the allegations underscore differentiation of treatment, as well.
I have long admired MLK, Jr, although it was in spite of his determined infidelity. He was both married and promiscuous, and Lord only knows what he brought home to his wife. People can be complex beings. While he did great good for mankind, he also caused misery at home, and was not trustworthy in his most personal relationship. People in general tend not to be strictly black or white hats.
I sincerely hope that these allegations are not proven true, although they need to be vigorously investigated. If true, it does not detract from his legacy of good in the world, but it most definitely destroys his already fractured personal reputation as a Godly, good man.
I am very sorry for his family for having to go through this pain as this is investigated.
When can we expect womyn with pink puzzy hats demanding the renaming of all schools, streets, roads, highways and bridges from MLK Highway to Pink Puzzy Hats R Us?
This is not a surprise given his plagiarized graduate work.
Maybe it’s all true. Or maybe 2016 was not the first time that FBI management created insurance policies against people they didn’t like.
It’s been suggested that FBI agents jonesing for promotion made up stuff that JEH wanted to hear.
one of the remarks in this essay seems naive.
“why would the FBI stand by during a rape”
the FBI on surveillance will often have ROE that limit their contact. that is typical for many intelligence or counterintelligence operations. do not make contact under any circumstances only observe. i am not sure what the FBI’s own self serving supposed protocols are but that is certainly an SOP for many surveillance activities and perhaps especially so surreptitious forms of electronic surveillance which could reveal methods and sources, basic tradecraft stuff.
it’s also not uncommon when the subjects under observation include FBI informants
was MLK himself an informant? one wonders
it seems his file is sealed so we will never know
moreover, well. it may or may not have been a rape by that day’s standards, for starters. what is rape has “evolved” over time
Who was he informing on? Roy Wilkins? His own staff? James Foreman?
hell if i know. FBI agents did and still do approach people considered radical leadership and stroke them for whatever information they want to blurt out. they can do it via lawyers too.
I don’t think King himself (much less Wilkins) was considered ‘radical’ to anyone but Southern segregationists. He had his critics in other sectors, but I suspect you go back and read old issues of NR or Human Events, their complaint about King is a tile in the mosaic of their complaint about the regnant liberalism generally. For my father and his chums, King was a figure of fun. That’s a perspective on King that’s been largely forgotten in the intervening years.
Ronald Reagan said “after 35 years we will know whether he was one or not.” (a communist) when he approved the bill for the holiday. an interesting remark from one who probably knew, which is why he made the quip.
My money is on the rumors that he had a strong affiliation with the CPUSA
here is an article from the bircher mag about Stanley Levinson one of his advisers and what the FBI had to say about his influence on MLK
https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/27310-declassified-fbi-paper-reveals-communist-associates-of-martin-luther-king
rather than reflexively discredit the source, instead identify whether content is true or false
While I agree that many crimes are observed during surveillance, one wonders if there was no moral imperative to save the woman from an assault.
For one, it is my understanding that MLK was not suspected of any crime. He was investigated for possible Communist ties, and for being suspected of being involved in black nationalism, of which there was at least one domestic terrorist group. However, our Constitution allows free association and free speech. They were not investigating any crime.
Would they have sat idly by and recorded a murder?
These guys are supposed to be lawmen. Out of everyone, they are supposed to have a solid internal compass on right and wrong. I found the thought disturbing that any officer would observe a rape and do nothing in order not to endanger an unlawful fact finding mission on a US citizen.
In any case, this needs to be investigated.
Say, what about like with whitey bulger where they FBI was feeding info on who is a snitch to a known murderer, higher up on their valued information list, so whitey could find him and erase him?
two former fbi in prison for that now
who failed to properly supervise that Boston office of the FBI?
Robert Meuller or so I have read.
and I wonder who gave the order to wheel the very infamous snitch whitey bulger into genpop from p.c? which predictably ended in his murder
remember, “snitches get stitches” is pretty close to an iron law as anything
I did not know Mueller was involved in any of that.
From time to time, a general fumigation of the FBI may be in order.
On the other hand the most important comment to make is a cheer for the return of equality. Will the statues come down now? “Oh the crystal chandeliers light up the paintings on the wall…..”
Power corrupts. Rape is an expression of physical power. And sometimes religious power.
There have been a number of religious leaders from Catholic priests to the founder of Mormonism to David Koresh to protestant pastors who have exercised their religious power over their membership to have inappropriate sexual relations with them.
There have been many who have preached sexually morality and were themselves sexually immoral.
Anyone may be accused and there is almost no defense. Guilty until proven innocent is the norm for sexual immorality accusations today as seen in the #MeToo movement.
The accusation is plausible. However, after you have died it is difficult to mount a defense.
Rape is an expression of disordered sexual impulses.
Rape is an expression of physical power. And sometimes religious power.
In the case of Bill Clinton, what was his excuse? Virginia Lt Governor Justin Fairfax?
The accusation is plausible. However, after you have died it is difficult to mount a defense.
Bill Clinton is still alive. What to do?
Hint:
“Today, when many countries have seen the fall of ideologies which bound politics to a totalitarian conception of the world — Marxism being the foremost of these — there is no less grave a danger that the fundamental rights of the human person will be denied and that the religious yearnings which arise in the heart of every human being will be absorbed once again into politics. This is the risk of an alliance between democracy and ethical relativism, which would remove any sure moral reference point from political and social life, and on a deeper level make the acknowledgement of truth impossible. Indeed, “if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism”
Pope John Paul II
Veritatis Splendor, n. 101
https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor.html
I think JT approaches history as a continually evolving revelation, while many others view history as a set of narrative stories to be protected against counternarrative revision.
JT’s framework is the more powerful one. There can never be any complete history of the past, because details must be suppressed in the telling, and most of what happened is a mass-action with billions of moving parts. Oversimplification is therefore both a necessity and flaw of any historical account.
What’s troubling is that many US media orgs have become narrative machines — the tell is suppression of counternarrative information. In the long-run, this does not bode well for a free society, because any bias in the media will be taken advantage of by professionally-trained infowarriors whose agendas remain concealed.
So what are we supposed to make of this revelation? If true, this sheds a bright light on the content of his character. This would demonstrate he is just another man who can be both personally flawed yet publicly right.
John Emerich Edward Dalberg, Lord Acton, Acton-Creighton Correspondence
“I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way against holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority.”
https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/acton-acton-creighton-correspondence#lf1524_label_010
Great men are almost always bad men,
I doubt many people called bulls**t on Lord Acton to his face, which is why you get inanities like this.
the human condition needs constant restraining. Left unchecked like entropy, no amount of greatness can resist the rot that engulfs us all. See MLK Jr
“For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. 17 So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.”
Romans 7:15
What he said is still rubbish.
Tabby, as I was saying the other day, certain commenters here could have links to Non-Profit Charities near and dear to Republicans. The commenter above, for instance, could be affiliated with the so-called Christian Right. The trajectory of his posts creates a trail that strongly implies that.
Remembering the adage, “consider the source”, I looked up Garrow’s bibliography per his website. A 1,460-page tome, “Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama”? Really? A glowing sniveling homage to the expansion of the Orwellian State?
No, if you want to find out about Obama’s true roots, get a copy of genuine investigative journalist Wayne Madsen’s, “The Manufacturing of a President: The CIA’s Insertion of Barack H. Obama, Jr. into the White House”. And there are many other works on Obama’s actual origins.
Once you see where Garrow is coming from, then one remembers that the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., by the “Deep State” (or whatever term you wish to ascribe to our oligarchs) didn’t end with his physical death.
And certainly, publication in the NYT and modern-day New Republic hardly recommends Garrow for anything more than government press releases. Which he does seem good at, as his attack on King shows.
No, if you want to find out about Obama’s true roots, get a copy of genuine investigative journalist Wayne Madsen’s, “The Manufacturing of a President: The CIA’s Insertion of Barack H. Obama, Jr. into the White House”. And there are many other works on Obama’s actual origins.
If you want the issue of Mr. Madsen’s imagination, do that.
There’s nothing terribly mysterious about Obama. His career is a distressing reminder of the alacrity with which people like David Plouffe can sell spam in a can to an electorate of willing buyers.
Tabby, maybe you’re as old as Alan. If that’s the case, you could be totally stumped with regards to Obama’s lingering popularity among people under 50.
The truth is that John McCain, however honorable, seemed a little old and cranky to actually get the White House. And it didn’t help that Sarah Palin championed aggressive ignorance like it was her pet cause.
maybe you’re as old as Alan. If that’s the case, you could be totally stumped with regards to Obama’s lingering popularity among people under 50.
Speaking of championing aggressive ignorance, Sarah Palin is Solomon compared with your most recent post.
Olly, Sarah Palin was too scatter-brained for even Fox News.
Sarah Palin spent 11 years of her life as a public executive. How’s your life going?
Tabby, Palin was Mayor of a Truck Stop and served on their town council. That experience barely counts in the world of big-league politics.
One should also note that most of Alaska is administered by the Federal Government. Alaska’s actual population is largely confined to Anchorage’s metro region.
Actually, she was mayor of a municipality with a population of 10,000, a state bureau chief, and state governor. This isn’t that difficult.
One should also note that most of Alaska is administered by the Federal Government.
There’s a large inventory of federal land in Alaska. Hardly anyone lives there. It consists of boreal forest and tundra (along with some Arctic waste).
Alaska’s actual population is largely confined to Anchorage’s metro region.
No. The dense settlement around Anchorage has about 30% of the state’s population. There are five other knots of population which form subsets of surrounding units of administration. These knots range in population between 5,600 and 35,000. About 12% of the population lives in these five knots. The rest of the population lives in small service villages or in the countryside.
You really don’t know much.
Tabby, according to Wikipedia, the 2018 estimate for Alaska’s population is 737,000. Of that total about 400,000 live in the Anchorage Metro area. Few states in America have that many people concentrated around their largest city.
No, about 400,000 may live within commuting distance of Anchorage. The actual dense settlement is about 230,000 people. I’ve checked this with block-group level data.
The Standard Metropolitan Area’ is not a unit of data collection which describes actual settlements. The Census Bureau uses another unit, the ‘urbanized area’ for that. However, ‘urbanized areas’ as the Census Bureau makes use of the term use quite lax boundary conditions (500 persons per square mile, which translates into 200 households per square mile, which transfers into a mean density of one household per 3 acres). A proper set of boundary conditions is more demanding than the Census Bureau makes use of, because when the lots are that size, sidewalks are atypical, sewer hook-ups not generally necessary (as there is ample space for leech-fields). Depending on where you live, well water can replace municipal piping.
Tabby, I’ve been looking at population stats most of my life. If Anchorage has a Metro Area of 400,000 that means just that. It means ‘more than half of Alaska’ live within easy commuting distance of Anchorage. Which pretty much supports my original contention. Few states in America are that dominated by their largest city.
Few states in America have that many people concentrated around their largest city.
The following states have dense settlements whose population accounts for a larger share of their state’s population than does urban Anchorage. Again, the boundary conditions I’m using are that each block-group has a density exceeding 1,000 persons per square mile, or is surrounded by such block groups, or is hemmed in between such block groups on one side and water, park land or the state border on the other.
Greater Boston: 2.8 million, 45% of the population of Massachusetts in 2010.
Downstate New York: 12.2 million, 64% of the population of New York
Northern New Jersey: 5.6 million, 63% of the population of New Jersey.
Urban New Castle County, De.: 460,000, 52% of the population of Delaware.
Greater Baltimore: > 2 million, 35% of the population of Maryland.
Greater Atlanta: 3.9 million, 39% of the population of Georgia.
Greater Detroit: 4.0 million, 40% of the population of Michigan.
Greater Chicago (less NW Indiana), 8 million, 64% of the population of Illinois.
Greater Minneapolis: 2.5 million, 46% of the population of Minnesota
Greater Denver: 2.2 million, 40% of the population of Colorado
Greater Phoenix; 3.4 million, 54% of the population of Arizona
Greater Las Vegas: 1.84 million, 68% of the population of Nevada
Greater Salt Lake City: 927,000, 34% of the population of Utah
Greater Los Angeles, 14.4 million, 37% of the population of California
Greater Seattle: 2.7 million, 40% of the population of Washington State
Urban Honolulu, 800,000, 60% of the population of Hawaii.
That’s 16 states, Peter. There are several other states for which this ratio hardly differs from that of Alaska (Florida, Nebraska, Missouri, New Mexico).
If Anchorage has a Metro Area of 400,000 that means just that
No, Peter, the SMA as a data collection unit refers to commuting patterns, and the thresh-hold to be included has in the past been astonishingly low (I think as low as 5% of the resident population ca. 1984). That for my home town sprawled over five counties. People living in country homesteads in Livingston County, NY would be very surprised to hear they lived in ‘Rochester’. The misleading quality of the SMA as a unit is why the ‘urbanized area’ designation was developed.
She ‘championed’ nothing of the sort.
Living in Southern California, I’m sure you fancied BO was a bitchin’ candidate. What Truman Capote said about California applies, “you lose one point off your IQ every year you stay out there”.
Some of the rest of us noted that he farted around in legislatures for 12 years but established himself as a maven in no area of policy, that the closest thing he’d had to an executive position was his failed stint as chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, that he collected a salary from the University of Chicago for 12 years but never published one scholarly paper, and that he worked in law offices for less than four years and never acquired a partnership. Quite extraordinary that this tyro / ticket-puncher was the party nominee (as Geraldine Ferraro noted).
So, those who voted for the former head of the Harvard Law Review – a position for which he was supported by the conservative members – who was also a Constitutional Law Proff at U of Chicago and now ranked 12 best president by a survey of historians are being criticized by someone who voted for the self-described “king of debt” and biggest loser of money of ALL AMERICANS in the early 1990s and on-line purveyor of water, steaks, ties, and bogus college degrees?
That is some funny s..t? Stop it absurd, you’re killing me!!
The problem here is that the extraparliamentary politics practiced from about 1954 to 1971 is of intense interest in what might be called Official History (as propagated by PBS, among others). King himself was a charismatic figure in the strict sense – not in the debased sense of a pol who could put together some applause lines. Looking at it dispassionately, the utility or disutility and the justice or injustice of what anyone sought in that era isn’t a function of any particular person’s virtue or vice. The thing is, King’s charisamatic aspect leaves a residue (enhancing or tarnishing) on anything in which he was involved. And the Official Historians have not been helping to place the events of those years in proper context (which it is admittedly a challenge given the limited passage of time).
In regard to a related matter, one must ask what if our legal holidays were a function of actual popular culture (celebrations people offer in their own homes) and not abstract impositions consequent to jonesing by lobbies. Were that the case, we’d have four national holidays (Christmas, New Year’s, Fourth of July, and Thanksgiving). Fifty years ago, Memorial Day might have counted as a fifth, but popular enthusiasm for discrete celebrations withered after it was made an appendix to a three day bender. (Easter is a popular celebration, but it’s never been a regular work day. Halloween is a children’s celebration). We could unload the remaining legal holidays, insist on holiday time only on the traditional day of celebration (even if on a Saturday or Sunday), and establish a common standard of three weeks a year of worth of vacation and personal time. Blacks might be less irritated with the demise of the King holiday if ‘President’s Day’, ‘Memorial Day’, ‘Labor Day’, ‘Columbus Day’, and ‘Veterans Day’ went with it.
I never ceased to be amazed at what JT posts on this blog. The good professor is going to lose his liberal card sooner rather than later. And Garrow is not far behind.
Of course, no one MLK included should be above criticism but that’s not how the left works. Leftists icons are beyond criticism or critique.
Let’s not forget the plagerized doctorate purported to be written by King.
MLK – the only American hero with their own FBI file.
King was a fraud and charlatan who had communist ties. And that is a fact.
Long live free thought and expression.
antonio
King was a fraud and charlatan who had communist ties. And that is a fact.
He was a sexual transgressor. His conduct is an indication of (1) decay of character and (2) religion as performance rather than as daily practice ordering one’s being. And I say that because his transgressions were so frequent and had the ready participation of others in his circle. Ted Haggard had a scatter of offstage trysts, not this.
In his political advocacy, he wasn’t engaged in any fraud (above and beyond the irriducible quantum of artifice there be in public life). Some of his objects were defensible, some disputable.
i think i read the substance of these new “revelations” about 25 years ago. it’s old news, kind of like certain specific UFO sightings and recordings the government has recently been “confirming” after long delay
While Yahoo and MSN ran foreign-based stories, most of the coverage has come from newspapers outside of the United States.
Which means it is all true
Intelligent readers get their news on the USA from foreign agencies
My rough impression is that the British press has been trained to work within that country’s severe civil defamation laws, so makes fewer gross errors and trades in fewer lies. They also seem to do actual reporting, while the residue of our press offers some factoids to fill in the spaces between the editorializing.
“There is no question that the FBI was hostile to MLK and Herbert Hoover viewed him as a threat. For that reason, I would not be inclined to simply accept a 302 form or internal memo on its face value. There is also the question of why the FBI would sit next door to a rape scene and not take any action. However, this is news either way. If it is false, it is an elaborate effort to frame MLK and a failure by a leading MLK biographer. If true, it means that an American hero was hiding a despicable and contempt-worthy life. So why the limited coverage? These files are now available for review. ”
This is an understatement. We know from declassified documents and Taylor Branches account of the King years the extent to which Hoover manufactured documents to attempt to discredit King. So I actually think without further evidence we should view these revelations very skeptically.
i read on the internet that many black folks compare black preachers to pimps. there are tons of search results like that you can verify yourself
https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/most-black-preachers-are-nothing-more-than-poverty-pimps.1485778/
maybe MLK was a fraud too?
maybe MLK was a fraud too?
I believe the operative word would be hypocrite.
Maybe it takes one to know one but first time I ever heard the claim from a machine part.
Recognize that Pres. Trump is a legitimate target; he opposes the liberal agenda and is an evil man. Thus anything said about him is fair – even if what is said is wrong.
Rev. King on the other hand is a liberal icon; he represents all that is good in America (including being an effective leader who happens to be black).
Revealing the truth about Rev. King does not fit the party line – after all, who wants to be the one who throws the first stone?
There are two kinds of truth: the truth told about an evil person, which truth can be broadcast; and the truth about a (presumed) saint, which can never be mentioned because it disturbs the liberal order.
That would be J Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI and not Herbert Hoover the 31st US president..
“So why the limited coverage?”
*****************************
Because, as we learned in India, Sacred Cows are sacred for a reason: it pleases the cult and their propagandists.
Actually because a lot of us know the extent to which Hoover manufactured accusations against King.
Not sure Hoover made any public accusations against King, though he’s known to have despised the man. The question at hand is the extent to which the 302s were fabricated to appeal to the boss’s prejudices.
In re King, it’s not a matter of dispute that sexual misconduct was standard fare in and among his camarilla. Specific incidents might be disputed.
…AND knowing we refuse to share our knowledge…..
perhaps King himself may not have been the persecuted figure that he seemed to be in retrospect, but something of a fabricated icon to channel the energy of angry African Americans.
perhaps there is information in his sealed file which would confirm this, like perhaps he was also an informant
perhaps unsealing that file would only make the US government look bad. like, really bad.
if they said King was an informant now after all these years, well, it might be true but who would believe them? i would perhaps but AA people might just be very angry and accuse the government of “Smear”
it could be a harpoon that harms the US Gov rep on the insertion and on the withdrawal too. the only thing to do is let the barb stay in place sealed. just speculating of course
then there was the “conspiracy theory” that James Earl Ray was not the killer. but i won’t get started on that one today too busy and Absurd will scold me.
cue scolding!
There’s a conspiracy theory for everything. Generally peddled by people with more imagination than sense.
well i thought it was bogus until i found out james earl ray took an alford plea. of course the first one hundred times I heard that he “confessed” i didnt know what al alford plea was. once i knew what an alford plea was, it was kind of discrediting to me that all those years people had been referring to ray as a confessed killer when an “alford plea” means exactly the opposite. it is not a confession it is a repudiation of the facts but an acceptance of criminal liability for the defendant’s own personal reasons
courts don’t like them because they lack the social legitimacy of other normal sorts of pleas.
anyhow there are other problems which gave rise to the “conspiracy theory” none the least of which is the fact that apparently King’s family did not believe that Ray was the killer .Since I heard this, I have found their opinion, relevant, at least
He didn’t take an Alford plea. Application of the term to his case (concluded in 1969) is anachronistic.
He had an experienced criminal defense lawyer (Percy Foreman) who negotiated his plea and who was quite clear in later years that the evidence against his client was insurmountable.
I’m not sure why the opinion of MLK’s n’er-do-well son Dexter is ‘relevant’.
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) came after this but the notion is not “anachronistic.” the practice in various different forms has been around a long time. old jesus himself refused to defend himself against false charges, remember?
as for ray he quickly tried to change the plea 3 days later and maintained later tha he was framed. maybe he was lying, the man was a bad person,. or maybe not.
more than just dexter. the whole family thought it was someone else. they sued somebody too. look it up. sure seems odd to me. if the family of the victim doesn’t buy the plea than why should I ?
I guess they could have had a trial but we’ll never know huh
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/03/30/who-killed-martin-luther-king-jr-his-family-believes-james-earl-ray-was-framed/
i find it amazing how so many people who tangle with the powers that be over the generations, end up in violent and yet accidental deaths. heres an example
_____________________________________
(From New York Times, November 10, 1977)
WILLIAM C. SULLIVAN, EX-F.B.I. AIDE, 65, IS KILLED IN A HUNTING ACCIDENT
William C. Sullivan, former head of the Federal Bureau of
Investigations intelligence operations who broke in dramatic fashion
with the late J. Edgar Hoover, was killed early yesterday in a
shooting accident near his home in Sugar Hill, N.H. He was 65 years
old.
Maj. Mason J. Butterfield, law enforcement director of the New
Hampshire Fish and Game Department, said that Mr. Sullivan, who had
been on the way to meet two hunting companions shortly after daybreak,
had been shot and instantly killed by another hunter, Robert Daniels,
Jr., 22, who had mistaken Mr. Sullivan for a deer.
Major Butterfield said that the shooting was under
investigation and that no charges had been filed.
Mr. Sullivan’s 30-year career with the F.B.I. began in the
early days of World War II, when he was dispatched by Mr. Hoover on an
undercover intelligence mission to neutral Spain.
After several months of tangling with Axis spies in Madrid,
Mr. Sullivan returned to bureau headquarters in Washington and took
the first in a series of administrative posts that ultimately included
a decade as head of the domestic intelligence division and a brief
tenure as the bureau’s third-ranking official behind Mr. Hoover, the
director, and his longtime companion, Clyde A. Tolson.
Mr. Sullivan, who acquired a reputation as the only liberal
Democrat ever to break into the top ranks of the bureau, retired in
1971 after he arrived at his office one morning to find that Mr.
Hoover had ordered the lock on his door changed and his nameplate
removed.
That incident, widely reported at the time, was the
culmination of increasing friction between the two men over Mr.
Sullivan’s private, and then public, insistence that Mr. Hoover had
greatly overemphasized the threat to national security posed by the
American Communist Party while devoting less attention than was
warranted to violation of Federal civil rights laws in the South.
Mr. Sullivan was known both within the bureau, and by a wide
and distinguished circle of acquaintances outside it as less a
policeman than a scholar, one whose interests ranged from theoretical
Marxism, on which he was an acknowledged expert, to modern English
poetry.
Mr. Sullivan held advanced degrees from American and George
Washington Universities and an honorary doctorate from Boston College.
In retirement, Mr. Sullivan became even more vocal of Mr.
Hoover’s nearly five decades of unchallenged leadership of the bureau
and of its controversial counterintelligence programs, including some
that he himself had conceived and administered.
Testifying two years ago before the Senate Intelligence
Committee, which termed some of his official actions abusive and even
illegal, Mr. Sullivan declared, “Never once did I hear anybody,
including myself raise the question, is this course of action which we
have agreed upon lawful, is it legal, is it ethical or moral?”
The Senate investigation uncovered considerable detail about
the counterintelligence programs, collectively labeled Cointelpro by
the bureau, that were intended to spread confusion and dissension
among extremist political groups in this country, ranging from the
Communist Party on the left to the Ku Klux Klan on the right.
It also developed in the Senate investigations that Mr.
Sullivan had been instrumental in the arranging for the mailing of a
tape recording in 1964 to Coretta Scott King, wide of the late Rev.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. that contained snippets of Dr. King’s
conversations with other women that had been overheard by concealed
F.B.I. microphones.
Mr. Sullivan was in the news most recently a few weeks ago
when he acknowledge that he had passed to subordinates instructions
from Mr. Hoover to use whatever means were necessary in tracking down
fugitive members of the Weather Underground organization in the early
1970’s.
One former agent, John J. Kearney, is now the subject of a
Federal indictment charging the bureau with having employed illegal
wiretaps and mail intercepts in those investigations, and Mr. Sullivan
was expected to have been a principal witness at Mr. Kearney’s trial.
Mr. Sullivan, whose hopes for replacing Mr. Hoover as the
bureau’s director were dashed when the Nixon Administration installed
L. Patrick Gary 3d as Mr. Hoover’s successor, infuriated many of his
longtime colleagues in 1973, a year after Mr. Hoover’s death, when Mr.
Sullivan publicly questioned Mr. Hoover’s mental acuity during his
last few years in office.
“I’m no doctor,” he said at the time in assessing Mr. Hoover.
“I can’t make a judgement. But he had an unusual personality. In the
last three years, you couldn’t depend upon him. He became extremely
erratic.”
…
You fancy Hoover ordered a hit from beyond the grave, making use of some dude who was 16 years old the year this fellow Sullivan retired?
He was lying. Not very interesting.
one hand many fingers