Showing posts with label FBI. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FBI. Show all posts

Monday, January 18, 2016

10 Things You Probably Didn't Know About MLK

To commemorate Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, we take a look at some tidbits rarely discussed regarding the life and legacy of the revered civil rights leader. 


By: Jimbo X
JimboXAmerican@gmail.com
@Jimbo__X

The late, great, Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is in rare company. In the history of the United States, only four people have ever been awarded a national holiday in their name, and King is the only one who has been alive over the course of the last 150 years. Indeed, the vaunted Rev. Dr. King is about as close as contemporary American culture gets to a patron saint; beyond being celebrated as a skillful, effective civil rights leader, he's basically become a deified figure, a super-man whose name is to be mentioned in only the most respectful and reverential of hushed tones. In today's cultural climate, to deny that he was anything short of a sacrosanct messiah is enough to get you labeled as a hatemonger, and saying you disagree or look unfavorably on anything King said or believed is pretty much considered a thought crime on par with declaring Hitler to be, and I quote, "fucking awesome." 

Alas, we here at The Internet Is In America know that anytime anyone is celebrated as a near-perfect God-Man, there's usually a lot of stuff the celebrants tend to overlook or simply forget about. You know, like the part about John Lennon being a remorseless woman beater and deadbeat dad, or that Gandhi was a crypto-racist warmonger who routinely compared his wife to livestock and engaged in activity that can be rightly labeled as paedo-incest. Nobody's perfect, and the ones everybody keeps telling you are the most perfect of all are usually the ones who have the gnarliest skeletons in their closet. And yes, Martin Luther King, Jr.- as celebrated and beloved he is - is not immune from The Great Man Myth, either. 

Of course, none of this is to say that MLK was, inherently, a bad person, or that all of the civil rights crusading he did back in the 1960s wasn't worthwhile and noble and heroic and courageous and inspiring and all of that jazz. Interestingly, it seems like most Americans, especially the younger crowd, have no idea who King was or what he did other than deliver the "I Have a Dream" speech and get assassinated, which, of course, is a perfect breeding ground for all sorts of half-truths, misconceptions and flat out lies to percolate as non-existent facts about his alleged life (including the easily refutable assertion that the government was found "guilty" of murdering him in a 1999 trial.)

Below, however, are a few pieces of trivia about MLK that are far from hearsay or conjecture or after-the-fact fabrications. As it turns out, there is an astounding amount of public information on his life that, despite being quite accessible, just hasn't entered the domain of everyday knowledge. On what would have been King's 87th birthday, let's take the time to reflect on who the American icon really was ... and who that is, most certainly, might just surprise you. 

Fact Number One:
His real name wasn't Martin Luther King, Jr. 

Let's start off with the most rudimentary misconception about MLK - that the "M" in said MLK stood for "Martin." When MLK was born Jan. 15, 1929, his birth certificate actually read Michael King, Jr. and it wasn't until the King family, whom, technically, are half Irish, attended a massive Baptist convention in Germany in 1934 that Daddy King decided to rechristen both him and his first born son after the famous Protestant reformer (who, ironically, really, really hated both the poor and the Jewish.) But, hey, how exactly did a black family in the Deep South in the midst of the Great Depression afford to visit Germany, you might be thinking? Well, that leads us to our second unheralded truth about MLK...


Fact Number Two:
He grew up in a family that, even by today's standards, would be considered wealthy.

If you've ever visited the King family home, you probably walked away  thinking "you know, for a house built before World War II, this place is nice." In fact, MLK's old digs on Auburn Avenue would probably be fetching $300,000, maybe even $400,000 in today's ever-gentrifying Atlanta housing market. Whereas Malcolm X grew up eating dandelion weeds, the King family was very, very well-off financially - indeed, they were certainly in far better economic shape than the average white family in Georgia at the time. A lot of that has to do with MLK's maternal grandfather, Adam Daniel Williams, who as head minister of the famed Ebeneezer Baptist Church - which, by 1903, already had 400 members - held a lot of social clout in Atlanta's black community. (Keep in mind, black churches in the wake of the Civil War - thanks in part to their tax-free status - became something of a de facto community war chest. Even in the late 1800s, the Department of Labor noted the economic significance of black places of worship - "the church collects and distributes considerable sums of money, and the whole social life of the town centers here," as one bulletin put it.) A founding member of the National Baptist Convention - which was basically the NAACP before the NAACP existed - Williams was able to land a position as president of the Atlanta Baptist Ministers Union and chairman of the General State Baptist Convention's executive board and finance committee. By 1918, he had risen to the rank of NAACP branch president in Atlanta, which quickly grew to more than 1,400 members. Three years before MLK was born, Daddy King married Williams' only child, Alberta King, and when her father died in 1931, MLK, Sr. inherited his "Sweet Auburn" empire. Despite the Great Depression, King's evangelical enterprise flourished, and he was oft-referred to as "the best paid negro minister in the city." 

Fact Number Three:
He attempted suicide at the age of 12 (and was almost killed by a deranged female stalker when he was 29.)

When Martin Luther King, Jr. was just a wee pre-teen, he came *this* close to offing himself. The day of his grandmother's death, he had snuck out against his parents' wishes to see a parade; so distraught over not being there during his nana's final hour that when he heard the news, he responded by taking a suicide dive out of the second story of his home. Believe it or not, that wasn't the closest King got to being killed before he was assassinated in 1968 - the revered civil rights leader almost died in 1958, when a paranoid schizophrenic black woman with an IQ of 70 stabbed him with a steel letter opener at a book signing in Harlem. Oh, and Junior isn't the only person in his family to succumb to the bullet; his mother was shot and killed in 1974 - and, in quite possibly the most horrifically ironic fashion imaginable - by a racist black radical.

Fact Number Four:
His dad told him he was "too good" to marry a poor white woman.

While attending the Crozer Theological Seminary in Chester, Penn., King began a courtship with Betty Moatz, a young Caucasian cafeteria worker and the daughter of German immigrants. King was so besotted by Moatz that at one point he mulled marrying her. Alas, interracial marriages were still deemed taboo even north of the Mason-Dixon Line, and King's fellow seminarians eventually talked him out of going any further with the relationship. Interestingly enough, the biggest opponent of the would-be marriage was King's father, who was vehemently against his son "marrying down." As David Garrow penned in Bearing the Cross, Daddy King wasn't neccesarily a big fan of King marrying Coretta Scott, either - indeed, King Senior had more or less set up an arranged marriage between his eldest son and Mattiwilda Dobbs, who was the daughter of Atlanta Civic League founder John Wesley Dobbs, as a way to strengthen the family's already considerable political clout. 

Fact Number Five:
He was a confirmed plagiarist. 

The Internet Is In America readers who have attended college anytime over the last 10 years have probably used the Turnitin software - an online service schools pay for to check student submitted papers for plagiarism - at some point during their academic sojourns. Well, if MLK were to turn in his dissertation using said software, the damn thing would've had more red on it than a Coca Cola can. In the late 1980s, Stanford University got a hold of MLK's Boston University doctoral thesis, the ultra-academic-sounding A Comparison of the Conception of God in the Thinking of Paul Tillich and Henry Nelson Wieman. Upon closer examination, it appears that gigantic portions of the paper were lifted - sans attribution - from a paper submitted at the same university just three years earlier. As researchers at Stanford further investigated a treasure trove of King papers, they were shocked to find out that not only did the dude plagiarize the shit out of his school assignments, he even appeared to have copied and pasted a large number of his speeches and sermons. Civil Rights historian Ralph E. Luker described the impressive scope of King's intellectual thievery: "the farther King went in his academic career, the more deeply ingrained the patterns of borrowing language without clear attribution became. Thus, the plagiarism in his dissertation seemed to be, by then, the product of his long-established practice." Oh, and regarding the "originality" of King's most iconic speech? Apparently, he had some dreams about the previously published works of Archibald Carey, Jr. and Mahalia Jackson, too...

Fact Number Six:
He packed heat, smoked cigarettes and cheated on his wife A LOT. 

With his name more or less synonymous with nonviolent resistance, it might surprise a few folks that MLK was a pretty staunch supporter of the Second Amendment. Fearing a hit by the Klan, King even applied for a concealed weapons carry permit once, but seeing as how he tried to obtain said license in ALABAMA, I reckon you can figure how well that went. Nonetheless, King owned guns out the wazoo, with former adviser Glenn Smiley once describing King's home as "an arsenal." Ironically, King's assassination would be one of the major catalysts of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, which, among other things, prevents the sale or transfer of weapons and ammo to drug addicts, the mentally insane and illegal aliens. Rounding out the vice-a-rama, King was a lifelong smoker (in fact, he was taking a drag when he was popped by James Early Ray) and FBI surveillance - not to mention firsthand accounts from longtime compatriot Ralph David Abernathy - gives a lot of credence to allegations that he had affairs a' plenty behind his wife's back. 

Fact Number Seven:
Some of his top advisers were avowed communists. 

From the get-go, King's socialistic stance on economic policies had him pegged as a no-good Red by the John Birch Society-types of the late '50s and 1960s. Indeed, rumors about King's alleged connections to the Communist Party persist to this day, with some even hypothesizing that he was taking orders directly from the Kremlin (fun fact: horrible racists actually own the domain martinlutherking.org, if you didn't already know.) While there is no public evidence verifying MLK as a Commie, card-carrying or otherwise, quite a few of those in King's inner circles were indeed self-professed Communists. King's secretary and mentor Bayard Rustin - an openly homosexual man in the mega-conservative 1950s who would later serve executive positions with the AFL-CIO and the Socialist Party of America - spent the World War II years rallying troops for the Young Communist League. Another close King confident - speechwriter, public relations point person and financial adviser Stanley David Levisonheld a high-ranking position in the Communist Party USA and is believed to have received payoffs from the Soviet Union. And two of King's top financiers - Jack O'Dell and A. Philip Randolph - were both, at one point in time, members of Marxism-espousing political outfits. Which brings us back to the topic of King's economic beliefs...

Fact Number Eight:
His politics leaned heavily towards socialism. 

While King is primarily remembered as a civil rights crusader, economic issues were just as big a part of his political platform as race relations; indeed, in 1958, he described "economic injustice" as the inseparable twin of racial injustice. Throughout his career, he rallied and advocated for a series of extremely progressive policy measures - i.e., the kind of stuff people who smoke a lot of weed and are always tweeting about Bernie Sanders are yammering on and on about today - including a guaranteed basic income and the creation of a sprawling government program ensuring a public job to all who want one (but, uh, not in the form of the military, of course.) So yes, MLK can rightly be considered a socialist, in the classical sense of the term - after all, he did say he promoted merging capitalism and communism into a "higher synthesis that combines the truths of both" socioeconomic models. He was also a pioneering proponent of reparations, telling Playboy that legislative equality wasn't enough to close the financial gap between whites and blacks and proposed the U.S. government dole out $50 billion in restitution to marginalized peoples of all varieties. Interestingly enough, this indeed came to pass, albeit as federal entitlement measures enacted by President Lyndon Johnson's so-called "War on Poverty," which created both the federal food stamp program (the Feds doled out $82 billion in SNAP benefits in 2013 alone, plus another $55 billion in earned income tax credits, PLUS another $50 billion in Supplemental Security Income) and Medicaid, which handed out about $475 billion in state grants in just the 2014 fiscal year. Which sort of begs the question ... why isn't LBJ celebrated as a deified figure in the black community as well?


Fact Number Nine:
He left his family destitute following his assassination. 

While King collected quite a bit of moolah from his ministry, speaking engagements, book royalties and miscellaneous humanitarian prizes, one place we know for sure he didn't sink the funds was in his own family's future. Despite being an obvious assassination target, not only did he never take out a life insurance policy, he never even drew up a will; as a result, when he was murdered in 1968, he left his wife and children with hardly any appreciable benefits. Following King's intestate funeral, a number of activists (among them, Harry Belafonte), took up the financial slack and crowdfunded the surviving King brood. To this day, legal battles abound regarding who has the rights to King's likeness, possessions and published works. Alas, MLK's kids have gotten some measure of financial benefit from their father's legacy, having started the for-profit organization King, Inc., which, among other shrewd business moves, charged the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Foundation $2.7 million to construct the National Monument, forced Living Colour to change the lyrics of "Cult of Personality," and sold almost every known recording of King's voice to Steven Spielberg.

Fact Number Ten: 
We're going to learn a lot of things we didn't know about him in 2027.

Plan on living another 11 years? If so, you'll be privy to some newfound public info on MLK, whose full FBI record is set to be declassified in 2027. Now, as to what those files consist of is anybody's guess, with both hardcore King supporters and detractors throwing out their own hypothesi. On the pro-MLK side, the general narrative is that the files were ordered sealed for so long to prevent the public from finding out just how underhanded the FBI - in particular, alleged transvestite J. Edgar Hoover - were in their quest to undermine King's character. And considering their cockamamie COINTEL smearing campaigns that have been brought to light - including a notorious "anonymous" letter encouraging MLK to commit suicide - one has to imagine the stuff they didn't want publicized is WAY the hell out there. On the flip side, the denizens of Stormfront and other white nationalist sites are damn certain the collection of wiretaps will conclude once and for all that King was a bona-fide communist, or at the very least, will reveal some downright kinky extra-marital odysseys. Alas, all anybody can do is throw out conjecture at this point, but whatever those FBI files reveal? Make no mistake about it, they're going to change the way we view King - for better, or for worse


Sunday, June 9, 2013

Why the Government SHOULD Be Spying On Our Online Data…

An argument in defense of federal collection and examination of our Internet records and information…


Recently, the Obama Administration was lent a staggering one-two body blow; first, documents popped up indicating that the NSA has been forcing Verizon to hand over the cell phone data of every single one of its subscribers, and just a day later, info about the PRISM program -- which appeared to reveal collusion between the feds and some of the tech industry’s largest players, including Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Yahoo -- got leaked by the Washington Post. As expected, hardcore contingents on the left and the right responded with seething outrage, with the New York Times -- considered by many to be one of Obama’s most obedient media lapdogs -- stating that this new scandal completely destroys any and all credibility the O Cabinet used to have. Needless to say, this newfangled information doesn’t put the Obama Administration in any better standing that it has been this year, but is all of this government “spying” really as awful as some folks on the Web would have you believe?

First off, let’s clarify a few things. Allegedly, this whole PRISM thing appears to have started as an initiative under George W.’s watch in 2007, so you really can’t come out and call it an outright Obama project. Similarly, a lot of these “spying” programs were actually green lit by House and Senate approval…meaning as much as the nation’s conservative contingent (and for that part, the hyper-individualistic/hyper pro-privacy liberals) want to bitch and moan about the U.S. turning into an Orwellian state, the fact of the matter is that our democratically elected officials have had NUMEROUS opportunities to stop programs of the like from being authorized, and they haven’t.

Similarly, I haven’t really detected that much ire towards these mega-huge-conglomerate entities, who are only, you know, half of the goddamn equation. So, the feds come out and ask Google and Verizon to hand over some user data. Instead of saying “no” and turning over documents to the media (who, assuredly, would’ve gobbled the info up like free munchkins on National Doughnut Day), they willingly complied with the fed’s wishes and kept the shit under lock and key from the public. As the old adage goes, it takes two to tango, so why aren’t we singling out both dancers in this Grand Funk Railroad of duplicity?

That, in itself, raises a pretty interesting question : how come there’s so much concern about our “private data” falling into the hands of the feds, when our “private data” has been visible, collectible and archivable by Google, Facebook and Microsoft this whole time, anyway? If you want to complain about the government for “spying” on allegedly “private” Web info, then I think it’s a little hypocritical -- and woefully ignorant -- to not ALSO harp the hell out of these Internet firms for doing the same.

I sound like a government apologist right now, don’t I? Well, while it is cool to be all Libertarian and anarcho-radicalist on the Web in the wake of this leaked data, all it took was one quote from President Obama to get me to COMPLETELY accept all of this spying and data collectin’ without any ill feelings whatsoever.

"You can’t have 100 percent security and then also have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. You know, we’re going to have to make some choices as a society."

That line right there has to be one of the most intelligent things I’ve ever heard a politician, of any ideology, say. The reality is, we live in a social structure that promises us freedom from the kind of mayhem that goes on in a good 90 percent of the world; and to afford us that freedom from mass death, maybe, just maybe, we have to give up a little bit of personal freedom for guaranteed mass protection.

This idea isn’t new, you know: I mean, shit, how long ado did Rousseau pen “The Social Contract,” anyway? Even amongst hardcore Libertarians, the government’s function as social protector is vaunted pretty strongly. So here, we have the federales doing the one thing even Ayn Rand believes it should be doing, and of course…the masses cry “foul.”  Of course they would. Of course they would.

Now, I’m not exactly a big fan of that George W. character, but in hindsight, I have to respect some of  his executive decisions. It took a lot of brass to authorize something like the “PATRIOT Act” and give so much authority to the NSA, but in hindsight, I think it has to be considered a right call.

I don’t know if you kids remember this or not, but about 13 years ago or so, a a bunch of highly pissed off jihadists took control of a few aeroplanes and decided to smash them into some fairly expensive real estate. The brutal deaths of about 3,000 Americans, not to mention billions in architectural damage costs (you have to factor in property in the equation…after all, that’s the only kind of value you can get some individuals to consider significant), revealed something quite telling about U.S. domestic security: that, it was, in a word or two, pure shit. Looking back on 9/11, it was ridiculously clear that the U.S. -- the most formidable military presence in history -- had a MASSIVE weak spot on the domestic front. And seeing as how a couple of million militant extremists want us dead, maybe you can determine for yourself why so many political higher-ups have been on a nearly 15 year long national security improvement spree ever since.



Geopolitics is a game we all like to play in our heads, but the fact of the matter is, we don’t really know how complex and challenging this whole “keeping the U.S. safe from atomic briefcase attacks” business actually is. Odds are, it’s probably a billion times scarier than what we think it already is…and the fact that we’ve had two presidents in a row, with completely antithetical political ideals, becoming hardline advocates of intensified domestic security ought to be “clue #1” to anybody.

I imagine President Obama’s first joint chief of staffs meeting…the really secretive kind, where he convenes with generals and defense administrators underneath Camp David in a top-secret, radiation proof bunker with robotic maids and shit…to go a little something like this.


Obama: “I just want you to know that, like many Americans, I too am outraged by the excesses of the War on Terror, especially all of this NSA wire tapping stuff. So, what’s going on in the military world, mi amigos?”

Defense Advisor One: “Well, Intel has detected increased radioactive hotspots in Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and parts of southeastern Russia. These, it is worth noting, have completely different frequency signatures than what we’ve already picked up in North Korea, Syria, Lebanon and  Iran. And they appear to be moving around, Mr. President.”

Obama: “Umm…what do you mean ‘moving around,’ exactly?”

Defense Advisor Two: “Most likely, they are in the process of being actively transferred. As you can see here on this display [A flat screen monitor automatically unfolds from the ceiling], these signatures are not stationary. The green spots, where most of our silos and Russian sites are, indicate stationary atomic weaponry. These red ones indicate stationary atomic activity, albeit in much smaller scales, in China, Pakistan, and Israel.”

Obama: “And, these beeping yellow dots…you mean its’ moving atomic weaponry?”

Defense Advisor One: “More than likely, Mr. President.”

Obama: “So you mean all that shit about suitcase bombs and dirty bombs was real all along?”

Defense Advisor Two: “Very much so, Mr. President. And this map is just indicating confirmed nuclear armaments hot spots. Here’s a map of what Intel believes are potentially active sites…”

[Hundreds of yellow dots pop up on map, followed by thousands of miniature blue ones all across the globe.]

Obama: “So, uh, what are the blue ones, exactly?”

Defense Advisor Two: “Unconfirmed biological weaponry. The Chinese have been creating super-strains of SARS for the last decade, and former Soviet satellites have been actively engaged in the production and sale of designer germ weapons since at least 1988.”

Obama: “…but there are blue dots on that map in America!”

Defense Advisor One: “About 90 percent of those are lab stock. The other 10 percent, Mr. President, are unconfirmed.”

Obama: “Unconfirmed?”

Defense Advisor Two: “Quite possibly dirty bombs or black market stocks, Mr. President. NSA records indicate that transfers have been attempted at least three times this week already. If it wasn’t for that cell phone data, they likely would’ve gone completely unchecked.”

Obama: “…unchecked?”

Defense Advisor One: “Two attempted transfers between Al-Qaeda sleeper cells and one attempted transfer from a Russian nationalist to a Turkish extremist group outside of D.C. In that one, the CIA netted a pretty nasty strain of designer Ebola mixed with rubella. Completely indistinguishable from chicken pox, but at two weeks onset, results in extremely fatal hemorrhagic fevers, with a 95 percent kill rate. In all likelihood, an entire city could be contaminated in the span of an afternoon.”

Obama: “…and, uh, the only way you knew about that stuff was from wiretapping?”

Defense Advisor One: [nods head.]

Obama: [Lights up Marlboro, and paces back and forth for about ten uninterrupted seconds.] “All right. Keep it up, then.”

Defense Advisor Two: “Thank you, Mr. President. Now, here’s a map of suspected domestic terrorists, including one militia in Colorado that has been exchanging plans to blow up the Hoover Dam on Skype…”

Obama: “You know what? Fuck it, canvas the entire Internet if you have to. I’ve seen ‘Deep Impact’ before, and I’ll be damned before I become known as ‘the First Black President…who also let Saudi hi-jackers blow up a nuclear power plant!” [slams fists on table, dramatic music begins playing.]


And so, President Obama (as will every commander-in-chief this country will have from hereon out) faces a moral dilemma: while he or Hilary become known as “that one asshole that trampled on our civil liberties,” or “that one asshole that let terrorists fly two jumbo jets into the Sears Tower?,” or “that no good prick that was asleep on the job when Chinese infiltrators laced the water supply of Philadelphia with smallpox?”

Everybody that wants to rag on the executive office over this PRISM/Verizon/drone strike stuff have seen “The Dark Knight,” but seemingly none of them have picked up on the general lesson of the film: If you’re in a position of power, and you have the ability to stop mass destruction on one’s home front from transpiring, and you can avert another instance of milli-death (or, much, much more horrifically, even mega-death) from happening by combing through phone call transcripts and a few Google searches, then what’s necessarily immoral about doing a little proactive snooping from time-to-time?


And all of this brings us back to Obama’s quote from earlier. You and me live in a society, where we agree to sacrifice some of our fundamental liberties in exchange for mass protection. So, yes, we can cry and bellyache about the government MAYBE taking a look at our cell phone logs and YouTube videos, but do we ever praise and celebrate them from keeping international and domestic terrorists from blowing up our power grids, or knocking down our buildings, or unleashing genetic nightmares on entire metropolises? Of course we don’t, because it’s stuff we don’t know about. It’s easy to complain about an unfair trade-off when you only know what you’re being asked to trade. So, we’re giving the feds access to our electronic data, and what are they giving us in return?

Well, all I can say is that since 9/11 -- and since the PATRIOT Act and the NSA re-authorizations and the PRISM project have been enacted -- there hasn’t been a single wide-scale, cataclysmic domestic terror attack on U.S. soil since.

And if the occasional peak at somebody’s Reddit account is enough to keep bridges from being blown up and children from being immolated in burning buildings? All I can say is “keep up the good work, Senor Presidente. Keep up the good work."