The FBI investigated him under the pretext that his aides included people loyal to the Russian government rather than their own. They used electronic surveillance to spy on him. They pored over salacious material of a sexual nature. The administration that initially authorized the spying denied, denied, denied.
The parallels between the peeping-tom state that surveilled Donald Trump in 2016 and Martin Luther King more than a half-century earlier appear uncanny. Those parallels diverge when it comes to the mass media covering the ill-gotten, and surely in some cases false, information.
The UK’s Guardian commissioned David Garrow, a Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer of Martin Luther King, to write an article detailing his shocking discoveries about the civil rights leader’s behind-closed-doors behavior, before pulling out with a kill fee. “Garrow had similar experiences with the Atlantic magazine and with the Washington Post — both of which he had written for before,” Michael Mosbacher writes at Standpoint, which publishes the controversial article on Thursday. “Conservative magazines in the US also felt the story was too risky to run. The same response came from a web magazine whose raison d’être is to fight for free speech. When Standpoint decided to publish it, the longest essay we have ever run, I approached a prominent British historian to write an article putting the revelations into context. The response: ‘No way! I’ll try to think of someone else who has the guts to drink from that particular poisoned chalice.’”
The revelations say something unpleasant both about King and the FBI, which bugged hotel rooms where he slept and expected privacy. Surely if a private citizen acted in the way FBI agents did their names would eventually appear on a sex-offender registry. Law enforcement officers listening to what they characterized as a rape without intervening exposes the prurient nature of the investigation. “Well, the FBI is — from J. Edgar Hoover (why is his name still on the building?) to James Comey — a government unto itself, as we have been constantly reminded of late,” Roger Simon, a 1960s civil rights activist, writes at PJMedia. “Let us hope they, and others, get the mammoth house cleaning they deserve.”
But King’s antagonists remain mostly anonymous and beyond accountability; the Baptist minister’s deeds appear in publications around the world — but not much in the nation King called home. A Google search shows Garrow’s research making headlines in India, the UK, Russia, and points beyond. In the United States, listen to the crickets. This says something about the curiously incurious American media.
American journalists, who normally salivate over throwing mud on historical figures and find themselves in hysteria mode over the sexual conduct of comedians, producers, anchormen, and those far lower on the totem pole than King, balk at reporting on the finds of a writer to whom they once awarded a Pulitzer. #ThemToo. Apart from King emerging as a secular saint posthumously, making unflattering truths a sort of blasphemy, the allegations put off because they strike as so off putting. Nobody, perhaps least of all Garrow — a member of the Democratic Socialists of America — wants to write something nasty about a man responsible for so much good. The allegations make one feel ill in a literal sense.
“The FBI document says: ‘When one of the women protested that she did not approve, the Baptist minister immediately and forcefully raped her’ as King watched,” the Daily Mail reports. “He is alleged to have ‘looked on, laughed and offered advice’ during the encounter.”
King allegedly participated in an orgy along with a dozen others the following day. When one female expressed skittishness, King informed her that participating “would help your soul.”
There was no doubt the FBI spied on every famous person and some not so famous that met with the disapproval of Hoover. This has been a long standing policy of the department.
I am not curious about the article on MLK the left has co-opted the civil rights movement they once fought with fire-hoses and police dogs, at night with burning crosses.
So, the FBI had an inside man watching a rape and other onlookers?
And all the FBI did was report it to use against MLK (a so-called onlooker) as leverage?
Sounds more like Pres Trump’s Steele Dossier was not the FBI’s 1st rodeo with false documents made to look like history.
Does the FBI think writing a false narrative makes it true?
Peter Pan urged his audiences to clap to bring Tinkerbelle back to life, too.
Thinking something, believing something does NOT make it true.
I’d need proof this ever really happened.
This is where you’re wrong. I will certainly admit that southerners who fought against civil rights in the fifties and sixties were Democrats, but there’s absolutely no way you can make the case that they were Lefties.
@Michael: Democrats have certainly drifted to the far far left. Openly talking about socializing our healthcare system. If they make college free, you will need a masters degree and 5 years experience to get a high paying job, they will also choose which college and your major.
Dont forget your roots Mikey, white hoods and unsolved murders.
Do I have to remind you of the The Watts riot?
Democrats now have soft racism, blacks cant get an ID so requesting an ID for voting is suppressing the black vote.
The civil rights riots hit every major city north south east and west History teacher.
source= page not found.
Its a joke the democrats say they had the first civil rights platform in 1948.
The Republican Party passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
Sorry. The quote is from the Britannica article on the Dixiecrats.
Is that something people say?
@Michael: The Republican Party was formed to prevent slavery from spreading, freed the Democrats slaves, (you guys still need to get over that one)then protected their rights as the era allowed.
Just because you say you are a history teacher doesnt mean you can alter it.
Its not just something people say its a fact the democrats did not have a civil rights platform until nearly 100 years after the Republicans, just saying it does not make it so.
@kitt: I’ve already stipulated that the people who fought civil rights were Democrats. They just weren’t Lefties. Just as there are Republicans who don’t make the cut as conservatives — at least as far as some other Republicans are concerned — being a Democrat in the 1940s and 1950s didn’t necessarily make one progressive. Strom Thurmond and FDR may both have been Democrats, but they didn’t share the same worldview. (It’s telling that Thurmond’s antagonism toward civil rights spurred his switch to the Republican Party in 1964.)
I’m not trying to alter anything. You seem to be spinning out of control over something you expect I’m going to say.
Also: why the hell would I claim to be a junior high school history teacher if I weren’t? Is there any job with less prestige in today’s society than that of teacher? Who on Earth would I be trying to impress with that tidbit?
Also also: why don’t you just come out and say it: you don’t actually believe I’m a teacher, do you? You’ve been tiptoeing around it for a while now. I can’t imagine what you’ve conjured up in your brain for a reason why I’d pretend to be a history teacher if I’m not one, but I’m sure you have something that makes sense to you. Would things be easier for you if I simply stopped saying I’m a teacher?
@Michael: Troll wannabes hide behind what ever persona that suits them for the moment. I dont truly believe anyone on the internet.
Call yourself a purple unicorn hunter it doesnt really matter. Democrats began calling themselves progressives, then liberals, now democrat socialists, its all one goal, and the goal isnt for our benefit. Republicans have the same goals once they reach office they forget they are servants. Just republican voters try to remind them, democrat voters cheer them on.
How do you figure?
@Michael:What law has come out of DC that has been a benefit?
They all get very rich after being elected.
This is an interesting partial answer to your question:
@Michael: I am a person who backs states rights and the decentralizing of power, you should go to your map and also look at the fiscal condition of those states. Are the promised pensions in good condition the reading and math proficiency of students, homelessness, crime. We have a new Governor that is determined we have no rainyday fund, and the windfall taxes they have collected he would rather not pay to the debt but wants to increase education spending by over a billion dollars. Unless we get accountability from our educators I say dont give them a penny more I want our kids proficiency ratings attached to that cash.
I was more thinking the DC rats.
What about Woodrow Wilson; was HE progressive?