King’s insurrectionist-tactics were commonplace among the places that he attended. In one instance, King went to Albany, Georgia, and threatened to have a new drive for African-American rights. Ten days later, King ?set a day of penance following a night of rioting, during which Negroes were arrested as they marched on city hall, hooting, laughing, and throwing bottles, bricks, and rocks at law officials,? said former Congressman John Ashbrook of Ohio.39 The situation had been maintained, reported the chief of police, until King returned to the city for an ?illegal demonstration.?40
When the FBI expanded COINTELPRO (Counter-Intelligence Program) in 1967 to include ?Black Nationalist-Hate Groups,? King’s Southern Christian Leadership (SCLC) was targeted, along with the Nation of Islam.41 King was probably under that listing because he would often associate with minorities who hated whites. For instance, he was allied with Cassius Clay (a.k.a. Muhammad Ali), a professional African-American boxer who at the time was a member of the Nation of Islam.42 (Later, however, it appears that Clay changed his beliefs, unlike King.) King, also, met with Malcolm X, and King had a meeting with Stokely Carmichael, offering him words of advice. And, on February 24, 1966, Martin Luther King, Jr., met with Elijah Muhammad, leader of the neo-Muslims.43
During the National Conference for New Politics, which had King listed as a member of its national council, King delivered a speech. The people who attended were Vietnam war protesters, black power advocates, civil rights workers, representatives from a number of leftist organizations, and others. The Chicago Tribune of September 6, 1967, said that the convention ?turned out to be an assembly of crackpots and innocent do-gooders who meekly did the bidding of a handful of black power fanatics.? There were two marijuana parties that took place during the convention. Sex orgies took place before audiences of delegates. The words ?black power? were written on the walls, hallways and rooms of the hotel and were carved on the 15 elevators in the hotel where the delegates were staying. And, much merchandise was destroyed.44 A total of $10,000 in damage to the hotel was caused by the peaceful people who came to here King speak.
The Nonviolent Advocate
Although King spoke of ?nonviolence,? his actions were designed to elicit violence. King once said, ?Negroes will be mentally healthier if they do not suppress rage but vent it constructively and its energy peacefully but forcefully to cripple the operations of an oppressive society.?45 Notice how his apparent contradiction is utilized: He told African-Americans that they should ?not suppress rage but vent it? so that it would ?cripple the operations of an oppressive society,? yet this ?forcefully? crippling of society was to be done ?peacefully? and ?constructively.? What King was proposing was illogical and inconceivable.
Louis Waldman, a prominent black-labor lawyer, described King’s methods as follows:
?The philosophy and purpose of Dr. King’s program . . . is to produce `crisis-packed’ situations and `tension.’ Such a purpose is the very opposite of nonviolence, for the atmosphere-of-crisis policy leads to violence by provoking violence. And the provocation of violence is violence. To describe such provocation as `nonviolent’ is to trifle with the plain meaning of words.?46
The U.S. government found that King’s actions were causing violence, racial problems, and the destruction of property. The Louisiana Legislative Committee noted that King was ?leading the Negroes in the South down the road to bloodshed and violence.?47
Although Martin Luther King, Jr., often said, ?I have a deep commitment to nonviolence,? his escapades could hardly be considered nonviolent. He was merely using double-talk. Congressman John Ashbrook of Ohio described the violence that occurred after one of King’s nonviolent marches:
?On May 4, 1963, police dogs and firehouses were used to quell a demonstration by lawbreakers in Birmingham, Alabama. There had been violence plain and simple. Martin Luther King [Jr.] and his right hand man, Rev. Fred L. Shuttlesworth, threatened that these demonstrations would continue. . . . There was, they said, `no intention of relaxing pressure without such action. We negotiate from strength’ and `will consider’ calling off the demonstrations after the action. This was the mood of the well-known nonviolence of Dr. King.
The day following action by police dogs and firehouses, the New York Times reported that residents of Birmingham heard from the lips of King, the man who preached peace in the streets but led the lawless bands: `Today was D-Day. Tomorrow will be double D-Day.’
?One seldom hears Martin Luther King [Jr.]’s name without `nonviolent’ slogans coming in successive breaths. But quite often the nonviolence of King leads to violence of riot proportions. The Big Lie technique is clearly used. Repeat `nonviolence’ over and over so the public will believe it and then practice violence or the encouraging of violence.?48
A Birmingham judge had issued an injunction that forbade King from participating in the march there, which culminated in the aforementioned riot. King protested the injunction and took it to the Supreme Court. In June of 1967, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of King and seven others for violating the law. Justice Stewart, speaking for the court’s decision, said:
?The rule of law that Alabama followed in this case reflects a belief that in the fair administration of justice no man can be judge in his own case, however exalted his station, however righteous his motives, and irrespective of his race, color, politics, or religion. This court cannot hold that [Martin Luther King, Jr., and others] were constitutionally free to ignore all the procedures of the law and carry their battle to the streets. . . . Respect for judicial process is a small price to pay for the civilizing hand of law which alone can give abiding meaning to constitutional freedom.?49
On the same day that members of the Supreme Court delivered their verdict against King’s inflammatory escapades, riots were raging. In Tampa, Florida; Montgomery, Alabama; Los Angeles, California; and Cincinnati, Ohio, the riots were particularly intense.50 Giving the impression that he was righteous and the Supreme Court was wrong, King said that the Supreme Court’s decision would ?encourage riots and violence, in the sense that it all but said that Negroes cannot redress their grievances through peaceful measures without facing the kind of decision we face.?51 How he figured that the ?measures? he took were ?peaceful? is something the world will never know; what is known is that the rioting to which he referred took the lives of a few people and ransacked the city of Birmingham. Of course, King’s diatribe was stated four years after the Birmingham riots, which was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court; and he probably figured that everyone had a short-term memory and would not remember.
Whenever police were sent to stop the random violence that King’s followers caused, King would scream police brutality. It was a simple two-step process: 1.) King would provoke riots by his comments; 2.) When the police came to stop the ensuing violence, his followers would resist and then blame any injuries on the police. King’s methodology was very similar to what Fidel Castro used initially to take control of Cuba. Senator James Martin of Alabama stated a distinct similarity between King’s and Castro’s methods:
?In a memorandum circulated in Cuba before the communist revolution, the first point in the formula was to `discredit the police in every way by causing incidents which will lead to arrest and then charging police brutality.’ The program now being carried on in the United States by Martin Luther King [Jr.] and others is following this formula to the letter, whether King and those who constantly criticize the police know it or not. The shameful riots in Los Angeles in which screaming mobs burned, robbed, and murdered had not even ended before Martin King [Jr.] was charging police brutality and demanding the firing of the nation’s finest police chiefs.?52
King claimed that there were problems in Montgomery, Alabama. He asked President Eisenhower to stop-what King called-?a reign of terror.?53 The city’s police commissioner dismissed King’s claim, suggesting that it was merely ?the rantings of a rabble-rousing agitator.?54
The politicians were all too quick to cave-in to King’s demands. King influenced a large number of nonwhite voters. King even said, ?We will have Negroes so fired up that, I believe, they will withhold their support from candidates who do not respond to their demands.? When King said ?fired up,? he literally meant it. Oftentimes, houses, apartments, and other buildings were burned down after he delivered his inflammatory speeches.
King’s antics were designed to elicit violence-from both his disciples and opponents. By staging marches in relatively peaceful communities, King could either (1) cause his followers to engage in a riot or (2) provoke violence from his adversaries. Either situation worked well for him. If his followers caused a riot, the riot would gain international attention; and he would blame it on the racist whites-not his followers-and on ?unjust laws.? If marches generated violence from his adversaries, King’s followers would attain victimization status; marchers would generate sympathy from peace-loving Americans. And, it would force the government to enact more laws to prevent recurring violence and quell the nonviolent demonstrators. It appears that King figured his antics would make his battle seem honorable in the eyes of the masses who would not take time to delve deeply into his methodology.
The magazine Newsweek of March 22, 1965, described King’s actions: ?For weeks, Martin Luther King [Jr.] had been escalating his Selma voter-registration campaign toward the state he calls `creative tension’-the setting for paroxysm of segregationist violence that can shock the nation to action. . . .?55 There is no question that King’s ?creative tension? definitely shocked the nation, especially after all the ?creative tension? caused millions of dollars in damages from riots.
The New York Times of February 24, 1964, had this to say about the method that was utilized: ?The Negroes rationale in holding night marches is to provoke the racist element in white communities to show its worst.?56 It appears that King was attempting to ?provoke? anything but nonviolence.
In the Saturday Review of April 3, 1965, King revealed his methodology:
?1. Nonviolent demonstrators go into the streets to exercise their constitutional rights.
?2. Racists resist by unleashing violence against them.
?3. Americans of conscience in the name of decency demand federal intervention and legislation.
?4. The administration, under mass pressure, initiates measures of immediate intervention and remedial legislation.?57
His scheme was brilliant-somewhat iniquitous but, nonetheless, brilliant. First, he had his followers travel to relatively peaceful towns-places that were unaccustomed to seeing black power advocates, organized crowds, and the lawless element-and antagonize the towns’ people with signs, marches, sit-ins, and chants. Next, the people residing in those peaceful communities, who were unaccustomed to demonstrations and who wanted to maintain a peaceful neighborhood, rebelled against the marchers. It seems that King desired that type of conflict to occur, which he would blame entirely on ?racists?-those whites who resisted his plans. King and his disciples would be viewed as the victims rather than the aggressors in the eyes of some Americans, who were unaware of the full scope of King’s activities and those of his colleagues. Finally, with this view that he portrayed as the victim going for him, he was able to have his demands met-the ?remedial legislation? that brought about preferential treatment for blacks.
In many cases, however, when King went to the big cities, rather than the small towns, his followers rioted. When his followers caused riots, he would merely blame the ?unjust laws.? After all, King claimed that his followers could not be held responsible for their actions; surely, everything was the fault of those evil, bigoted whites, not the peaceful, loving, caring, oppressed nonwhites who looted, burned, and destroyed the city.
King’s love for violence can be summarized by one of his remarks: ?A riot is the language of the unheard.?58 King’s attempts to excuse his cohorts and his own lawless behavior as being the righteous ?language of the unheard? was evil. Evidently, this was one of those things that he also loved.
Supralegal Love and the Man
King professed that he loved the world and all those around him. He said it all the time and claimed to be a peaceful, nonviolent, loving citizen of good-will. If he had so much love for everyone, his behavior should have validated those feelings. Well, it did not. On a couple of occasions prior to 1964, King even attempted to commit suicide.59
Although King may not have loved himself, he did care for some of his followers. King’s ?love? for people was, oftentimes, ?supralegal.? Demonstrating what could only be defined as supralegal love, federal agents, investigating King’s life, discovered that he violated some laws during the pursuit of his goals. Specifically, they discovered that King ?had violated the Mann Act [white slavery].?60
On one occasion, King shared his ?love? by being with a few different women in one night and then became involved in an argument with one of his ladies. The advocate of nonviolence became upset, hit her, and ?knocked her across the bed,? said King’s friend, the late Rev. Ralph David Abernathy.61
King’s friends were also of questionable morality. For example, Bayard Rustin, who worked five years as an adviser to King, was once convicted of ?sodomy?-sharing his perverted love with someone.62
Much of the love, which was shared by many of King’s disciples, had been recorded by the FBI. The FBI had been keeping tabs on King by tapping King’s phone and bugging his quarters since October 10, 1963.63
Because of the investigations conducted by the late FBI director J. Edgar Hoover of subversive organizations, like both the Nation of Islam and Communist Party, Hoover has been repeatedly slandered by them. And, some of the media have only been too happy to repeat these things-probably with the hope of generating a little attention to themselves (and the accompanying money). The Federal Bureau of Investigation has always been targeted by people who, in their melancholy state-of-mind, bordering on sheer paranoia, have felt that the FBI is out to get them. In some cases, where the people are criminals, they may be right. (For instance, Louis Farrakhan, who has threatened to lop off the heads of any undercover FBI agents in his organization in his speech Warning to the Government, is probably not rated too highly among FBI members.)
There have been numerous attempts, recently, to defame the late J. Edgar Hoover-much of which borders on sheer insanity, the rest of which is an outright, licentious rumor-by leftist hatemongers. Why would they do that? It is quite simple: By attacking Hoover with their unproven, insipid jeremiads in an attempt to discredit him, they hope that all of his findings will be discredited as well.
For instance, there have been rumors that Hoover was some type of quasi-KKK member or a clandestine racist. Nothing could be further from the truth. At the same time he had left-wing extremists investigated, he was doing the same with the right-wing extremists as well.64 And, despite differences that he had with Martin Luther King, Jr., Hoover was personally responsible for launching a massive investigation to find King’s killer, James Ray, which led to Ray’s conviction.
By attacking Hoover, these leftists hope to destroy the FBI’s reputation and credibility. They hope to discredit the facts uncovered by the American government about the leftist hatemongers’ nefarious activities. The leftists, in numerous cases, have already destroyed the reputation of some law enforcement agencies. Now, they are attempting to destroy anyone in the government who does not hold their pixilated opinions as truth. Hoover has been unfairly maligned and viciously attacked by unsubstantiated allegations, the foremost of which is that he was a homosexual. It almost seems ironic that the leftist hatemongers have accused Hoover of being a homosexual, since many of them engage in it or, at the least, promote its acceptance. Some people in the media are only too happy to repeat the baseless rumors concerning Hoover.
Anthony Summers wrote a book about J. Edgar Hoover, Official and Confidential: The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover. In his book, he alleges that Hoover was a closet homosexual. To prove his ludicrous allegation, he quotes some real honest-and that term is used sarcastically-people. He cites people like Seymour Pollock, a friend of the mobster Meyer Lansky. Pollock said, ?The homosexual thing was Hoover’s Achilles Heel.? Evidently, we are supposed to believe Pollock, a person whose company was the mob, over Hoover, who spent his entire life on maintaining law-and-order, according to Summers.