Thermidor

© 2017 Thermidor Magazine.

Designed by Jonathan.

Requiem For A Dream: The Broken Pedestal Of Martin Luther King, Jr.

The John F. Kennedy assassination papers released by President Trump several weeks ago were in large part a disappointment. Most of the established theories remain unchanged, and very little was revealed about Oswald himself other than that there was panic among very prominent American communists after the shooting. Eyebrows, however, were raised about the contents of several reports unrelated to JFK—and there has been panic among very prominent American academics as a result. The Thor’s Oak into which these documents have buried the axe of iconoclasm is none other than the Reverend Doctor and secular Saint Martin Luther King, Jr. The great hero and martyr of the Civil Rights movement has long been subject to criticism from the Buchananite wing of the Old Right and, of course, is a favourite target of would-be Bonifaces of the Southern Nationalist community, but he has proven resilient not only to rumour and hearsay but also to proven charges of plagiarism and dishonesty. It will be tremendously revealing if he manages to withstand these latest revelations about his personal behavior, political beliefs, and intellectual abilities—all of which are quite contrasted with the legend that has grown up around him.

Much of King’s resilience to criticism has come from the shaky ground upon which so many charges are based—accused of plagiarism for his famous “I Have a Dream” speech, his defenders cite a custom of, frankly, meme-making in the black preachers’ works. Accused, and found guilty, of plagiarism in his doctoral dissertation that would disqualify anyone else from keeping his degree, King was afforded reprieve on the grounds of “what good would it do?” Accused of anything else, and the shrill sirens of the Narrative-Makers’ “racism” alarm echo for weeks after the fact. The Washington Post responded immediately, calling up a good old warrior of words to meet the axe-bearers, one David Garrow, a biographer of King and dedicated leftist ideologue upon whom the Guild bestowed a coveted Pulitzer Prize for his services to Saint Martin of Selma’s Cause for Canonisation. Garrow repeats many of the claims of his hagiography of Saint Martin of Selma (titled Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference), as well as those in his 1981 book The FBI and Martin Luther King, Jr. in which he basically takes 300 pages to call J. Edgar Hoover a racist. He was a safe choice for the well-credentialed well-poisoner the Narrative Makers needed to hurl against the FBI documents.

As long as we’re dumping toxins into water sources, though, it’s worth the aside that Garrow’s research is not without its own critics—and, in fact, one of the most common critiques is his lack of scale and proportion. New York Times critic Michiko Kakutani calls his 1,460-page hagiography of the more recently anointed Black Messiah “extraneous and absurdly long-winded”, saying that the “entire book suffers from a poor sense of proportion”. She goes on that “his bibliography, including interviews with more than a thousand people, runs to 35 pages”, but he chooses to hinge almost his entire narrative on the account of a slighted ex-lover. Nor is he especially kind to or honest about his rivals. David Maraniss, author of Barack Obama: The Story tweeted that Garrow “was [a] vile, undercutting, ignoble competitor unlike any I’ve encountered”, and Garrow himself denied that Maraniss’ work, which was well-received by the Coastal Elites, received any accolades at all. Garrow, though, may still rest on the laurels of his 30-year-old Pulitzer for a biography that has not received the criticism or the scrutiny to which subsequent efforts have been subjected—especially when he is needed to defend his hero King against the vile smear campaign the FBI conducted by... burying and classifying all their most damning material for almost three quarters of a century.

This is, of course, the real story: for most of Garrow’s own lifespan, and well beyond the expiration of King’s, the FBI has chosen to suppress, classify, and hide material which, true or not, could have utterly destroyed King’s reputation and prevented him from becoming canonized as America’s great Saint of Freedom, Equality, and Social Justice. What does it say that they chose not to circulate this material? It certainly seems an odd action for a fellow like Hoover who, according to Garrow, hated King and wanted to undermine him at every turn. Hoover was certainly an easily vilified man—his heavy-handedness and penchant for blackmail, coupled with personal oddities and quirks made him a hated figure in his own social circles, to say nothing of countless radical leftists who regarded him as a clandestine Klansman and the Klansmen who regarded him as a Communist agent. Government agencies like the FBI and CIA are inherently untrustworthy organizations precisely because of the disinformation they spread to play their cloak-and-dagger games to the benefit of the ruling Elite. There is really no reason why Garrow’s accusations would not ring true, but for one crucial detail: every single one of these documents was highly classified and remained so under every presidential administration, Democrat and Republican, left and right, until this year.

Paper Tiger

There are a number of incriminating statements in the FBI files on King; the major document, titled “Martin Luther King, Jr: A Current Analysis” is certainly getting the bulk of attention, but other memos and dossiers, including a lengthy piece on the potential for racial unrest in the summer of 1967, contain information just as interesting as the “Current Analysis”. Perhaps most interesting are the several sources that the FBI lists as “dubious” and “unreliable” who are quite insistent on King’s communist ties. Hoover was supposed to frequently leave out details and mislead his audience on his personal enemies—but the internal documents contain a degree of candor that lends them great credibility. There are plenty of claims in the shorter documents, especially, that opponents of King will desperately want to be true, but which they will inevitably be forced to reject as unreliable or merely wishful thinking. (A full list of the documents the author has referenced, listed by their archival record numbers, can be found at the end of this article. Only one or two of them are full-length memoranda; most are shorter documents summarizing the contents of others.)

Far greater credibility for claims of King’s lack of foundational ethics, and therefore the reliability of the documents, can be derived from existing, but downplayed, charges of unethical, hypocritical, and immoral behavior on King’s part that have already been publicly confirmed. Plagiarism is, of course, hardly a drunken sex orgy, but it points to a key difference between what King considered ethically acceptable and our established standards of social behavior. It has been widely known since 1990, for example, that King regularly plagiarized his academic work all the way through college. Our friend David Garrow waved it away saying, characteristically, “it really in some ways is not at all connected to his public greatness”, but the fact remains that Garrow’s hero is only “Doctor” Martin Luther King on the basis of a dissertation he largely stole from a student three years his senior who had the same advisor.

Whether his advisor supplied him with this dissertation or King was merely a very enterprising falsifier of his work is unclear, though both can be true. Keith Miller, a very sympathetic reviewer of King’s work, mentions in his defense of King’s dishonesty that the Great Martyr of Selma “usually comes across as a student astutely currying favor with his professors by telling them exactly what they want to hear”. He then goes on to impute three motives to King, two of which are grounded in his race—first that he lied because he was surrounded by White people and second that as a Black preacher, he was raised in a culture in which “preachers gained authority by identifying themselves with well-known, sanctified messages”. In short, there was no recognition that restating another’s ideas as if they were original is unethical or immoral—in fact, Miller continues,

Throughout his entire public career, [King] borrowed extensively and without acknowledgment from the sermons of Harry Emerson Fosdick and other, mainly white, preachers (and from Harris Wofford, now a United States Senator, who was an associate of King's). For his published and unpublished sermons King incorporated titles, biblical passages, themes, metaphors, analogies, illustrations, literary quotations and whole paragraphs from sources he never mentioned. He borrowed from the same unacknowledged texts for a multitude of speeches, essays and books, including "I Have a Dream" and "Letter From Birmingham Jail."

All of this is reframed by Miller (a professor of rhetoric) to be a positive thing: King “defied the conception of words hallowed by print cultures”, he “ignored”, “violated”, and “repudiated” the (obviously outmoded) claims and beliefs of his White mentors and professors—and this disregard can be taken not only as a substitute for originality of thought but indeed an act of personal heroism. Would that contemporary college students were so original and heroic; we might have an honest discussion of King (and a number of other idols) in the public square!

The third motivation imputed by Miller to King for his dishonesty is an interesting one and begs the question of how Miller approaches academic dishonesty among his own students. Miller suggests that King’s dishonesty was, in fact, his professors’ fault, since they “consistently rewarded his papers with high grades” and failed to take notice of his plagiarism “even when -- more than once -- he reviewed a single book by lifting long sentences from the very work he was assigned to review”.

Truthfully, one does not need to look far to find a motive for the professors’ oversight—one need only consider the ruling of Boston University on King’s plagiarism, who said that “no thought should be given to the revocation of Dr. King's doctoral degree,” since it “would serve no purpose”. After all, King is dead—he can no longer dishonestly capitalize or further his career on a degree he never actually earned. One wonders, then, why it was necessary to posthumously revoke the (admittedly honorary) doctoral degree from Nobel-winner Konrad Lorenz—a man not even half as famous as King—due to his association with the Austrian Nazi Party in the 1930s. True that these are different universities, but one would think that the ethical quandary of dishonesty in a purported role-model trumps the ideological concern of a forgotten zoologist. What makes King different is that admission of his dishonesty and the revocation of his degree would alter his place in the American pantheon of heroes and secular saints. It is a chink in the ideological armor that the left knew it could ill afford even in those heady days of neoliberal ascendancy of the early 1990s.

“It's Good to Be the King”

It is, therefore, thoroughly believable that King was dishonest—his entire career and all his credentials were, after all, placed on a lie in which his institution was complicit. It can further be broadly asserted that a man whose credentials are dishonestly earned and therefore dishonestly advertised is one of two kinds—either a man of little competence who could not earn his degree honestly or a man of little honor who merely would not earn his degree in an honest fashion. It is perhaps to King’s credit—and undergirds the reliability of the FBI reports—that the recently declassified documents suggest the former, King’s sexual proclivities notwithstanding. There are three faces of King portrayed in the documents – the political subversive, the willing marionette, and the moral incontinent. The first two are more directly related to one another, and effect the legitimacy of King’s political movement—which is why they are the most thoroughly attacked by the Narrative Makers.

The latter is most significant vis-à-vis King as a representative of the exorbitance that is associated with community leadership among Black Americans—and, indeed, many of their African counterparts. In this regard, it might be less significant that King engaged in “unnatural sex acts” or was present at drug- and alcohol-fuelled sex parties, or that he fathered several illegitimate children, because corruption and immoral behavior is expected of Black community leaders, even among religious leaders. Consider, for instance, one of the criticisms leveled against Ralph Northam’s campaign in Virginia; his campaign was under fire for trying too hard to appeal to White voters. The evidence presented for this was his anti-corruption ads targeting his Republican opponent’s ties to the now-infamous Enron corporation. The lack of appeal of this issue to the Black vote is considered self-evident by the Author of Colour. In addition, this sort of behaviour has already been observed in other leaders of the Civil Rights movement—Jesse Jackson had his marital infidelity revealed in 2001, Al Sharpton was in an open affair in the last years of his second marriage, and Elijah Muhammed carried on numerous affairs as leader of the Nation of Islam without his standing being effected, just to name the most visible.

Whether there was a concerted effort to cover up King’s behavior or whether those closest to him simply didn’t consider it significant, it is clear that he was engaged in a lifestyle that fits very well with the gangsta rap subculture but would shock and disgust the middle-class Whites upon whom his political success depended. From the document itself, the most damning passage reads:

King held the first of two workshops in Miami, Florida, in February, 1968, to train Negro ministers in urban leadership. One Negro minister in attendance later expressed his disgust with the behind-the-scenes drinking, fornication, and homosexuality that went on at the conference. Several Negro and white prostitutes were brought in from the Miami area. An all-night sex orgy was held with these prostitutes and some of the delegates in attendance…. A variety of sex acts deviating from the normal were observed.

Elsewhere, it asserts that King was present at another, similar event in 1964 that lasted two days and he even publicly sodomized one of the hired prostitutes who had “shied away from engaging in an unnatural act”.

King also engaged in far more mundane sexual improprieties through a series of adulterous affairs. The “Current Analysis” does not name names (except for Joan Baez), but during his travels in 1966, King’s phone records indicate a number of phone calls to both married and unmarried women, including several calls to a Miss Maxine Thurston, a principal organizer of the Greater Miami Urban League, and who apparently stayed overnight in King’s hotel room on May 18-19, 1966. She is obviously a different woman than King’s paramour in Los Angeles by whom he fathered a child, after which he paid for the child with funds from the SCLC.

Neither was child support the only irregularity in King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference funds. King, or at least his handlers, managed his finances with great aplomb, managing to dodge taxes through the establishment of several front organizations for the SCLC—in addition to getting funds directly from the federal government for the SCLC’s involvement in “slum-clearing” in Chicago and job-training in Atlanta. A former member of the CPUSA and SCLC organizer, Stanley Levison, was responsible for these schemes, which collected $400,000 of tax-payer money for the SCLC, some of which went to organizing the Dionysian festivals described above. This is just one instance of King’s allies, many former CPUSA members, used their experience as organizers for the Communist Party, to help the SCLC with the fundraising that would personally enrich King.

Letter from a Lubyanka Committee Room

King’s association with Communism is not likely to affect his standing in the Black community any more than his moral incontinence, of course. Nevertheless, King’s immoral behavior might be waved away when considering the “social justice” his movement achieved by a false "conservative" eager to appease and satisfy the moral demands placed on him by leftist personality cults. What cannot be so easily waved away is an accusation that the Civil Rights Movement itself was aimed at undermining, dividing, and destabilizing American society and government, which King’s political leanings do suggest. This is of great significance since King is held up in contrast to Black Nationalists like Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael, and Louis Farrakhan as a proponent of peace, unity, and justice palatable to a White suburban audience. (It is telling also that no one has stood up to defend any of the Black Nationalist figures who are also accused in these documents of seeking to achieve the aims of international Communism.)

There are more than a dozen documents that discuss King, including the "Current Analysis” as well as the CIA dossier on King’s assassination and numerous individual documents on a variety of subjects, mostly King’s known associates and advisors who have overlaps with the communist movement in the United States. The running theme in all of them is more or less the same: King’s affiliation with communists at home and support for King from communists abroad. The FBI’s concern—shared by the CIA—is obviously King’s affiliation with foreign agents, to ascertain if he was engaged in any sort of espionage of the more blatant sort. The failure of any US government agency to act on this information would seem to indicate that no criminal case could be founded in the documents; the best they could hope to do is impeach King as a moral leader, which was not, apparently, Hoover’s chief aim, since any one of these documents made public in the 1960s would have been devastating.

Our friend Garrow is especially dismissive in the Post of King’s “alleged” communist ties—he spends a great deal of time talking about how the Communist Party USA was an insignificant organization by the late 1960s, and how this meant that the FBI was grasping at straws when they talked about it. He (probably deliberately) overlooks the direct correlation between the decline of CPUSA activity and the development of the SCLC, largely by the same group of people, who are clearly indicated by the document as “having communist affiliations” (documented members of CPUSA are indicated with an asterisk):

Stanley David Levison*, “Assistant Chief”

Clarence Jones, Advisory Committee

Harry Wechtel, Advisory Committee

Cordy T. Vivian*, Director of Affiliates

Randolph Blackwell*, Program Coordinator

Hunter Pitts O’Dell*, Administrative Assistant

Lawrence Reddick*, Advisory Committee

Bayard Rustin, Advisory Committee

Your humble author will not comment on what many of those names have in common besides Communism, but consider this an invitation, dear reader, to fill in the missing piece of information on your own. Levison and Harry Wechtel loom particularly large in the document, and indeed, Levison is present in nearly all the documents, and appears in a number of other documents unrelated to King, suggesting that he may have even been the bigger target of FBI and CIA investigations than King himself. Levison is the bigger fish, so to speak, but Wechtel was a likewise an important communist with behind-the-scenes presence in several socialist undertakings besides the SCLC—and it would be Wechtel, not Levison, would be one of King’s most frequent phone call recipients during his travels according to FBI records. What brings King into the centre of the investigation, though, are Levison’s comments about King to the General Secretary of CPUSA in 1962, several years into the reorganization of the Party along orthodox Marxist lines which led to the shrinking of the Party as many former members fled into the Progressive Labor Movement and formed the core of the New Left. (Among the departures in this early period were many of the founders of the SCLC alongside King.) Levison wrote to Hall that King, “is a whole-hearted Marxist who has studied it (Marxism), believes in it and agrees with it, but because of his being a minister of religion, does not dare to espouse it publicly”.

This insistence on King’s personal Marxism is interesting, since King’s ability to articulate this doctrine seems to have been limited—at a rally sponsored by the Freedomways magazine, a socialist publication originally supported by CPUSA, King was slated to speak on W.E.B. Dubois, a noted Socialist, and Levison had “confided to Clarence Jones that King... had never read anything as badly… [it was] as though he did not understand what he was reading”.

This was already a problem as early as 1964, when King gave his blessing to a committee to be formed to edit and, in fact, author his speeches for him. King likewise solicited speeches from Levison, Wechtel, Jones, and several others for him to use to construct his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech. It is worth note that the claims in the dossier that King simply took orders from these advisors, and that he showed little tendency towards original thought, are well-supported by Keith Miller’s article on King’s tendency to plagiarise. Remarking on the widespread plagiarism in his undergraduate articles are “extremely broad” and “do little more than summarize secondary sources”. Indeed, “on only a few occasions did he marshal a substantive argument” and “in all of the scholarly papers he plagiarized passages -- often entire paragraphs -- from his sources”. Not that this in anyway invalidates or puts the lie to professions of King’s personal Marxism—after all, one may subscribe wholeheartedly to a belief without fully understanding it (indeed, is this not a fixture of American society?)

A rare moment of tension between the Levison group of Communists in the SCLC and King himself arose when a “fringe” of the Civil Rights Movement suggested that King involve himself directly in the Vietnam peace protest movement—a segment that takes up fully a third of the “Current Analysis” memorandum. In 1965, Just as CPUSA and other communist and leftist organizations in the US began to pivot away from Civil Rights towards Peace agitation, King announced that he would speak with Ho Chi Minh in an effort to end the Vietnam War. This appears to be largely at Wechtel’s suggestion, as was King’s 1965 planned flight to Vietnam with Louis Lomax in toe—a flight plan that was nixed by the SCLC so close to departure that the FBI was waiting at LA airport for King to arrive and he never did. Levison must have won out; his more cautious, and intelligent, approach was taken with favorable results—King pivoted from direct action to public speeches directed at Congress to de-escalate. Rather than being a global figure perceived as sympathetic to the Communist cause, King became a voice of reason arguing for Black interests, just as he had been heretofore. This put King back in the news and tied the Black Power and the anti-Vietnam movements to each other inextricably.

Some select notes on the Communist movement in America are worth making here: first of all, CPUSA had, prior to Gus Hall taking over, been very much at odds with the CPSU on several important issues. First of all, CPUSA had always been a safe-haven for sodomites and sexual perverts of all stripes. Bayard Rustin, one of King’s close allies and an advisory board member of the SCLC, was arrested and convicted of soliciting public acts sodomy with another man in Pasedena, CA, in 1953. King and other leaders of the SCLC, as mentioned, were known to participate secretly in sexual perversity and unnatural sexual activity. The CPUSA was also decidedly anti-Stalinist and pro-self-determination, making their focus on minority rights in the United States, and even minority separatism, natural to their ideological leanings. Finally, their attitude towards religion was positive so long as a belief in religion was grounded in “social justice”—a view also taken by the Nation of Islam and other Black Nationalist movements (Louis Farrakhan differentiates between “true Christians” and “White devil Christians”, a distinction also made by Elijah Mohammed and Malcolm X). The influence of King on these movements cannot be understated—even the Black Nationalists who came to reject him are inextricably linked to him, and to the well-documented American communist fascination with the race question. Not to put too fine a point on it, King fits the mold of an American communist perfectly, even if he does not fit with the image of a Communist agent more directly associated with the Soviet Union—the connexion the FBI was so desperately trying and failing to find. King represents a more insidious kind of communist, one who uses the language and principals of American culture and governance to usurp and implode the very same culture and governance.

The Anointed King

This question of religion is also important and deserves a brief digression of its own here as we draw to our reflective conclusion on these findings. There is no way to write about King without writing about the role he has played in shaping progressive Christianity in the West. No body of Christians has been free of this—Low Church and High Church, Protestant and Catholic, Eastern and Western bodies of Christians have all at some point tied themselves to King and tried to appropriate his vast stores of personal grace for their own benefit. The influence of King on American Protestantism is its own essay—a long essay at that—but the implications of King’s communism and personal moral perversity are simply too great to allow silence on the issue of Orthodox and Roman Catholic appropriation of King’s image and myth.

Since 1960, when King began to come to real public prominence and when the CPUSA began to fade from view, several things have occurred in Western Christianity. The 1960s was a time of tremendous and destructive change in Christianity: 1961 saw one of the most important meetings of the leftist-œcumenical World Council of Churches, whose Central Committee (odd choice of words, isn’t it?) was expanded that year to include Russian Orthodox representatives. 1962 saw the calling of the Second Vatican Council, one of the most muddling and destructive events in Roman Catholic history, and 1963 saw the election of Paul VI as Pope—the most openly leftist Pope prior to the election of Francis. In Latin America, Liberation Theology introduced Marxism openly into Catholic theology throughout the Latin world. The Social Justice movement, spearheaded by Methodists, came to completely dominate the United Methodist Church following its formation in 1961. Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople in 1964 introduced the worst confusion into Orthodoxy since the Russian Revolution by unilaterally rescinding his predecessor’s excommunication of Rome, essentially creating the now widespread movement towards false œcumenism within Orthodoxy. Everywhere, seeds of doubt and confusion were sewn—and everywhere, likewise, hints of communist presence and subversion were also present.

King fits neatly into this overall image—the First Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad, Philaret, condemned openly the false œcumenism of Athenagoras; his eventual successor, Met. Vitaly (Ustinov), penned an important article in 1971 warning of the dangers of deracination, Communism, and soulless American culture, in contrast to his Greek counterpart, Archbishop Iakovos, who marched publicly with King without any regard for King’s theological errors—and one wonders if he might not have marched with him even if he had known of King’s moral incontinence as well. Abp. Iakovos was the subject of much criticism from the Russian Church Abroad, a body of Russian Orthodox who had fled the Communist regime in Russia, for his glad-handing about with heretics in ecumenical efforts. Fr. Seraphim Rose, in particular, condemned Athenagoras and Iakovos for espousing a heresy known as Chiliasm, itself in fact deeply related to Freemasonic beliefs surrounding the human origins of a millennial New Age.

Dissenting Roman Catholics, likewise, have been quick to point out potential Freemasonic affiliations of Pope Paul VI, with whom King met on a trip to Italy in 1965—the same trip that brought him in contact with Italian Communists, who, even if they did not meet with King personally, at least met some of his entourage and published a translated article of his on the Civil Rights movement. At this meeting, Paul VI apparently pledged his commitment to the Civil Rights movement and King’s personal mission. This was a follow-up to encounters between King and Catholic leaders in St. Augustine, FL, in 1963, where the SCLC actively worked with Roman Catholic laity to overthrow the local Catholic bishop, a traditionalist and former Vatican Secretary of State under Pope Pius XI, Joseph Hurley (they failed – but Abp. Hurley died in 1967). Hurley is an interesting figure—a dedicated anti-Nazi and American patriot during World War II, he was actively present for the defense of Abp. Alyosius Stepinac during his trial by the Yugoslav government for Crimes Against the People. He was sent back permanently to St. Augustine after opposing Pope Pius XII on the removal of Stepinac from his post and rapprochement with Tito. Hurley was a dedicated anti-Communist, and, while engaging in polite diplomacy, refused to work with SCLC, the NAACP, or their leftist allies in the National Catholic Conference on Interracial Justice. He warned his immediate staff that the SCLC had “lied, manipulated, and was not to be trusted”. These organizations showed their true colors by publicly attacking Hurley even after learning of his quiet desegregation of the entire Archdiocesan body, in accordance with their stated goals. Lay Catholics, dissident priests (the same generation that would produce most of the sex abuse scandals), and their SCLC handlers practically shut down the Archdiocese and St. Augustine as a whole for weeks. Their goal was not racial justice of desegregation, but public confrontation with “reactionary” forces and the disruption of civil society.

It must be restated that it was after all of this abuse, manipulation, and agitation that Abp. Iakovos marched with King, Paul VI guaranteed his support of King, and hundreds of thousands of Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox rallied to support King and his organization. After his assassination in 1968, in order to speedily arrange his public canonization, his crimes and abuses have been painstakingly buried and his legend has been greatly enlarged to the detriment of every Christian body in America. Having disinterred his real legacy, and laying out the stinking, rotting reality from its government tomb, the treatment of the syphilitic decay of Christendom might proceed at a greater rate.

Documentation: An Incomplete List

These are the FBI and CIA documents released by President Trump used by this article to form conclusions:

104-10125-10131: Report to CIA director Helms on King’s communist associates, incl. Levison

104-10125-10133: “Martin Luther King, Jr: A Current Analysis”

104-10125-10157: “Racial Violence Potential in the United States this Summer (1967)”

104-10173-10166: CIA Dossier on Communist Coverage of King Assassination

104-10433-10037: Memorandum on King’s meeting with Italian leftists (incl. Pope Paul VI)

104-10433-10041: Memo on King’s article in the Italian communist magazine Vie Nuovo

104-10433-10043: Notice on investigation into King’s potential ties w/ Italian Communist Party

104-10433-10047: Report on potential Vietnam travel plans of King and Louis E. Lomax

104-10433-10051: Docs on King’s visitors at hotel in Chicago, including potential mistress liaisons

104-10433-10067: List of King’s known Communist associates

104-10433-10087: Memo on 3-day Black Power con in 2/68; King, Carmichael, Rap Brown in attendance

104-10433-10134: Communist commentaries on Assassination of King; declaration of support for Black Power from Communist world

104-10433-10212: Summary of Cuban news coverage of King’s assassination

Follow Thermidor Magazine: