Documentary Exposes How the FBI Tried to Destroy MLK with Wiretaps, Blackmail | Hacker News Reader

Documentary Exposes How the FBI Tried to Destroy MLK with Wiretaps, Blackmail

npr.org

57 pointsJimmc41428 comments

No one can be exposed (or reminded) about how the country's top police force, the FBI, worked to completely destroy civil rights figures (MLK was against violence, actually made a big difference in the success of our country, and then was murdered in such a careless manner) - but: no one should be able to learn about these kinds of actions and then say we don't have a long history of endemic racism. Yet here we are today, with many people convinced that the real problem in America is we talk about our racist history too much and it hurts the feelings of white people.

And I'm sure the good liberals who like to dwell on such history are deeply concerned about the contemporary issue of how the FBI has infiltrated our social networks, and is actively involved in a disinformation campaign against Americans?

Of course not. Because this time, the FBI is working for them, or so they believe.

You see, the critics you describe are aware of the history. We're also aware that you all are complete hypocrites, only interested in gaining political advantage and making disparaging comments about white people. That's why you focus on 1950 instead of 2022.

Extending your comparison, do you believe the conservative activists and organizers of the 50s and 60s knew of the FBI’s campaign against MLK and others, but were perfectly okay because it served their political interests? Because it seems that you are saying liberal activists and organizers of today are co-signing the FBI’s psychops for political gain. If true that seems fringe, not mainstream but I could be wrong.

Also from a political organizing perspective, it’s advantageous for anyone critical of the FBI to talk about their actions of the past, as a way to bring more attention to what they are doing today. A partisan argument does the exact opposite.

Back in those days, I assume the population had no clue. But the conservative establishment in government certainly did. I was a Democrat in the 80's, 90's, and 00's. I'd like to think that I would have been one in the 50's given all that was going on.

Today, of course, I'm a committed independent because of the unfortunate path the Dems have taken.

> Because it seems that you are saying liberal activists and organizers of today are co-signing the FBI’s psychops for political gain. If true that seems fringe, not mainstream but I could be wrong.

Most of what I've seen from the political left since the Twitter files and the removal of Trump from Twitter has been justification for censorship and heavy handed actions from federal agencies. Doesn't seem fringe at all. The principled position of civil liberties, free speech, etc, is all but extinct among mainstream Democrats.

As for your last point, I agree. But that's very much not the argument GP was making.

That’s fair. I guess I would think of Twitter echo chambers —full of bots & coordinated algorithm manipulators— as fringe in comparison to what most liberal-minded people I know care about. The predictable response online isn’t as prevalent in-person in my experiences. But to each their own.

Twitter shapes the national conversation. I'm talking about verified accounts with hundreds of thousands of followers, not bots.

You mean the same FBI that routinely finds american police forces full of openly white supremacist people and cops part of those weird fringe alt-right groups like the 3% or whoever, and has done NOTHING about it for decades? Yeah they are definitely in the pocket of liberals.

I agree. They're useless. Abolish them.

Part of my point was they are not in the pocket of liberals. Liberals just think they are, and are now their unwitting stooges.

Only the far-left fringe still has the correct opinion about the FBI. Too bad they're wrong about everything else.

What's your point and why is that surprising? This is what they do. MLK wouldn't have much to do if there was no injustice to fight. He was fighting laws which by definition are meaningless without enforcement (FBI) and be was not trying to change things from within the system (because he can't really).

But then he won and the country changes, democrats are no longer racist people and southerners (at least not any democrat majority) and along with that many laws changed so now you can expect the FBI of today to support and protect MLK.

But if you find injustice in the laws of today, get noticed enough and they will be on you like a fat kid on cake. Excerpt now, they are more sophisticated and tech has made their job both harder and easier in scary ways.

It is a function of law enforcement to especially enforce unjust laws and orders be because those are the ones that need the most enforcement.

I don’t think it’s useful to look at the FBI through a racial lens. It has consistently murdered and oppressed people of all races and creeds from its very beginning. It’s not even altogether clear the FBI was founded legally.

We’re talking about an organization that spied on FDRs political enemies for solely political reasons and then leaked the results of those investigations to discredit his opponents. The same FBI that conducted mass wiretappings, break-ins, extortions, blackmail, murder, and, lots not forget the tried and true tactic of “infiltrating” groups, plying them with goodies and arms and then persuading them to go commit violence, then arresting them.

They’ve done this to anti-war activists, communists, right-wing extremists, Muslims, libertarians, white supremacists, weirdo cultists, and racial equality activists. And normal people who got in their way, or who were just plain unfortunate. And they almost always get away with it.

And they haven’t stopped, either.

If the FBI can be said to have a “ideology”, it’s not white supremacy. It’s the defense of the managerial elite and their status quo, and utter conviction in their rightness to do whatever it takes. And they are just about as beyond effective political control as the CIA.

When you say “our” and you mean “their” or “my” this is subject to intentional misdirection. We don’t drive our car to work at the FBI or blackmail MLK. If you do, you should stop.

This is the old FBI, not the new one that claims internet censorship is just part of the daily routine and that no one is responsible for years of fraudulent Trump-Russia propaganda. If you support this mechanism when it becomes politically useful, you 1) lack principle and 2) deserve to be on the wrong end of it.

What year do you think the FBI changed? When did they stop being a white supremacist occupational force that murders and oppressors anybody who attempts to fight for their rights ?

I think it might have been in the early 2010s, when they finally gained the ability to access global financial and communications data rooted in the Patriot Act. Probably under Mueller, when he was busy framing Assange in Iceland with Sigi.

If you had to guess just off the top of your head since the beginning of the George Floyd protest how many BLM protesters who are black have simply disappeared into the night never to be seen again?

Let's also look back at the last few years - did we have an obvious problem in the FBI excusing the actions of protests against deadly police actions, or was the actual problem that there was a measurable amount of people in the FBI supporting and/or ignoring the people that actually did try to murder the congress.

It's pretty clear. When there was the large BLM protest in Washington DC there were lots of federal crowd control, also no one tried to break into the capital. When Trump's January 6 riot happened, there were just the much smaller regular capital police forces at the capital, no national guards.

> the people that actually did try to murder the congress.

You honestly believe that there was an attempt to murder the congress? They planned a mass murder, but settled for selfies in the rotunda?

> When Trump's January 6 riot happened, there were just the much smaller regular capital police forces at the capital, no national guards.

Could you clarify what exactly you're trying to say here? You seem to be implying some kind of vast right-wing conspiracy.

> You honestly believe that there was an attempt to murder the congress? They planned a mass murder, but settled for selfies in the rotunda?

What about the people that showed up with tactical gear and were obviously organized and coordinated? I don't think the Oath Keepers were arrested and charged with seditious conspiracy because they took selfies.

https://youtu.be/jWJVMoe7OY0

> Could you clarify what exactly you're trying to say here? You seem to be implying some kind of vast right-wing conspiracy.

Why did the Secret Service 'accidentally' delete messages from Jan 6th? Why didn't Mike Pence let the Secret Service evacuate him? Clearly he thought it was of the utmost importance that he stay and finish certifying the election.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/26/pence-car...

> What about the people that showed up with tactical gear

What does "tactical gear" mean specifically? How many firearms did they bring per person?

Right wing extremists are well armed right? I bet it was like 10 guns for each person, surely.

> The defendants also, collectively, employed a variety of manners and means, including: organizing into teams that were prepared and willing to use force and to transport firearms and ammunition into Washington, D.C.; recruiting members and affiliates; organizing trainings to teach and learn paramilitary combat tactics; bringing and contributing paramilitary gear, weapons, and supplies – including knives, batons, camouflaged combat uniforms, tactical vests with plates, helmets, eye protection, and radio equipment – to the Capitol grounds; breaching and attempting to take control of the Capitol grounds and building on Jan. 6, 2021, in an effort to prevent, hinder and delay the certification of the electoral college vote; using force against law enforcement officers while inside the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021; continuing to plot, after Jan. 6, 2021, to oppose by force the lawful transfer of presidential power, and using websites, social media, text messaging and encrypted messaging applications to communicate with each other and others.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/two-leaders-oath-keepers-...

I know you probably have a hard time understanding facts that disagree with your worldview, but these pesky facts have already been established in federal court. If you have evidence that the DoJ lied I suggest you present it in federal court, where these facts have already been confirmed as true.

So how many firearms did they bring to this insurrection?

> A member of the Oath Keepers who traveled with the group to Washington D.C. ahead of the Jan. 6 riot described a massive stockpile of firearms and other weaponry that allies had stashed in an Arlington, Va. hotel.

> “I had not seen that many weapons in one location since I was in the military,” recalled Terry Cummings, a Florida resident who said he joined the Oath Keepers in 2020 amid concerns about left-wing violence in Portland, Ore. and joined the group leaders’ private chats in advance of their Jan. 6 trip to D.C.

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2022/10/12/oath-keeper-des...

I understand that accepting reality is going to be very hard for you, but that’s okay. Your hero Stewart Rhodes is already a convict and is awaiting sentencing, and no amount of crying on the internet can change that.

You could try to contact his lawyers and tell them about your genius strategy of asking questions that you won’t accept answers to, I think that will definitely free him. Your opinions are definitely more valid then evidence presented and accepted in federal court.

> They planned a mass murder, but settled for selfies in the rotunda?

While they didn't plan to murder the whole Congress it is clear that they intended to attempt to coerce Congress to act to install Trump despite the election results using force and threats of force, including deadly force, against at least key actors (including, but not limited to, the Vice President), and that the reason they did not is that they, in several instances narrowly, and in one case through application of lethal force, were prevented from reaching their targets.

I saw the video of the woman being shot. She was unarmed. Nor did any of the protesters in the video appear to have firearms. If they intended to use deadly force this is a strange failure to plan, particularly for people that fetishize guns.

As best as I can tell this protest is being dramatically overhyped compared to very similar protests in the Capitol and other government buildings. I guess they didn’t get the memo that the Capitol is not a “free speech zone”, as I remember we complained about during the Bush years. Protests in Canada and the US are only allowed now with the proper permitting, in certain areas, and if they don’t threaten the existing power structure.

The declassifieds on Malcom X are even wilder.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com