A New Civil Rights Agenda - The only hope for a diverse nation is a regime of colorblind equality.

This year’s Martin Luther King, Jr. Day was marked by contentious debate about the state of civil rights law in America.

On the left, as always, the failure to achieve equal outcomes along racial lines requires greater state intervention. On the right, a different critique has gained traction, most notably in Christopher Caldwell’s Age of Entitlement and Richard Hanania’s The Origins of Woke, books arguing that American civil rights law has metastasized into a “second Constitution” that has led inexorably to left-wing racialism as the nation’s new orthodoxy.

This critique has merit. The modern civil rights regime has assumed unprecedented power to reshape public and private life, regulating not only instances of outright discrimination but also the minutiae of thought, behavior, speech, and association. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 appealed to the noble principle of equality, but over time the legal structure that it helped establish has metamorphized into an intrusive “diversity and inclusion” bureaucracy that discriminates against supposed “oppressor” groups—namely whites and Asians—and imposes left-wing ideology.

The question is what to do about it. Libertarians have long argued that the Civil Rights Act compromises core freedoms of speech and association to such a degree that only repealing the law can restore them. Another faction argues that the solution to minoritarian identity politics is majoritarian identity politics—that is, if the legal regime has become a racial spoils system, then Americans of European descent must develop “white racial consciousness” and fight for their share.

Both these approaches are misguided. Some conservatives seem to have forgotten that the Civil Rights Act was a response to state-sanctioned racial injustice in the United States and that, at its best, the civil rights movement appealed to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the language of the Fourteenth Amendment. The libertarian proposal for abolishing the Civil Rights Act, like most libertarian proposals, is unfeasible. The white identity proposal, which I have previously criticized, is a recipe for permanent racial division, more akin to “prison gang politics” than republican virtue.

Happily, another avenue is open to us: reform. The ideological capture of the Civil Rights Act is neither fixed nor inevitable. Rather than argue for its abolition, Americans concerned about the excesses of the DEI bureaucracy should appeal to higher principles and demand that our civil rights law conform to the standard of colorblind equality. The answer to left-wing racialism is not right-wing racialism—it is the equal treatment of individuals under law, according to their talents and virtues, rather than their ancestry and anatomy. This policy does not require radical innovations. Embracing the philosophy of the American Founding—with its emphasis on natural rights and liberties—will suffice.

What would this new civil rights agenda look like in practice? First, reformers should outlaw affirmative action and racial preferences of any kind. Both policies are euphemisms for racial discrimination. The next president should rescind Lyndon Johnson’s 1965 Executive Order 11246, which established “affirmative action” and marked the initial deviation from the standard of colorblind equality. Congress should strengthen this principle by amending the language of the Civil Rights Act to make indisputably clear that the law will not permit state-sanctioned discrimination toward any racial group, whether in the minority or the majority.

Second, reformers must eliminate the “disparate impact” provisions in the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and overturn Griggs v. Duke Power Co., both of which have entrenched the doctrine that disparate group outcomes are de facto evidence of racial discrimination. This is a preposterous standard: a system of equal rights necessarily means unequal outcomes, as different groups have different preferences, talents, and capacities. Under a just system, the criterion for assessing biased treatment would not be disparate outcomes but specific, concrete discrimination, driven by animus. Much as libel law requires actual malice, anti-discrimination law should require proof that an individual or institution sought to discriminate. The change in standard would have an immediate effect, reducing the number of frivolous lawsuits and changing the incentives that have driven institutions toward racialist ideology as a defensive strategy.

Third, legislators should abolish the DEI bureaucracies in all American institutions, which openly discriminate against disfavored racial groups, impose ideological orthodoxies on American citizens, and restrict freedoms of speech and association. In addition, federal legislators should radically reduce the size of the federal departments of civil rights enforcement. Bureaucracies are designed to discover—or, if the supply is low, fabricate—whatever transgression they are tasked with eliminating. While a large civil rights enforcement apparatus may have been necessary to enforce non-discrimination law in the past, it is no longer necessary. Americans are a tolerant, cooperative people; a “night watchman” civil rights state and a competent courts system would be sufficient to resolve disputes and ensure compliance with the law.

The goal of these reforms is finally to realize a regime of full colorblind equality. The principle, first promised by the Declaration and supported today by a large majority of Americans, would mean that the state would treat all Americans equally, regardless of ancestry, and leave as much discretion as possible to individuals to determine their own futures, without the government imposing or requiring racial favoritism of any kind. Rather than pit ourselves against one another, we should aspire to a higher standard that subordinates racial faction to a broader national identity.

Americans do not have to accept the bigotries of the past or the present. In a vast and diverse country, colorblind equality is the only way forward.

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10125-10133.pdf

SUBJECT: MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.,
A CURRENT ANALYSIS

DATE: MARCH 12, 1968

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTIONS 1

Washington Spring Project 1
Black Nationalist Terror 2
Strong Communist Influence 3
Explosive Situation 3

II. FORMATION OF SOUTHERN CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE 4

Background of Founder 4
Subversives Attracted 4
Communist Exposed 5
King Speaks at Rally Honoring Communist 6
Forer Committee Established for King 6
King Wins Nobel Peace Prize 7
King’s Attraction for Communist Advisors 8

III. COMMUNIST OBJECTIVES 8

The Peace Issue Appears 9

IV. THE EMERGENCE OF THE PEACE ISSUE IN KING’S GROUP 10

Role as a Peacemaker 10
Admiration Lost 11
Continued Pressure by Press 11
Anti-Vietnam War Resolution 11
“Face the Nation” 12
Senate Hearings 12
“The Nation” Symposium 12
Riverside Church Speech 13
Spring Mobilization 13
King for President 15
The Birth of Washington Spring Project 16

V. SOUTHERN CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE FINANCES 16

A Tax Dodge 17
Funds from Firms and Foundations 17
Funds from Individuals 17
Funds from Government Agencies 18
Funds for Washington Spring Project 18

VI. KING’S PERSONAL CONDUCT 19

Previous Sexual Experiences 19
King’s Mistress 20
King’s Historical Aspect 20

I. INTRODUCTION

Since 1956, Martin Luther King, Jr., has occupied a prominent role in the drive for equal rights for Negroes in the United States. During this critical period in our Nation’s history, much has depended on him as the individual Negroes in great numbers have looked to for leadership in their drive to achieve equality. Much depends on him still in these times when racial tensions have created an atmosphere of fear and foreboding among many Negroes and whites alike. The course King chooses to follow at this critical time could have momentous impact on the future of race relations in the United States, and for that reason this paper has been prepared to give some insight into the nature of the man himself as well as the nature of his views, goals, objectives, tactics and the reasons therefor.

Washington Spring Project

Martin Luther King, Jr., President of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), has stated publicly that he and 3,000 of his followers will march on Washington, D.C., this spring. He has announced that he will lead a massive civil disobedience campaign that will disrupt the normal course of business and, in fact, close down the Nation’s Capital. He originally announced this project on August 15, 1967, in Atlanta, Georgia, on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the SCLC.

King predicted that this massive civil disobedience will be more effective than riots. Concerning civil disobedience, King declared, “To dislocate the function of a city without destroying it can be more effective than a riot, because it can be longer lasting, costly to society, but wantonly destructive.”

King has referred to this campaign as the “Washington Spring Project” and the “Poor People’s March,” which is reportedly being staged to pressure Congress into passing legislation favorable to the Negro. It is King’s contention that the Government of the United State does not move until it is confronted dramatically. To add to the dramatic confrontation, King has boasted he and his entourage are coming to Washington to stay; that his followers will conduct sit-ins, cam-ins, and sleep-ins at every Government facility available including the lawn of the White House. He has bragged that he will fill up the jails of Washington and surrounding towns.

Black Nationalist Terror

One serious danger in the confrontation lies in the proposed action of the black nationalist groups which plan to attempt to seize the initiative and escalate the nonviolent demonstrations into violence.

King has met with black nationalists and attempted to solicit their support. Stokely Carmichael of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), and extremist Black Nationalist organization, has conferred with King. Carmichael endorses the objectives of King and advises he will not oppose or interfere with the “Washington Spring Project’s” plans for nonviolence. However, he also states his role will be governed by what SNCC decides.

King is aware of the possibility of violence because one of his aides proclaimed recently to the press, “Jail will be the safest place in Washington this spring.” However, in spite of this potentially explosive situation, King continues his plans. He adroitly uses this possibility as a lever to attempt to pressure Congress into action by warning that the “Washington Spring Project” may be the last chance in this country for peaceful change with respect to civil rights needs.

Strong Communist Influence

Another complicating factor in the picture is the degree of communist influence on King. One of King’s principal advisors is Stanley David Levison. Ostensibly only a New York City attorney and businessman, Levison is, in fact, a shrewd, dedicated communist. Levison has spent the major part of his life advancing communist interests.

Levison gravitated to Martin Luther King, Jr., in 1956. He has been as dedicated in his support of King as he has been in advancing communist goals. He has actively involved himself in fund-raising drives for King, served as his legal counsel in certain matters, suggested speech material for him, discussed with King demonstrations in which King was involved, guided him in regard to acceptance or rejection of various public appearances and speaking commitments, and helped him with matters related to articles and books King has prepared.

Levison edited most of the chapters of King’s new book entitled “Where Do We Go From Here; Chaos or Community?” Levison wrote one chapter of this book and the publisher’s representative complained to King and Levison that it was obvious certain sections of the book were written by different individuals.

Stanley Levison has told Clarence Jones, another advisor to King, that under no circumstances should King be permitted to say anything without their approving it. Levison also informed ones that King is such a slow thinker he is usually not prepared to make statement without help from someone. Levison is actively participating in the planning for King’s “Washington Spring Project.”

Explosive Situation

The combined forces of the communist influence and the black nationalists advocating violence give the “Washington Spring Project” a potential for an extremely explosive situation.

II. FORMATION OF SOUTHERN CHRISTIAN LEASERSHIP CONFERENCE

Background of Founder

Martin Luther King, Jr., was born January 15, 1929, at Atlanta, Georgia. His name at birth was Michael Luther King, Jr. In 1935, his first name was changed to Martin. King received an A.B. degree in 1948 from Morehouse College, Atlanta, Georgia. He then entered Crozer Theological Seminary, Chester, Pennsylvania, where he was one of six Negroes among 100 students. He won the Plafker Award as the most outstanding student, was President of the Senior Class, and received the J. Levis Crozer Fellowship for graduate study at the university of his choice. King graduated from Crozer Theological Seminary with a Bachelor of Divinity degree in 1951 and did graduate work at Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, where he secured a Ph.D. degree in 1955.

Upon graduation, he was offered the pastorate of two Baptist churches in the East and teaching posts in three colleges. King chose the pastorate at the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama. After becoming established in his church, he founded the Montgomery Improvement Association and led local Negroes in the Montgomery Bus Boycott that attracted national attention. In March of 1957, he founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SGLC) with himself as President. He still holds that position today. He is also co-pastor of the Ebenezer Baptist Church, Atlanta, Georgia.

Subversives Attracted

Stanley Levison was attracted to King and SCLC when King gained national attention. Levison soon developed a close relationship with King and was known in King’s group as “Assistant Chief.” In 1961, he was assistant treasurer of SCLC.

Prior to joining forces with King, Levison led a double life for the Communist Party, USA (CPUSA). Outwardly he was a successful businessman but he was also the clandestine fund-raiser for the CPUSA. He was entrusted with raising and handling secret funds for the Party and used some of these funds to finance his own activities.

Through Levison’s influence, other subversives were attracted to SCLC. Hunter Pitts O’Dell, former National Committee member of the CPUSA, was employed by SCLC. In 1962 when King mentioned to Levison that he was thinking of adding and administrative assistant to his staff, Levison recommended O’Dell, who was then head of SCLC’s New York Office. King said he liked the idea. At the time, King was well aware of Levison’s and O’Dell’s communist affiliations.

The reason King enjoyed this close relationship with communists is best explained by the fact that Levison, in February, 1962, passed the word to Gus Hall, General Secretary, CPUSA, “King is 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.” Further, in March, 1962, Levison told CPUSA functionary that King was concerned about a “communist label” being “pinned on us” but that, at the same time, he wanted to do everything possible to evidence friendship toward the Soviet Union. In addition, King has been described within the CPUSA as a true, genuine Marxist-Leninist “from the top of his head to the tips of his toes.” The feeling within the CPUSA at that time was, and still is, that King definitely follows a Marxist-Leninist line.

Communist Exposed

King was forced to get rid of Hunter Pitts O’Dell in October, 1962, when several newspaper articles exposed O’Dell’s connection with SCLC and his communist affiliations. King still tried to hide O’Dell in his organization until July, 1963, when he accepted O’Dell’s “resignation.” As King put it, O’Dell’s release was not because of connections between O’Dell and the CPUSA but because of the emotional public response.

O’Dell has continued his efforts to make his presence felt in the civil rights movement in behalf of the CPUSA. The Winter, 1967, issue of “Freedomways,” self-described as a review of the Negro freedom movement, lists O’Dell as Associate Managing Editor. Actually, “Freedomways” is a CPUSA-initiated and CPUSA-supported publication espousing the communist viewpoint of Negro problems.

King Speaks at Rally Honoring Communist

On February 23, 1968, King was the guest speaker at a rally of more than one thousand people at Carnegie Hall, New York City, sponsored by “Freedomways,” celebrating the 100th anniversary of the birth of W.E.B. DuBois, famous Negro civil right crusader who joined the Communist Party at age 93. Jack O’Dell, the popular name used by Hunter Pitts O’Dell, was also listed as one of the speakers at this affair.

On the following day, Stanley Levison confided to Clarence Jones that King performed very badly at the “Freedomways” rally. He commented: “King has never read anything as badly,” and, “as though he did not understand what he was reading.”

Former Communist Advisors

Bayard Rustin is a former advisor to King and a one-time assistant secretary of the SCLC. Rustin has publicly admitted affiliation with the communist movement in the late 1930’s. He was also one of a selected number of observers permitted to attend the CPUSA’s National Convention in 1957. King said he had to let Rustin go because of problems arising from his homosexual activities. Rustin has long been so inclined, having been arrested in New York City in 1946 for offering to commit a lewd or indecent act. Rustin was arrested again in Pasadena, California, in 1953, for offering to engage in an act of sex perversion of a homosexual nature, which he admitted and for which he was sentenced to serve 60 days.

Advisory Committee Established for King

On June 22, 1964, an advisory and research committee was formed, with King’s approval, for the purpose of writing King’s speeches and guiding his actions. Among the members of the group were Lawrence Reddick, Bayard Rustin, Clarence Jones and Harry Wachtel.

Reddick is a former member of the CPUSA. On March 5, 1944, Wachtel’s name was on a list of names, whose significance is not known, maintained at the headquarters of the Kings County Communist Party, New York. On the same date, records at this headquarters contained the name of Wachtel’s wife, Leonora, on a list of newly elected officers of the Bath Beach Club of the Kings County Communist Party, New York.

In addition to being on the Advisory Committee, Clarence Jones, a Negro attorney, is also General Counselor for the Gandhi Society for Human Rights, a fund-raising adjunct of the SCLC.

Prior to October, 1966, King attempted to hide his association with Stanley Levison and used Jones as the intermediary. During the mid-1950’s, Jones held a position of leadership in the Labor Youth League, and organization which has been designated as subversive pursuant to Executive Order 10450.

Clarence Jones married Anne Aston Warder Norton on June 3, 1956. She is the daughter of deceased publisher William H. Norton. Between 1947 and 1950 she was identified as a Communist Party club ember at Sarah Lawrence College. In the early 1950’s she was also active in the Labor Youth League. On April 5, 1955, she was observed as the driver of a station wagon which was used to transport Communist Party underground leaders in connection with an official Communist Party meeting. In 1956, she was described by a self-admitted communist as a “hard-core communist.”

King Wins Nobel Peace Prize

In October, 1964, it was announced that King, a 35-year-old Baptist minister, was being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. On November 24, 1964, King contacted Jones and asked that Jones and Levison, among others, submit five-minute speeches which King could use in accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. King would select the best material from these speeches.

King’s Attraction for Communist Advisors

Two previous aides of King were Cordy T. Vivian, who formerly served as Director of Affiliates of the SCLC, and Randolph Blackwell, who at one time acted as SCLC Program Coordinator. Both of these individuals are former members of the CPUSA.

During the early stages of development and formation of the SCLC, the following eight individuals helped shape and mold the policies of this organization, and, as noted, all have had communist affiliations:

Stanley David Levison “Assistant Chief”
Clarence Jones Advisory Committee
Harry Wachtel 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

Of these, Levison, Jones, and Wachtel continued to exert strong influence on King and the SACLC. In addition, at the tenth anniversary convention of SCLC at Atlanta, Georgia, on August 14, 1967, a brochure listed L. D. Reddick as historian of SCLC.

III. COMMUNIST OBJECTIVES

During the early 1960’s, the CPUSA was striving to obtain a Negro-labor coalition to achieve its goals in this country. At that time, the CPUSA “Party Line” was:
“Big business attacks on the rights of labor are continuing. In order to defeat this offensive, organized labor, assisted by communists, must launch a countercrusade, which can succeed only if it is based on the united action of the entire trade-union movement.”

Also, communists had recognized the error of their ways by proclaiming that the communist program for “self-determination” of the Negro in the “Black Belt” area of the South had been discarded. The New policy was to seek complete economic, political, and social equality for the Negro with all other American citizens. In a May, 1961, issue, the communist newspaper, “The Worker,” stated, “Communists will do their utmost to strengthen and unite the Negro movement and bring to it the backing of the working people.”

Martin Luther King, Jr., and his organization were made to order to achieve these objectives. King and his group were demonstrating and conducting voter-registration campaigns to align the Negro movement solidly behind King.

The Peace Issue Appears

This activity continued with much fanfare until the passage of Civil Right Act of 1964 by the Congress. This was the most far-reaching civil right act passed since the reconstruction era. Now it was no longer newsworthy to demonstrate for Negro rights. The passage of this Act was one factor that took King off the front pages of the daily newspapers.

The second factor that had a bearing on King’s lack of publicity and change of policy was the Gulf of Tonkin incident on August 2, 1964, Because of this, the United States took a more active role in the Vietnam War. The CPUSA then started to demand through its propaganda machine that the escalation of war in Vietnam be stopped. The activities in Vietnam were now more important news than was the Negro freedom movement.

The CPUSA also realized that even though the peace issue was of primary importance, a secondary issue not to be forgotten was the freedom movement. Abandoning its previous efforts to form a Negro-labor coalition, the CPUSA now started touting a Negro-peace coalition that would form a massive movement to force the United States Government to change its foreign and domestic policies.

“The Worker,” in April, 1965, claimed that this coalition was starting to form when it stated, “The civil right movement was coming to see the identity of interests of the Negro people’s freedom movement with the anti-imperialist objective of ending the neo-colonialist war of the United States against the people of Vietnam.”

IV. THE EMERGENC OF THE PEACE ISSUE IN KING’S GROUP

Role as a Peacemaker

King and his aides helped form this coalition of “peace” and “freedom” groups. They saw an opportunity to again propel King into the international spotlight by proposing he make peace in Vietnam.

On August 12, 1965, King announced publicly that he would appeal personally to President Ho Chi Minh of North Vietnam to join a conference to end the Vietnan war. He said he would also send letters to leaders of South Vietnam, the Soviet Union, and the United States in this regard.

This move on the part of King was engineered by Bayard Rustin and Harry Wachtel. In early August they met and discussed how to inject King into the Vietnam issue. It was decided to have King write these world leaders utilizing King’s prestige as a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. This action, they felt, would cast an image of King as a great moral leader and extend his influence beyond the civil right movement.

Subsequently, a leading newspaper sent King `12 questions to answer which would clarify his position on Vietnam. Upon receipt of these questions, King referred them to Stanley Levison to answer.

Because of the unfavorable public reaction to King’s announcement, a conference with his top advisors was held in early September, 1965, at which time it was decided that King would avoid the Vietnam issue. Bayard Rustin, Stanley Levison, Harry Wachtel, and Clarence Jones were in attendance at this conference.

Admiration Lost

In early 1966, King was lamenting to Harry Wachtel about a nationally know figure, who at one time was a heavy contributor to and admirer of King but was displeased because of King’s stand on Vietnam. Wachtel reminded King, “When we went into this Vietnam thing, we decided that he who controls the purse strings doesn’t control our philosophy.”

Continued Pressure by Press

After the resumption of bombing of North Vietnam in February, 1966, King conferred with Stanley Levison and Bayard Rustin concerning a statement for the press. King informed them that the press had been bothering him for a statement, but he dared not take any action until he discussed the matter with them. It was agreed that King would say he was deeply impressed by the large number of Senators who called for a cessation of the bombings. Levison reiterated that King should point out how much opposition there is to the bombings.

Anti-Vietnam War Resolution

Miami was the scene of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference executive board meeting in the Spring, 1966. During this two-day conference, the sessions ran into the early morning hours attempting to draft a resolution on the Vietnam war. While there appeared to be a general agreement, Stanley Levison and Harry Wachtel continued to argue for a stronger resolution than was presented. They wanted a resolution that would condemn participation by United States troops in Vietnam. The conference finally adopted a resolution calling on the Government to desist aiding the military junta in Vietnam and to seriously consider a prompt withdrawal.

“Face the Nation”

In May, 1966, King was extended an invitation to appear on the Columbia Broadcasting System’s program “Face the Nation.” Prior to this appearance, King sought the advice of Stanley Levison and Clarence Jones. King wanted their thinking on the more important questions he might be asked. Levison noted the possibility that King might be questioned on the Vietnam war. Jones advised King to use the Southern Christian Leadership Conference resolution on Vietnam as his text. Levison suggested that King should also point out how unfair it was that Negroes were shouldering a heavier burden in the war and that more Negroes were in combat than other Americans.

When King appeared on the program, he suggested the United States stop bombing North Vietnam, negotiate with the Viet Cong, and recognize Red China.

Senate Hearings

Prior to his appearance before a Senate Sub-Committee hearing on urban affairs in December, 19666, King contacted Levison for counsel concerning his testimony. During this discussion, it was agreed that King must reiterate during his testimony that the war in Vietnam is standing in the way of the implementation of any of his civil right projects and is an open invitation to confusion, chaos, disruptions, and riots.

During his subsequent testimony before this committee, he spoke critically of the war in Vietnam along these lines.

“The Nation” Symposium

In late February, 1967, King spoke before a symposium sponsored by “The Nation” magazine concerning the problems of redirecting “American Power.” After this speech in which King was highly critical of the United States involvement in Vietnam, Levison congratulated him. Levison was pleased with the publicity King’s speech received, commenting that King’s appearance on a panel with four United States Senators was the appropriate occasion for him to express his antiwar sentiments.

Over the years a number of individuals who have been employed at one time or another by “The Nation” in editorial and writing capacities have been identified with the communist movement.

Riverside Church Speech

In early April, 1967, King accepted an invitation to speak before the group, “Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam.” This is an interdenominational committee formed to mobilize religious opinion against the war.

Prior to this speech, King and Andrew Young, Executive Director of SCLC, spent approximately eight hours in conference with King’s top advisors in New York, New York. Stanley Levison and Harry Wachtel were present at this conference.

Later that same day, King spoke at the Riverside Church, New York, New York, before this group, at which time he was highly critical of the United States involvement in the Vietnam war. He referred to the United States Government as “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.” He proposed a five-step process to extricate the United States from this conflict. Comments in the news media coverage of King’s remarks pointed out that the five points are similar in concept to the conditions imposed by North Vietnam as a prerequisite to negotiations. It is interesting to note that King’s proposals parallel the propaganda line which the Communist Party, USA, has been projecting regarding the war in Vietnam.

Spring Mobilization

At a conference in the Fall of 1966, of the Peace Mobilization Committee, it was tentatively decided to hold massive peace demonstrations on April 15, 1967, in New York City and San Francisco, California. Of the one hundred seventeen individuals in attendance, seventy-five were members of the Socialist Worker Party or its youth group, the Young Socialist Alliance. The Communist Party was represented by Arnold Johnson and James West, both of whom are members of the Communist Party, USA, National Committee.

This group subsequently changed it name to Spring Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam. Reverend James Bevel, on leave from the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, was appointed Executive Director of this Committee.

On April 13, 1967, Levison and King were in contact to discuss the progress Levison was making in the writing of the speech King waw to deliver on April 15, 1967, to a rally of the Spring Mobilization Committee at the United Nations. Levison discussed part of the speech which King enthusiastically accepted. King particularly liked the part indicating that the United States should unilaterally withdraw from Vietnam. He also enjoyed the part where he would appeal to the country to “demand insistently that our Government honor Hanoi’s promise to negotiate if the bombings cease.”

The CPUSA was delighted with King’s actions in this regard. The recognized leader of 22 million Negroes had openly attacked his country’s policy in Vietnam. He participated in the largest rally ever staged against the Vietnam war by being the keynote speaker. In his speech King again called for the withdrawal of United States troops from Vietnam. King was helping the CPUSA achieve its goal of uniting the Negro movement with the peace issue.

“The Worker” expressed the CPUSA’s pleasure in the May 7, 1967, issue where it stated in part, “When Dr. King insists upon the connection between aggressive foreign policy and regressive domestic policy he insists upon what is true and consequential. When Dr. King points to the racism common in colonialism and Jim crow he points to that which is historically demonstrable. When Dr. King affirms that the present war in Vietnam threatens all democratic and progressive advance in the United States and does so for economic, political, ethical and psychological reasons, again he is saying what every fact and every day’s events confirm. Hence Dr. King, precisely as a leader in the struggle against Jim crow, must be—and is—a leader in the struggle against war.”

Being the astute advisor he is, and to keep King from being openly aligned with the CPUSA, Levison advised King to align himself with those individuals who have power rather than be aligned with a fringe antiwar element. He was to make the new alignment after his April 15, 1967, speech.

King for President

The fringe element Levison referred to was attempting to persuade King to run for President on a peace ticket. On April 19, 1967, Levison and Wachtel conferred concerning King’ political possibilities. According to Wachtel, a pacifist group was meeting that day in an effort to get King to agree to run for President with Dr Benjamin Spock, the antiwar agitator, as his Vice Presidential candidate. Both Levison and Wachtel agreed that it was too early and that King should not agree to run at this time.

The CPUSA again seized the opportunity to cause dissension and unrest in the country by announcing they would support King and Spock on a peace ticket. At a May Day, 1967, program in Berkeley, California, Gus Hall stated, “The Party forces should begin work right now to elect these two men because they are for peace in Vietnam.”

Early in May, 1967, Levison was still concerned with King’s being identified with the peace movement rather than civil rights. When approached by peace groups attempting to get King to continue to run for President, Levison informed those representatives that King would talk on Vietnam on occasion to various groups, but that would be the extent of his involvement.

In an effort to evaluate his position, King and the SCLC held a retreat in Frogmore, South Carolina, on May 21, 1967, to determine the relationship of the SCLC to the peace movement. King and other top functionaries concluded that the SCLC would give no overt or covert support to anti-Vietnam war demonstrations.

The Birth of Washington Spring Project

On July 19, 1967, Levison was in conference with King concerning the Newark, New Jersey, riot. Levison indicated he was concerned about King’s failure to make any public statement concerning the racial disturbances. King informed Levison that he had been considering making a statement but di not merely want to condemn the riots but also to condemn the conditions which lead to riots.

Levison suggested that King advocate a program with dramatic qualities similar to the Works Project Administration of the 1930s. This new program would be implemented by the Federal Government to employ the jobless youth. Levison continued that this program worked in a period when the United States was almost bankrupt and should work even better now that the country is almost sick with money. King agreed that Levison’s idea had merit and he would publicly call upon the Federal Government to do something along this line.

King waited until the Tenth Annual Convention of the SCLC before he made these plans public. On August 15, 1967, he delivered and address at the convention urging new massive civil disobedience which would include general strikes, school boycotts, and a camp-in at Washington, D. C. All this would be to force Congress to take action to improve the lot of the Negro.

SOUTHERN CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE FINANCES

The foremost problem in conducting such a campaign is making financial arrangements to handle the costs. As he has in the past, King turned to Levison to help him handle this problem as well as all financing of the SCLC. At a retreat in September, 1967, it was decided that SCLC would attempt to raise $1,500,000 during the coming year. It was contemplated that this money would be realized through the mail-appeal program of CLC under the general supervision of Levison.

During the fiscal year July 1, 1966, to June 30, 1967, SCLC realized income in the amount of $980,021.52. The total expenses of SCLC for this period were $859,933.34. This indicated income exceeded expenses by $41,088.18.

A Tax Dodge

The SCLC set up Foundations to serve as tax exempt organizations that would solicit funds for SCLC. To this end the American Foundation on Nonviolence of New York City, and the Southern Christian Leadership Foundation of Chicago, Illinois, were established. As money is needed by SCLC, Harry Wachtel reportedly funnels the money from the American Foundation on Nonviolence to SCLC.

Funds from Firms and Foundations

In February, 1967, the firm of Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, and Smith, a stock brokerage firm, contributed $15,000 to SCLC. In August, 1967, Edward Lamb of the Edward Lamb Foundation, Toledo, Ohio, donated some stock to SCLC which had a market value of $6,000. Edward Lamb is a well-known successful businessman in Toledo, Ohio.

It was learned in November, 1967, that the Ford Foundation was about to give CLC $230,000. This money was to train Negro ministers in 25 cities throughout the Nation to become qualified leaders in the ghetto areas.

Funds from Individuals

In October, 1965, Governor of New York Nelson Rockefeller matched the $25,000 donation which King made to the Gandhi Society for Human Rights, another fund-raising adjunct of SCLC.

In February, 1967, it was learned that Harry Belafonte, well-known entertainer, performed on a television program in Paris, France, for the benefit of SCLC. As a result, SCLC was to receive $10,000.

During the year 1967, Anne Labouisse Farnsworth, also know as Mrs. Peter Farnsworth and heiress to the Clark Thread Fortune, donated $50,000 to SCLC. In January, 1968, it was learned she was in the process of donating $100,000 to King’s group.

Funds from Government Agencies

In early December, 1966, it was determined that King’s organization was about to participate in a four-million-dollar loan from the Federal Housing Administration because of SCLC’s involvement in a lum clearance program in Chicago, Illinois. Under existing Government regulations SCLC would share in the ten per cent profit allowed, or $400,000. Levison made available $12,500 of his own money so that SCLC could participate in this program and share in the profits.

It was also determined that in November, 1967, the Department of Labor negotiated a contract with SCLC to train Negroes for employment in Atlanta, Georgia. Of the $61,000 involved in contract, $13,000 went to SCLC and $48,000 went to the grocers in Atlanta for providing on-the-job training to the previously unemployed Negroes.

Funds for Washington Spring Project

In February, 1968, Levison was in conference with one of King’s aides concerning methods of raising fund for the “Washington Spring Project.” Levison suggested that a meeting be held in the home of Harry Belafonte of approximately 60 individuals who have contributed $1,000 or more to SCLC in the past. Levison advised that some of the people to be invited to this meeting would be Governor and Mrs. Nelson Rockefeller, Mary and Stephen Rockefeller, and Franklin D. Roosevelt III.

In early March, 1968, Levison was continuing his efforts to raise funds for the “Washington Spring Project.” He was quite pleased with his current results and notified Clarence Jones that he had sent out a mailing to 80,000 individuals who have contributed to King’s organization in the past two years, soliciting funds. Levison remarked that the returns were running ahead of last year’s response with $15,000 being received in one day.

KING’S PERSONAL CONDUCT

With the funds that he had received from the Ford Foundation, King held the first o 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-scene 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.

One room had a large table in it which was filled with whiskey. The two Negro prostitutes were paid $50.00 to put on a sex show for the entertainment of guests. A variety of sex acts deviating from the normal were observed.

Previous Sexual Experiences

This activity is not new to King and his associates. As early as January, 1964, King engaged in another, two-day drunken sex orgy in Washington, D. C. Many of those present engaged in sexual acts, natural as well as unnatural, for the entertainment of onlookers. When one of the females shied away from engaging in an unnatural act, King and other of males present discussed how she was to be taught and initiated in this respect.

Throughout the ensuing years and until this date King has continued to carry on his sexual aberrations secretly while holding himself out to public view as a moral leader of religious conviction.

King’s Mistress

It was learned in February, 1968, from a very responsible Los Angle individual in a position to know, that King has been having an illicit love affair with the wife of a prominent Negro dentist in Los Angeles, California, since 1962. He believes King fathered a baby girl born to this woman inasmuch as her husband is allegedly sterile.

The Child resembles King to a great degree and King contributes to the support of this child. He calls this woman every Wednesday and frequently meets her in various cities throughout the country.

The individual who reported this is himself a prominent Negro who is related by law to King’s mistress. H advised he has known King since 1960 and refers to him as a “hypocrite.” He also reported that King is having illicit love affairs with three other women, one of whom is Joan Baez, the nationally known folk singer. The prominent Negro who furnished the information said he as appalled that a man of King’s low character could cause so much trouble for both Negroes and the Government.

As can be seen from the above, it is a fact that King not only regularly indulges in adulterous acts but enjoys the abnormal by engaging in group sexual orgies.

King’s Historical Aspect

These facts about the Nobel Peace Prize winner make his remarks seem incongruous when he replied after winning this cherished award, “History has thrust me into this position. It would both be immoral and a sign of ingratitude if I did not face my moral responsibility to do what I can in the civil right struggle.”

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.