Where's the part where MLK accuses the US government of giving AIDS to black people?

William Blum made a similar observation:

One parting thought about Obama: Is he prepared to distance himself from Rev. Martin Luther King as he has from his own minister, Rev. Jeremiah Wright? King vehemently denounced the Vietnam War and called the United States "the most violent nation in the world". Like Wright, he was strongly condemned for his remarks. As T.S. Eliot famously observed: "Humankind can not bear very much reality."

So you say, "One Thing We Know For Sure: Hillary Clinton Wouldn't Stay In A Church Led By This Guy".

That's probably right. From the same article:

Typical of Clinton's growing corps of conservative followers, the Washington Times recently lent support to this theme. The right-wing newspaper interviewed a group of "mostly conservative retired [military] officers, industry executives and current defense officials", who cite Mr. Obama's lack of experience in national security. And so it goes. And so it has gone for many years. What is it with this experience thing for public office?

I really think the word "experience" is being willfully misused or used as a codeword for, in our experience, she's a person we can deal with.

Because god help us we get someone unvetted by the MICFiC into the oval office. And folks, anyone sitting in Rev. Wright's pews certainly has been contaminated by the notion that there is another view that might work.

Not that I think Obama is such an outsider, but when Scaife warms up to Hillary, and praises her effusively, ye shall know the apocalypse is upon us (or at the least, that the moneyed elite are clutching their purses to their bosom nervously).

Pointless snark, Aaron, because if Wright had never said a word about the stupid AIDS conspiracy theory, mainstream Democratic politicians would still run away screaming from what he said about US foreign policy.

Donald,

Thank you. It's moments like that when I can feel in my chest why black men tend to die early of heart attacks. Because Aaron's pointless snark was even more pointless than you say.

It's true that, as you point out, it would have made zero difference if Wright has left out the AIDS stuff; King was attacked mercilessly for saying what he did in his later speeches, in exactly the same way Wright has been. People close to King were attacked in exactly the same way Obama has been.

But in addition, there's the preposterous standard that no one else in America has to meet. If a black person has ever said ONE CRAZY THING everything else he's said thereby becomes crazy, he's disqualified forever from all acceptable society, and every single other black person in America must denounce and reject him. And of course this standard was used against King. It's not like he never did or said anything questionable. Meanwhile, white politicians can make out with Pat Robertson on national TV and it's perfectly okay.

Wrong, not crazy. Look up the Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male.

Well, it may be understandable in some sense, but it's still on crazy side. The government didn't invent syphilis in order to give it to the people being "studied." Nor did they even give it to them. They just left it untreated while pretending to treat it. Monstrous, but in the boring way white governments are monstrous, not in the Exciting Crazy Supervillain way of creating AIDS.

Yes, JS, the classic "Pat Robertson (or Jerry Falwell, or whoever) says nutty things, so it's okay for a black leftist preacher to say equally nutty things." You'll notice that I, like many other critics of Rev. Wright, never said anything to defend the loathsome Robertson.

I'm just trying to point out that MLK never said anything nearly as nutty as "the US government gave AIDS to black people." And yes, the fact that a supposedly responsible speaker like Wright said something like this DOES take away from the other things that he said.

MLK never said anything nearly as nutty as "the US government gave AIDS to black people."

Really? I heard he used to go around claiming some dude was crucified and then came back to life.

"Really? I heard he used to go around claiming some dude was crucified and then came back to life."

Did he actually say that?

Just to be clear: did Wright actually "accuse the US government of giving AIDS to black people"? I haven't seen that, and can't find a quote for it. What I have seen is this:

Fact No. 8: We started the AIDS virus, and now that it is out of control, we still put more money in the military than in medicine; more money in hate than in humanitarian concerns. Everybody does not have access to healthcare, I don’t care what the rich white boys in the Senate say. Listen up: If you are poor, black and elderly, forget it.

So Wright was saying the US "started" the AIDS virus, which may just be a reference to (or in some way related to) AIDS origin theories like this one. Which may be incorrect, but it's not nutty, crazy, invalidating, etc. And the rest of what he's saying is spot on.

If I've just missed the relevant quote, I'd appreciate it if someone could point me to it.

Good comeback, Jon! I totally forfeit!

From FRANK ZAPPA concerning DR. Coop
Is your epidemic real
Are you leaving something out?
Something we can't talk about?
A little green monkey
Way over there
Kills a million people
That's not fair
Did it really go that way?
Did you ask the CIA?
Is it that mysterious?
Or have them been PROMISCUOUS?
Have they been promiscuous?

Wright accused the USgov of giving AIDS to Africa, and American doctors, but specifically Jewish American doctors, of intentionally injecting black babies with HIV. It's the anti-Semitic lean that's driving a lot of the MSM vitriol, but it can't be brought too far forward without creating a dialogue around that, and larger questions. Including the racist antipathy that already exists on both sides of the accusation.
There's enough weird evidence for the AIDS-2-AFRICA claim that isn't controversial that it really should be taken seriously enough to refute scientifically - if it is in fact a bogus conspiracy theory. But it never is, just dismissed out of hand as dimly-reasoned crazytalk.
Keeping in mind, Donald Johnson, that conspiracies are not fantasies per se, and theories about conspiracies in this awful day and age are neither inappropriate nor illogical. Just potentially a waste of time and emotional engagement. Keeping in mind that "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" are terms commonly used to describe too many events and situations in the world today.
But if you aren't a member of a community decimated by a disease that came out of nowhere, without warning, while leaving entirely unscathed sections of the demographic that were already looking down on you from a great safe and protected height, you probably won't be spending much energy on wondering about whether it was done with intent or not.
The question is one of accuracy and targeted focus.
It's just that once you get a handle on just how much crazy bad shit has already provably and seriously taken place, it's hard to maintain the noise/signal filtration system. You have to consider too much, it becomes an inefficient use of resources. Let local consensus form and frame your opinions.
Or you could check out "The Constant Gardener", Le Carre's book, or the movie starring Ralph Fiennes.
Was there a government program in the 70's to infect a bunch of expendable subhumans way 'cross the wide Atlantic Ocean?
How the hell should I know?
This is, as far as I can determine, lifted directly out of DoD Appropriations Hearings for 1970:
-
"1. All biological agents up to the present time are representatives of naturally occurring disease, and are thus known by scientists throughout the world. They are easily available to qualified scientists for research, either for offensive or defensive purposes.
2. Within the next 5 to 10 years, it would probably be possible to make a new infective microorganism which could differ in certain important aspects from any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that it might be refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease.
3. A research program to explore the feasibility of this could be completed in approximately 5 years at a total cost of $10 million.
4. It would be very difficult to establish such a program. Molecular biology is a relatively new science. There are not many highly competent scientists in the field, almost all are in university laboratories, and they are generally adequately supported from sources other than DOD. However, it was considered possible to initiate an adequate program through the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council (NAS-NRC). The matter was discussed with the NAS-NRC, and tentative plans were made to initiate the program. However, decreasing funds in CB, growing criticism of the CB program, and our reluctance to involve the NAS-NRC in such a controversial endeavor..."
-
"CB" means Chem-Bio.
It's the testimony of Dr. Donald MacArthur, a Pentagon employee at the time. He's talking about manufacturing an artificial disease the human immune system wouldn't be able to recognize. Of course he's all about the defense, how we've gotta do it before they get to it, so we can defend our innocent selves.
Quotes from that are repeated all over the shrieking hysteria web on this subject, and of course completely absent from any normal people's polite discourse sites.
My personal view is I don't know, I have no way to verify, but I do know that it's entirely possible scientifically, and it's in no way beyond the amoral capabilities of thousands if not millions of upstanding scientists.
So I'm not talking a stand about its validity.
But if a black leader says it happened I'm damn sure taking him seriously, if for no other reason than he's living a perspective on racist oppression I have only the most tangential relation with.
All you liberals need to stop wincing when someone like Wright says something you think is outlandish. And keep in mind he's the direct heir of the wrong end of an institutionalized outlandishness that's been in place so long it's practically a feature of human presence on earth.
Were the men running things in 1970 capable of doing such a heinous and inhuman thing?
Mos' def my brothas. Absolutely mos' def.
Are those same men, or their moral equivalents, still running things?
You tell me.

Roy: "Wright accused the USgov of giving AIDS to Africa, and American doctors, but specifically Jewish American doctors, of intentionally injecting black babies with HIV."

I see (possibly apocryphal) claims that Steve Cokely said in 1989 that "Jewish doctors were injecting black babies with AIDS," but I see no indication that Wright has said anything similar. Absent that evidence, or the evidence I requested earlier that Wright accused the US government of "giving AIDS to black people," it appears to me that people are just embellishing Wright's actual statements—as though he's personally accountable for every thing any black person may have ever said about AIDS.

John:
Check on the Cokely quote, I conflated it with Wright's broader more general accusation. Though it's unlikely it's apocryphal, he, Cokely, said it more than once, and on Pacifica's KPFK according to wikiquote.
Whatever spin-hysteria's functioning in all this, it obviously got the better of me on that, thanks for the groundation.
Wikipedia quotes Jeremiah Wright directly as having said:
"The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color."
But absent any direct parallel between Cokely's statements and Wright's, my hints at behind the scenes intrigue were off-base, and I apologise for that.
The larger points though, which are what matter most to me, still stand.
It's impossible to lay out a diagnosis of paranoia, or "conspiracy theorizing" about these things, as comforting and important as sanity and normalcy are these days.
Only inaccuracy, which I'm clearly as subject to as anyone else.

Roy of Belmont, that was a GREAT comment.Thanks for posting it.

A little more Zappa---
The Surgeon General
Dr. Coop
Supposed to give you
All the poop
But when he's with
THE NRC
The poop he's scooping
Amazes me

Thanks for your comment, Dr. Belmont.

Roy: Thanks for the pointer to the Wright quote.

Oh, and I agree with you (I think) that "conspiracy theory" is thrown around far too freely, even by people on the left who should know better (having been exposed to some of the extraordinarily convoluted and evil plans the US government has spawned and/or executed).

You want some REAL NEWS Jonathan.

Check this out.

Mr Mortgage Exposes Lehman ALT-A

Mr Mortgage on Foreclosures

This is you and Dennis reincoproated as Republican Finance guys waking up to the reality of the core corruption in their midst. It a stunning development, and it entirely the natural consequence of the growth and incorporation of all of us into the internet overmind as you call.

This is the beginning of the blogspherization of business news, which means ultimately bringing some sanity to business and potentially liberal reform. Rupert Murdoch might as well have flushed his cash down the crapper when he bought the Wall Street Journal because with these net broadcasts the cat is out of the bag.

This is a stunning moment - really.

Reposted because of problems with the comment checker.

Roy, unless you have more evidence than that, I'm going to continue to regard the notion of HIV as a US government-created disease aimed at black people as sheer lunacy. Are all the scientists who study AIDS just too cowardly to speak the truth? That's what is so crazy about it to me--that something like this could happen and the world scientific community would simply fall for it or cover it up. Maybe I overestimate them, but I think there are many in the field who would certainly speak out if they thought there was a serious possibility that US research into biological warfare had killed millions of people.

And it does harm to indulge in a passion for very poorly supported conspiracy theories, because it discredits the ones that are supported by facts. I agree that the term "conspiracy theory", used in a way that implies all such theories are paranoid lunacy, is a bad use of language and I fell into it above. There are real conspiracies. But all the same, there are plenty of crazy conspiracy theories and they do real harm, because they help discredit the notion that our government does in fact commit real crimes against innocent people. I've run into this problem in real life, trying to convince people that our government supports terrorism and mass murder overseas. It all sound paranoid to some of my friends, and it's not helpful when there are people saying that 9/11 was done by our government or that ET's corpse is being hidden in New Mexico.

Who would ever believe that the planet's ENTIRE financial system would swallow subprime poison and when the symptoms show up say EVERYDAY that it has bottomed out and things are getting better.

Donald Johnson, with all due respect, you want it to be a simpler and safer world than it is, but you can't have that.
What you can have is a world where what you do and say are aligned with people who've acted on the principles you clearly share with them.
"that something like this could happen and the world scientific community would simply fall for it or cover it up"
Why do you assume "the world scientific community" would even know? Or know any more than you or I do?
Points of original HIV transmission are still debated. Haiti as sex-tourist destination. Green monkeys. Nigerian truck drivers who believe screwing virgins will heal you if you get it. Nobody's got instruments that will show precisely when where and how it began.
Le Carre sure makes it a believable scenario that BigPharm was using poor Africans as human lab rats. I didn't get the sense he was making that up out of whole cloth. How far will venal ruthless assholes go?
Were Gary Webb's accusations sheer lunacy? How'd that work out for him?
Was the CIA running coke into the US? Yes, no?
Wouldn't you think the "world journalistic community" or the "world drug enforcement community" or the "world diplomatic community" for that matter, would have been in the same predicament - to fall for it or cover it up?
Unless they could just sort of elide it from the discourse? Unless they already had filters in place to prevent disabling information from getting across the threshold.
Isn't that how it works?
Who killed Martin Luther King?
The only linkage the 9/11 and ET conspiracies have are your rejection of them both as fantasy. As well to link the pseudo-moonshot dorks with people saying Sirhan was a patsy even more setup than Oswald may have been. There's no link.
I understand that it takes a lot of time and work to get close enough to the bottom of these things that you can make an informed call. That's why the ones that are real have been so successfully hidden. Do you think the current social/political climate of the USgov is more, or less conducive to daylight generally?
It's looking to be pretty certain that most of the 9/11 hijackers were in the US on CIA paper. There's some massively hinky shit going on with airplanes and cocaine and federal employees starting in the 70's and continuing to this day.
Could it be the more outlandish versions of the events around 9/11 are chaff? Bits of tinfoil released to jam the radar?
Doesn't that give us even more responsibility to stay open-minded no matter how weird things get?
Things are weird and getting weirder. Triangulating your normalcy off the frenetic and bizarre is pretty knee-jerk, and predictable. You can be easily played from that position. It's complicity when it comes to El Mozote, and the long bloody list of provable obscene crimes the same government's guilty of in Central and South America, as I'm sure you agree. Spotlight on John Negroponte.
Throw South Africa into the mix.
Throw Sidney Gottlieb into the mix.
Yes it's weird, it's so weird it's like Alesteir Crowley's hovering in the air all around this shit. I can hear the theremins.
But those are real men, with real lives, who did terrible inhuman things, and they were paid by the government for doing them.
That testimony I posted's a Pentagon employee, a doctor, a scientist, asking for money to research the development of artificial infectious agents.
Motive and opportunity and a track record of heinous inhumanity. Not enough to convict, but more than enough to create and maintain interest.
Did you catch the turmoil coming out of the APA's last convention? Complicity in torture, professionally ethical or not? They had to debate it. The good guys lost the debate.
I'm not saying Wright's accurate, I'm saying it's decades too late to dismiss what he says just because it's too far outside consensus reality. Consensus reality is made out of papier mache and cheap epoxy now. It looks substantial with all that paint on it, but there's not much to it, and it won't last.

Roy Belmont,

Just a little advice on the type of argument you are having. The people most often you need to convince are already convinced that "something" other than the official story occurred. Those that aren't convinced are very often not honest players, and this fact should make arguing with them a not so valuable investment of time. Not always but often.

With conspiracies, it's sufficient to say X did not happen in the manner it was recorded, rather than explain in detail why X did not happen the way it was recorded. Or propose explanation why for the details of X. The reality is that unless those who committed X permit the story to get out we will never know.

Case in point is this Iraq situation. We know now, the majority of the public knows, it was purerly an imperial action that was driven by the executive for multiple powerful interests that wanted it to happen. We also know that those interests no longer care about even attempting a good deception. Many of the specifics of who what and when are a matter of the public record. The ultimate "why", is not really relevant. We can infer why based on the rewards to the winners.

All previous conspiracies should be boxed off in a smiliar fashion. It's a lot like the concept of the square root of -1. No one in the math community understands what the square root of -1 actually means. And to even think about it was a big controversy for many years. But then some brave souls decided to call it only with the symbol "i", and start playing with it according to the inferences they could make about what it would do if it was a number. And low and behold whole worlds of understanding opened up! Maxwell's equations, the relationship of electricity to magnetism. Modern society as a result. And yet we still have no idea what "i", really is, ie what's inside the box. And to keep on going we don't need to know.

In the modern era, refer to "i" and how it is used when dealing with arguments over "conspiracy".

I wouldn't put Gary Webb's claims in the same category with the AIDS thing. His claims seemed pretty substantive. The same for claims about US complicity in mass murder in umpteen different places around the globe. The HIV as government conspiracy--well, I'd like to see some articles making a serious case for this before I take it seriously. There are plenty of people, some of them scientists, who have enough integrity not to be bothered by being outside the mainstream consensus when they think the mainstream consensus is dead wrong.

Parience is quite correct, the ones who committed X know for sure. Perhaps one should quiz the CIA first, IF one truely desires an true answer.

Patience is quite correct, the ones who committed X know for sure. Perhaps one should quiz the CIA first, IF one truely desires an true answer.

Well no, Patience, we don't "know now...it was purely an imperial action... driven by the executive for multiple powerful interests...".
Any more than we "know" it was undertaken to lock down the dwindling global oil supply, or all the above. We have our suspicions, yeah, but nobody "knows" anything for sure.
These are the secondary explanations, waiting under the steaming piles of horseshit that got shoveled onto the airwaves lo these many years ago. Maybe they're only secondary, still more obfuscation.
The American Empire has taken a series of mortal blows from its idiotic and desperate violence in Iraq, so it doesn't seem likely to have been that.
Though that's the Childrens' Response.
Big stupid President, make him go away.
It may have been that Cheney and Bush were extorted into doing what they've done. Brainwashed even, or both.
It sure looks like that's what happened to Tony Blair.
Hotshot politicians with a few smudges in their past brought to heel by ruthless thugs with the incriminating goods in tidy packages. Do what we want or we'll wreck your life. Igor here has some training exercises that will help you.
There's a long history of that kind of thing. Cuba was once the spider's web of exactly that kind of entrapment. Sin City, with cameras. That's not theory, that's fact.
I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything, I'm trying to create a climate of open-mindedness - a receptivity to weird narratives. Because that's where the truth is now. Way out at the edges.
To "keep on going" we don't need to know anything, we just have to "keep on going".
But if it matters where we're going then we're going to require more than calm assurances from the clueless.
We'll need testimony, and witness, and maps.