In 2013, Edward Snowden revealed the National Security Agency’s covert spying programs and showed how it watched its citizens through tech companies like Google, Apple, and Microsoft.

He stole corroborating documentation from the NSA only to make it public knowledge. His well-intentioned actions split the public into two schools of thought: One saw him as a patriot and the other as a traitor.

Some three-odd years later, Edward Jay Epstein, a proponent of the second school, wrote a book called How America Lost Its Secrets, accusing Snowden of being a spy for China, Russia, or both.

Click here if you’re interested in our take on Epstein’s findings. Alternatively, keep reading our critique of the op-ed disguised as a work of non-fiction.

The Accomplice Theory

Epstein believed that Snowden didn’t have enough sway in the NSA to gain access to top-secret files. He proposed several theories related to someone inside the NSA who might have helped him with the following:

• Get hired at the agency’s data center.
• Discover global spy programs.
• Discover security traps at the data center.

Epstein’s accomplice theory goes as far as positing there might have been a spy in the NSA before Snowden started working there as a contractor.

Unfortunately for Epstein, the FBI explored this theory right after Snowden’s bombshell revelations and came up empty. There was no such accomplice within the agency; it was all Snowden.

The Speculation

We urge you to read How America Lost Its Secretsif only to see the number of times Epstein betrays the weakness of his arguments with speculative phrases like “could have,” “should have,” and “might have.”

Even when Epstein hasn’t used these phrases, he has portrayed assertions as facts and quoted people who are either senile or lying. If the fictional “level 3 sensitive compartmented information” is any indication, most of the book flows in this worrying direction.

Snowden in Hong Kong

The problem with Edward Epstein’s findings is that they are seldom corroborated with evidence. This is evident in his claim that Snowden arrived in Hong Kong on May 20 and checked into the Mira on June 1. Epstein doesn’t know what he did during the 11 undocumented days, but he is aware—who knows how—that he sent Glenn Greenwald 20 top-secret NSA documents on May 25.

He also “believes”Snowden may have been staying with his Chinese handlers during this time. As you might have guessed, there is no evidence of these claims. It’s Epstein’s word, which he cunningly wants the reader to believe is based on what the hotel staff told him. It’s not. The staff only said that Snowden checked in on June 1 with his real name and credit card.

Epstein’s Findings About the JFK Assassination

Epstein’s 2017 book is the latest in a series of books and articles riddled with conjecture, speculation, and misinformation. Kennedys and Kingcares because much of what he writes is related to the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Help us debunk such literature as soon as it’s published and pave the way for the truth behind the JFK assassination. You can do this through donations or multimedia contributions.

Get in touch for inquiries and updates.

On September 26, 2022, the Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipelines experienced a series of underwater explosions and leaks. These pipelines mainly belonged to Russia and transported natural gas to Germany through the Baltic Sea.

These pipelines weren’t functioning due to the European Union’s boycott of Russia following the latter’s invasion of Ukraine. However, they still contained natural gas that started leaking once the explosions occurred.

While there are theories, no one knows who did it—that is, no one except apparently Seymour Hersh. This article criticizes his latest misinformation attempt and its negative impact. 

With a title like “How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline,” Hersh starts with who he believes bombed the pipelines. His reasons for thinking, while porous and easily refuted, aren’t without a ripple effect.

The Smoking Gun (Or Lack Thereof)

We won’t link to the Substack article because it doesn’t bear reading. Hersh’s words may appear valid and make sense to the untrained eye. However, as one article said, they lack “a smoking gun.” 

Hersh claims that the US and Norway conspired to bomb the pipelines. He quotes “a source” when stating his reasons for doing so, and that’s where it takes a turn for the bizarre.

Jens Stoltenberg’s Alleged Support

Hersh claims that Jens Stoltenberg, Norway’s former prime minister and the 13th Secretary General of NATO, was in favor of the attack for two reasons:

• He was a hardliner and an anti-communist.
• He had worked with the US intelligence since the Vietnam War.

The first claim might be accurate, but the second is problematic because it wouldn’t make sense for Stoltenberg to support US intelligence during the war in Saigon. Here’s a concurrent timeline of the NATO general and the war:

• President Johnson sent the first batch of troops to Indochina in 1965.
• Stoltenberg was six at this time, having been born in March 1959.
• The last American troops left in March 1973.
• Stoltenberg would have been 14 at the time.

Stoltenberg couldn’t have supported US intelligence during the Vietnam War even if he wanted to. He was too young to be of any help to the powers that be at the time.

The Multiplying Effect of Misinformation

While the US and Norway denied Seymour Hersh’s claims, every other news outlet reported it like breaking news. From Russian propagandists to Sky News, the story created ripples everywhere.

Some outlets saw the self-published piece for what it was and avoided reporting on it. While they reserved their two cents, they felt it necessary to report how Russia saw the piece.

All said, what should have died with a simple denial was reported enough to be seen as the truth. It was misinformation 101, but it was what the other side wanted to hear, even if it resulted in a bigger war.

Not the First or Last from Seymour Hersh

Seymour Hersh is a Pulitzer Prize winner, so his word holds some sway in international forums. However, Kennedys and King is aware of his ongoing misinformation campaigns regarding Osama bin Laden and President Kennedy.

Proceed to our complete article for the specifics and help us beat the misinformation surrounding the political assassinations of the 1960s through fact-checking, lobbying, and the odd email.

Contribute to our platform to help us continue our fight for the truth behind JFK assassination.

Malcolm X divided a nation for the better part of his civil rights campaign. This blog isn’t to pass judgment on his activism. It’s to drive home the point that his words held power at a time when African Americans hardly held any sway with the white elite.

Kennedys and King marks this Malcolm X Day with the following words.

“We are nonviolent with people who are nonviolent with us.”

Malcolm X didn’t believe in unprovoked violence but wasn’t entirely against the v-word either. The activist made this statement during “The Ballot or the Bullet” speech at the King Solomon Baptist Church on April 12, 1964. 

He was alluding to the Black people’s right to defend themselves should harm befall them in their struggle for equal rights. Although Malcolm occasionally lost patience, he was for displaying and using arms to protect himself and those around him and taught his support to follow by example.

“Dr. King wants the same thing I want. Freedom.”

Martin Luther King is often portrayed as the nonviolent figurehead of the civil rights movement to Malcolm’s violent and radical activist. Here’s the thing: Humans are complex creatures, whereas history is about perspective.

There’s no saying how much of what we know about these people’s personas is accurate and how much is adjusted to fit a narrative. Some say Malcolm’s faith led to him getting painted in a negative light.

If we, too, adjust our perspective to the setting of the words above, we may see Malcolm’s nonviolent tendencies, especially those he showed more toward the end of his life.

“I believe that there will ultimately be a clash between the oppressed and those that do the oppressing.”

These words are essential because of their relevance in our nation today. Systemic racism is a reality. Everything from education to healthcare to law and order is rigged against African Americans more than other racial groups.

Malcolm’s prediction of a clash came true during the nationwide marches after the death of George Floyd. To be fair, Malcolm followed this statement with, “I believe that there will be that kind of clash, but I don’t think it will be based on the color of the skin.”

This Malcolm X Day: Walk Through the Formative and Final Years of Malcolm X Online

The volunteers at Kennedys and King are nothing if not fair in their assessment of Malcolm X, who remains one of the most misunderstood activists of the civil rights movement. See the movement and its leaders from a different angle.

Question everything you know about the Malcolm X assassination now that his family has decided to sue law enforcement and intelligence for the roles they played.

Reach out for feedback and inquiries.

The only good thing to come out of the Netflix docuseries Who Killed Malcolm X?, according to this Joseph E. Green review, was the renewed interest in the Malcolm X assassination. Unfortunately, the rest was an unholy mix of omissions, baseless theories, and shock-value fodder.

Below are some of these shortcomings in more detail.

Casting the Spotlight on Internal Conflicts

The series invites Abdur-Rahman to explore some questions while conveniently leaving out others. It fixates on the internal conflicts of the Nation of Islam (NOI), about how Malcolm rose through the ranks to a point where he threatened Elijah Muhammad’s supremacy.

The two drifted apart, with Malcolm leaving NOI soon after. However, things turned ugly when Malcolm revealed Elijah’s affairs and his illegitimate children and lost favor with many NOI members and supporters.

The Netflix documentary focuses on this bad blood at the time of Malcolm’s death. Fair play to the producers. However, it doesn’t even hint at the harassment and spying by the NYPD, FBI, and CIA that was also going on at the time of the murder.

Omitting Facts Surrounding the “Assassin”

Who Killed Malcolm X? did a decent job documenting the assassination but fell prey to more omissions. Let’s start with what it got right.

It’s established that Malcolm X was killed at the podium of New York City’s Audubon Ballroom. Everyone was distracted by a fake scuffle as Malcolm walked up, and a smoke bomb was thrown inside the room.

During this time, a man walked up to Malcolm, shot him with a shotgun, and escaped through a side door. Two more men with pistols rushed up to Malcolm, lying on the ground, shot him again, and fled through the back entrance.

One of three assassins, William X Bradley, was caught while escaping. The Netflix series documents this as some shocking and exclusive reveal even though everyone who knows about the Malcolm X assassination knows this. However, our problem lies with the docuseries’ omission of the government protecting Bradley after his capture.

Ignoring the FBI-shaped Elephant in the Room

The docuseries quickly pointed out the lack of many police officers in the Audubon Ballroom that day and their reaction, or lack thereof, after Malcolm was shot. It fact-checks this point through several witnesses.

However, it fails to mention the presence of several FBI informants and infiltrators in the room. An infiltrator, John X, met with the shooters shortly before the shooting, whereas another, Eugene Roberts, was the first to reach Malcolm’s body and attempt CPR. The latter is peculiar because an FBI infiltrator was also the first to get to Martin Luther King when he was shot.

Who Really Killed Malcolm X?

Malcolm X left a controversial legacy. For the better part of his activism, he was a separationist, but that doesn’t justify his murder. Since this docuseries has drummed up interest in the Malcolm X assassination, help us take it all the way: Help us have the assassination reinvestigation. Read more reviews and articles, check out resources, and contribute in any way possible.

Get in touch for inquiries and comments.