Transcription
Family and fellow soldiers, I'm the professor, and this is the moment of truth. Dr. Jean Henry Clark taught us that the white media is out to control image. In yesterday's briefing, we talked about the necessity to control what images of black people you allow the white media to show you. And today, we'll discuss two examples of two movies about two different black men who manage to control their image, even though the white media has done everything it can to defame them.
The first is Michael Jackson. The biopic about him has come out. And as of this morning's briefing, it's made nearly $600 million in less than 3 weeks. When it was first announced that a movie about Michael Jackson was in development, the white media predictably went into overdrive trying to vilify the film and the man it was about. They wanted to go ahead and stack the deck early. They dragged out all the predictable lies about him. And they had to do it because the white media's main function is to prove that they can conjure magic. Well, that didn't happen this time around.
The Michael Jackson biopic has debuted, and the white media has been beside themselves with rage. First, they were salty that their non-stop defamation campaign against the movie failed. They were hoping to manufacture bad word of mouth by flooding the zone with their hit pieces against the movie. All you have to do is look at Rotten Tomatoes, and you see the white media was on code against this movie. The white media critics gave it a 39% score. The audiences, on the other hand, gave it a 97% approval. You cannot get this wide a disparity between the audiences and the critics unless somebody here is lying. And the audiences were the ones who plunked down their hard-earned money to see this movie and make it number one. And the numbers don't lie. The white media does.
But what also made the white media angry was that the movie didn't feature any of the defamatory or false accusations against Michael Jackson. None of that material was in there. That's the movie the white media wanted to see. But there's a good reason that none of that garbage was in the movie. As Variety reported, the film was supposed to have a sequence with investigators who arrive at Neverland Ranch to search for evidence. It is one of many that were left on the cutting room floor. Michael was supposed to explore the impact of the allegations on Jackson's life, with much of its third act devoted to the scandal, but that finale was scrapped, along with any mention of the child molestation accusations, according to sources with knowledge of the production. That's after attorneys for the Jackson estate, which served as a producer, realized there was a clause in a settlement with one of the singer's accusers, Jordan Chandler, that barred the depiction or mention of him in any movie.
So, you see, that's what the original movie was supposed to be. And apparently, they shot this material, but it wound up on the cutting room floor. They had to throw it out and reshoot. They were forced to. They wanted the third act to end with all of these lies and defamation against Jackson because that's what people would have taken away from the movie. They would have remembered most what they saw last, and what they would have seen last was all of these phony baloney accusations. That's what they wanted. They were prepared to use this film as nothing more than a big-budget smearpiece against a dead man. But Michael checkmated them from beyond the grave.
Now, this is not to say that they're not going to continue to see if they can find a loophole, find some way to sneak some dirt on him in the future, but it does go to show that when you're serious about protecting your image, it works. Michael was realistic about the evil forces he was up against. He knew that sooner or later they would attempt to make some sort of big-budget propaganda piece meant to smear him. Michael Jackson understood that he had to control his image. And that's the reason why, even though he entered into a settlement with what's his name, he made sure it was going to be a settlement on his terms. Lionsgate thought they were being slick, but they had to go back and reshoot the entire end of the movie because they didn't realize, or perhaps they thought the Jackson estate didn't realize, that they wouldn't be able to put all that crap about those lawsuits into the film. So, Michael's foresight was protecting his image, even from beyond the grave. The man made a number of mistakes in his life as far as who he trusted, but when it came to how he was portrayed, he was on point about that.
Remember that interview that Michael Jackson did with the hack British so-called journalist Martin Bashir? Bashir did a so-called documentary about Michael, but that too was nothing more than a clumsy front for a hit piece. Michael actually took part in an interview for that documentary. However, in the final version of the piece, Bashir and his white media pals made all kinds of defamatory claims about Michael and innuendo. They were basically putting out something that racist haters of Michael could get a quick little sugar rush from. But what Bashir didn't know was that Michael was ready for exactly this kind of typical white media treachery. So during the interview with Bashir, Michael and his personal cameraman were taking their own footage of Bashir during the interview, where he was complimenting Michael on his parenting skills and his grace under pressure. Michael Jackson put out this video so the world could see how the white media was slandering him. The result was Martin Bashir's hit piece became a high-profile embarrassment, and Bashir's career never recovered. And as for Bashir himself, he never stopped trying to get famous off this kind of slimy yellow journalism. He floundered from one short-stint gig to the next until eventually his career, such as it was, came to a crashing halt after his white media pal suddenly remembered that his 1995 interview with Princess Diana was obtained under deceitful methods, with Bashir accused of using fake bank statements, which Bashir implied members of the royal household were being paid to spy on Diana. That's what happened to Martin Bashir. It just goes to show, when white supremacy is done with its tools, it breaks its tools.
But there's also another example: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Did you know that Dr. King copyrighted his speeches? It's true. And that copyright is controlled by his estate. Now, although Martin Luther King's children are proof that the apple can fall really far from the tree when it comes to philosophical consistency, at the same time, they have a personal stake in making sure that they don't let the white media smear him. So before anyone can reuse a Dr. King quote in a movie or TV series, they first have to get the permission of his estate, who, by the way, also exercises control over how he is portrayed.
Many years ago, Paul Greengrass, who's a white director, naturally, was in talks to make a movie about Dr. King's life. Now, why would anyone think that a hack action movie director whose only claim to fame was making a couple of Jason Bourne movies has any business making a film about Dr. Martin Luther King? Well, they cast former DJs from London and failed comedians from Britain to play as black Americans, so I guess they figure anything's possible. But the reason Greengrass wasn't able to make his Dr. King hit piece was because he insisted on making sure the lies about Dr. King being an adulterer were going to be in his movie. The estate of Dr. King were disgusted. And since you can't make a Dr. King movie without, you know, using Dr. King's words, that was the end of that. Dr. King realized early on that he had to control his image. And the white media has been furious about that.
Just look at what they were saying when the movie Selma came out. You had Politico, which I thought is supposed to be a politics website, not a movie review site. And yet, they were furious that the King estate exercised veto power over what white media companies can and can't do when it comes to Dr. King. In an article written by a so-called professor of law from Georgetown University, the MLK estate's tough stance on copyright affected the historical accuracy of the film and has affected many other films and books before it. What is lost when a biopic cannot take full advantage of its main character's rhetorical brilliance? And what alternatives are available for filmmakers that want to produce history, not hagiography about MLK?
Now, you notice that this guy implies that the King estate not allowing white media companies to just do whatever they want with Dr. King's words, that apparently this affects the historical accuracy of the film. But he can't tell you what about the film is historically inaccurate. He can't tell you what these inaccuracies are. He doesn't even try to. And he claims it also affected many other films and books before it. Well, in that case, it ought to be very easy for him to go ahead and list the inaccuracies, right? Except he doesn't. This is exactly the kind of weasel words that you would expect from a lawyer, a cheap shyster who writes a hit piece, and he's sitting here saying all kinds of things that aren't true. He can't back it up. It's supposed to be giving Dr. King death by a thousand innuendo. What this guy is really whining about is why is it you won't let the white media just smear the man? How come you can't let them go ahead and shoehorn whatever slanderous, defamatory lies about Dr. King that they want into a movie? You're spoiling our fun.
The King estate is telling the white media companies what they can and cannot do with intellectual property belonging to Dr. King. And yes, they take a tough stance because the white media is run by racist rapists and scum. So you better be tough when dealing with criminals and trash like that. The King estate is smart, at least in this regard. But the white media is trying to tell people that there's something wrong with that. Yeah, because it's black people who are controlling the images here and not white ones. The Politico hit piece went on to write, "The litigious MLK estate, controlled now by King's descendants, has a long history of employing copyright to restrict the use of King's speeches. The estate appears to have two objectives: maximize revenue and control King's image."
Well, considering the fact that this is their father, in many cases, grandfather and uncle, and whatever we're talking about here, of course, they want to quote unquote control his image so that they can protect it from white media smears. Notice how they're denigrating the King estate for that, calling them litigious, as if their lawsuits aren't justified. That's the only reason you would call somebody litigious. It's not a matter of how many lawsuits you file. They never call Ed Bloom litigious, even though he is the very definition of a vexatious litigant. But with black folks, all of us, you're really, really litigious. You know, you people just really love filing lawsuits for no reason. These white media companies know full well Dr. King's speeches are all copyrighted. They've known it since the '60s. So they also know that in order to use it, it requires that they have to get the permission of the estate. This is the same white media, by the way, who attacked Dr. King when he was alive. The same white media companies who were not sympathetic to him at all. They hated him. And now they're trying to make money off of the man's words with their little biopics. It was only after his assassination and the sustained adoration for him since from the public that the white media pretended to change their tune. But as these movie studios and Politico have shown, it's all been just an act.
But notice what this hit piece said: that Dr. King's estate seeks to maximize revenue and to control King's image. Imagine that. Someone trying to maximize revenue and control King's image. Gee, I wonder what these white media companies want to do with King's words and images. Do they plan to make a movie about him and then they're going to put it out for free as some act of corporate charity? Or do they intend to charge ticket prices for it and then make DVDs and license the rights for other people to rebroadcast it on television? All these white media companies who want to use Dr. King's words, are they planning to give away whatever production they make about him? Or are these white media companies wanting to use the most famous American's words and image so that they can maximize their own corporate revenues and control his image? When white people do it, there's no ethical conflict at all from the Politicos of the world. When white corporations are trying to exploit a man they vilified and smeared when he was alive, and who, by the way, they had nothing but contempt for after his death, there's never any ethical questions there. Certainly no legal ones. Nobody ever brings up the issue of could the estate of Dr. King take legal action if some so-called movie decides to repeat or otherwise publicize the lies about the man being an adulterer. Nobody ever brings that one up as a hypothetical.
See, the white media's problem isn't with copyright law. It's with the fact that there's some black people here exercising control over white people, and they can't stand it. Now, we've already covered too many times the lies about Dr. King and adultery, which were nothing more than FBI propaganda, which they ran against a bunch of civil rights activists, by the way. That was a key part of COINTELPRO, undermining the moral authority of the civil rights movement's leaders. In nearly 60 years, absolutely no one has been able to produce even one bit of proof that these claims were ever true. Only so-and-so allegedly said. Yeah, well, hearsay ain't evidence. Dr. King at that time was the most surveilled and watched man on planet Earth. If he so much as sneezed, there would be audio, video, photos, and print out of it before he could reach for a Kleenex. If there was all of this evidence of Dr. King sleeping around, how come nobody ever produced any of it when he was alive? And nobody's produced even one iota of evidence since his death. Jay Edgar Hoover was the main one persecuting Dr. King. Hoover lived for an additional four years after Dr. King's death. So if there was any evidence of Dr. King sleeping around, why didn't Hoover release it when he was alive or after his death? Why didn't the CIA ever publicize it? Dr. King was one of the most famous people on planet Earth. So why is it that nobody's been able to produce even one centilla of proof to back up these lies? That's because it doesn't exist. It never did. It's like these LGBT mouthpieces who tried to claim that Malcolm X was gay. They'll just say anything. It doesn't have to be true, and it never is.
What you see from the white media with both Martin and Michael is that the white media always uses the same playbook: smear a black man by falsely claiming some sort of sexual impropriety. Because white power has an obsession with black men's genitals. But the King estate is being besmirched for not allowing white people to misuse and abuse Dr. King's words. That's smart. You can't write a book about Dr. King without his words. So, white racists have had their mouths taped shut and their devilish hands tied, and it drives them insane. They hate taking an L. And when it comes to the King estate, they have to take an L every single year, usually around January 15th.
The white media's purpose is to control people's minds through the use of false narratives and lying images. But just like Michael Jackson, Dr. King took steps to control his image. And his descendants are, at least in this respect, doing the right thing. See, the problem the white media has is that the heroes of white society are slave owners, racists, rapists, genocidal lunatics, and incestuous murderers. They don't have anyone of moral caliber, and certainly no one of Dr. King's stature, and they know it. So they grind their gnarled teeth and fume that they can't take the man down. They want to make anti-King propaganda the same way they invented the myth of white Egypt. Only they can't. This is about a loss of control, which is what white supremacy is all about. It's all about a guaranteed outcome. They don't have the ability to bang the drum of phony lies against Dr. King like they love to. They have all this media power. Everything is supposed to go their way. They control all of the levers of the white media. So when things don't go their way, when people are seeing things that the white media doesn't want them to see, or in this case, they're not seeing things that the white media desperately wants to try to put in front of them, that scares them. And that's the reason why you see them lashing out like this. As I've told you, most manifestations of anger are rooted in fear. And it's fear of losing control that they've had for half a millennia. Fear of losing control that they never should have had in the first place that's making them furious.
Dr. Clark said, "If the white media can control what you see, they can control how you see yourself. And from there, they can control what you do about yourself." The white media is scared because if black people can rob white power of its control in these instances, then we can do it in others, too. And with black people controlling our image, that means we control the narrative. And we get to the point that we can control what we do. And in that world, the white media is not in the picture at all. Good day, and be one.
I'd like to take a moment to mention some of our contributors: Wesley Monroe, Starlet Thompson, Germaine White, Naji Wright, and Alexa Villard. Salute to them, and thank you to everyone for listening, liking, and sharing this message. Black and Heart only exists because of