Tuesday, July 10, 2012

Sex Rebel: Black, revisited

As the political season heats up, so are some of the more lurid speculations as to the origin of Barack Obama again resurfacing. The last time around, we entered the fray of these controversies with our review of Frank Marshall Davis's Sex Rebel: Black, including our rebuttal - based on the textual evidence within the loosely autobiographical novel itself - of the claims that Davis is Obama's biological father. The evidence we presented was not enough, however, to prevent the allegation from resurfacing, this time in the form of a feature length film: Dreams From My Real Father by Joel Gilbert. Gilbert paints a picture, with the circumstantial evidence that he has assembled - including woefully blacked out Obama mama porno - that is apparently sufficient to convince the likes of Alex Jones and Jerome Corsi that he may be right...


We are less than convinced, however. Gilbert draws much from the investigations of Wayne Madsen into the CIA background of Obama and his immediate family, whereby, in Gilbert's scenario, Gramps (Stanley Dunham, a "Company" man) manages to keep his job by convincing the African that he had welcomed into the U.S. to become the "father" of the child that had actually been fathered by the communist who the CIA had entrusted Dunham to observe.

There is a slight problem with Gilbert's reasoning, however. In the first place (as we pointed out in '08), the scene from Davis's novel that is taken as evidence for the seduction of "Anne" takes place in the 1930s in Chicago; moreover the seduction does not involve genital penetration, but only masturbation with objects such as candles, cucumbers and sausages; and as Davis later recounts, "...nor have I ever bedded another nymphet;" while he does list the women he has impregnated, only two, none of which fit the description of Ann Dunham. The answer to this may be that the pseudonymous novel is loosely based on Davis's sexual conquests, and that identities have been transposed to different times and places, and details have been changed. As pointed out in comments by "Kaleokualoha" (who happens to be Frank Marshall Davis's real son, Mark Davis), however, "Bob Greene" states that he has only “changed names and identities…[and] all incidents I have described have been taken from actual experiences."

We would furthermore ask: why, as Gilbert speculates, would Davis' seduction of Ann Dunham be considered a problem with Gramps' bosses at the CIA? Based on the following passage from Davis' Sex Rebel: Black, it would appear that sexual seduction was the means employed for gaining the confidence of the target in the first place. It is known that the FBI maintained a file on Davis, a file that likely would include his proclivities for swinging. If the CIA had similar information, their agents then knew exactly how to approach him. Recounting his meeting with a couple bearing certain similarities with Madilyn and Stanley Dunham (in the late '50s, they did live in Seattle, though they would soon be moving to Hawaii permanently) along with some physical differences (Madilyn is not blonde and Stanley is not small), Davis writes of his first encounter with "Dot and Lloyd" in Kapiolani Park, beginning on page 274...

It was late November in 1958 when I met them. As usual, I was sitting by myself at a picnic table. Even if nothing interesting materialized, there was the park itself, restful and quiet and cool...

From a block away I could spot a doll who could turn me on. This day in November I saw this gal and guy almost as soon as they left the sidewalk to cut across the vivid green grass in my direction. She was tiny but mighty; I received her message long before I saw her features...

Evidently they noticed and correctly interpreted the look on my face and, being the kind of couple they were, found it interesting enough to make conversation.

"Hi," the man said as they strolled a few feet away. She smiled.

"Hello," I said, "visiting Hawaii?"

"Yes," she answered, "our first trip."

"Wonderful! How long will you be here?"

"Another five days," he said. "Tomorrow we're going to the Outer Islands, then home."

"Where's home?"


"That's quite a city itself."

"Yeah, and we'll be glad to get back."

"Why? Don't you like Hawaii?"

"Oh, this is a beautiful land and the weather's great and there's lots of beautiful people, but after you've seen the sights there's not much to do," she said.

"There's just not enough action for us," he added.

"Action? Maybe you haven't been to the right places." Did they mean what I hoped they did? I'd find out. "This can be a real swinging town." I verbally underlined swinging.

They traded swift glances. 

"Swinging? What do you mean by swinging?" he asked.

"Probably the same thing you mean."

"Are you sure? What do these swinging people here do for kicks?"

I looked her directly in the eye and said, "Same thing you do."

"He's got you there," he laughed.

"All right, I'll get personal," she said. "Are you a swinger?"

"Definitely," I answered.

"You mean you go in for fun and games?"...

And the rest is history.



In light of the comments of "anonymous" below, a couple of quotations from other works of Davis will illustrate these points. That Davis was not a doctrinaire communist, as Gilbert portrays him, is evident in this tidbit, from his autobiographical Livin' The Blues, page 250:

From the late summer 1936 until the November elections, I worked in the publicity section of the black division of the Republican National Committee, trying to sell Governor Alf Landon of Kansas to an unwilling electorate...

Was there a commie plot to infiltrate the Republican party? No, at the time (though not for long) the Republican's were still viewed favorably by their black constituents, particularly in contrast to the pro-segregation "dixiecrats" of the Democratic party.

In his January 26, 1950 Frank-ly Speaking column, Free Enterprise or Socialism, Davis's critique is directed to what we today call crony capitalism (something that has only accelerated under the administration of his alleged son). His best preference would appear to be a true free market system devoid of monopolies, though in the confines of a choice between private monopolies and socialism, he clearly prefers state ownership...  

Alfred Sloan of General Motors announced that his gigantic company made a profit last year of $600,000,000, more than any other corporation in history. Over the years, General Motors has swallowed up or knocked out car manufacturer after car manufacturer so that today less than a handful of competitors remains. Free enterprise, eh?

Obviously, a business that can show a profit if one year of $600,000,000 is in a position to control government. When we remember that the directors and major stockholders of one industry also shape the policies of banks and other huge corporations, it is easy to see that the tentacles of Big Business control just about everything they think they need to insure continued profits...

In this control by monopoly, the small business­man, the backbone of free enterprise, has been a casualty. He cannot compete against the tremendous financial reserves of the huge monopolies, and thus we find more and more forced into bankruptcy or absorbed by the monopolies...

As for free enterprise, it doesn't live here any more. At the same time we have manufactured a national horror of socialism. Meanwhile, the dictatorship of the monopolies is driving us down the road to ruin.

And so, with still rising unemployment and a mounting depression, the time draws nearer when we will have to decide to oust the monopolies and restore a competing system of free enterprise, or let the government own and operate our major industries.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I’m not sure what Corsi has to gain by aligning himself with Gilbert. If Davis is Obama’s real father, that makes Corsi’s 400 page birther tome a dead and rather stinky fish. Where is the controversy if both parents are legal American citizens? It can only mean that Obama is constitutionally eligible for command. And if that is the truth, then the only reason to keep up the charade is to prolong the fantasy of virgin birth, the second coming and apocalypse. That’s just giving this little half-cast schmiel too much credit.
Gilbert’s assessment of Davis’ paternity makes “common joe” assumptions that he does not support with clear science. Does the apple fall not far from the tree? Is ideology thicker than water? Gilbert references no research data linking a son’s political views with those of his father. If statistics exist on this subject he did not consult them. But assuming this intuitive claim is true, what can we make of Rick Santorum whose paternity was derived from a long line of Italian communist workers? Do George Romney’s political principles agree with those of Mitt? Is Rand walking lockstep with Ron? Does Obama’s political will actually have anything in common with Davis’ ideas and experiences? Which leads to another weak point in the expose – what kind of communist was Davis? Gilbert takes his definition of communism from the Hearst’s red-baiting editorials of the 30s and the HUAC red scare of the 40s. Davis grew up in the South under Jim Crow. According to his autobiography, he would have been happy as a clam if the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the other laws of the land that define democracy had been enforced in equal measure in the USA he lived in. As he did not find this to be the case, he educated himself about how the world around him really worked. In the 30s when capitalism was failing in nearly every corner of the globe, he - like tens of thousands of other intellectuals - looked to socialism for its more stable economic promises and as a wedge against exploitation and discrimination. As a journalist he carried on the fine American tradition of whistle blowing and muckraking that placed him on the FBI’s watch list, just as it will today. Reading his work, one gets the impression that Davis did want to transform America – not into the Soviet Union (a place he had no interest in), but into the nation which Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln strove to build. How is Obama carrying this alleged paternal legacy? A very good question and one that Gilbert could not formulate. Instead he strenuously attempts to prove that there is a strong physical resemblance between Davis and Obama (although his audio and pictorial examples prove the opposite). And, like Jack Cashill, he draws no investigative links to Obama’s CIA past, skimming over the extraordinary fact that practically no one who knew the young Obama lives to tell the tale.