THE SERPENT

In 1508, three years after his hiring as court painter to the electoral Saxon dynasty seated in Wittenberg, the thirty-six-year-old painter Lucas Cranach received a wondrous coat-of-arms from his lord, Elector Frederick the Wise of Saxony. Honoring his good services, the eye-popping shield displayed a mesmerizing winged serpent endowed with awesome life-giving powers, much as its human bearer would become known for.

The recipient, an early admirer of Albrecht Dürer in the contemporary art world, was a rising star among the best German Renaissance painters who recorded the age’s religious reforms and confessional wars for posterity. Open-minded and ecumenical in an age that was not, Cranach and his workshop supplied both Rome and Wittenberg with their preferred religious artworks. At the same time he counted among his closest friends two clerics who became lethal rivals: Cardinal Albrecht of Mainz, the most powerful cleric in European Christendom after the pope, and Martin Luther, the monk who turned the religious world upside down.

A renowned court painter by the early 1520s, Cranach would become the Saxon court’s de facto mentor and ‘‘handler’’ of Luther, an undertaking that positioned him also to become the painter of the Protestant Reformation. Although he scoffed at the myth of the vaunted ‘‘Renaissance man,’’ Cranach came as close to exemplifying such a person as any other giant of the age. A natural diplomat and clever entrepreneur, he became the confidant of each of the three Saxon electors he served life-long.

An impresario of lucrative businesses, Cranach accumulated more real estate than any other burgher in the city by the late 1520s. Elected to Wittenberg’s city council in 1519, he served thirty-plus years, nine of them (three full terms) as bürgermeister. Among the profitable enterprises that made him rich and powerful were the city’s only publishing house and a full-service pharmacy. Here, indeed, was a keen man who was not to be
trod upon.

His primary professional world was that of Greek mythology, the humanistic world of classical antiquity, that of Venus, but not initially of Eve. Cranach was the creator of an unredeemed, seductive world of beautiful women and powerful men, who shared fleeting pleasures and mixed messages. Among the reigning deities who governed that mythological world was Chronos, the Greek god of time and speed. With Düreresque pride, Cranach adapted the name for himself and his art world. Old and New Testament snake lore also ran through that world. These various mythological and Christian associations pointed to an artist who wielded a ‘‘fast-striking paint brush,’’ whose images survived time and outlived posterity, a kind of biblical ‘‘serpent venom’’ that saved life as well as took it away.

THE LAMB

In 1524, at the peak of the Reformation’s birth pains, Martin Luther also created a family shield of his own. It was occasioned by the success of foreign booksellers who had pirated the manuscript of his revised Latin Bible before it could be printed by the Cranach-Döring press. In response to the incident, Luther and Cranach manufactured a protective seal, henceforth to be embedded in future works as they came off the press. The seal became the authenticating trademark of the reformer’s works wherever they appeared.

Juxtaposed to Cranach’s Serpent, the Lutheran Lamb of God came from another world and culture. Unlike the fearsome figure of the Cranach serpent, a creature quick to strike and to kill, Luther’s sacrificial Lamb was neither designed for nor bestowed upon the reformer by reigning political authority. It was Luther’s and Cranach’s protective measure, undertaken in the name of a greater power: that of the servants of God Almighty.

The message of the Lamb was not a threatening ‘‘Don’t Tread On Me.’’ It was a bright, assuring, transparent statement of forgiveness and salvation. Attractive, even charming, the Luther trademark or seal presented the Lamb of God in the figure of the crucified Christ. In a counterintuitive gesture, the Lamb holds up the flag of the cross with his right leg, while his bloodstream erupts from his wounded heart filling the chalice of salvation for all eternity—a redemptive washing of the sinner in the blood of the self-sacrificial Lamb of God.

In purely pragmatic terms the Lutheran seal was a none too assuring hedge against recurrent piracies of the reformer’s books, pamphlets, and broadsheets. During the early 1520s and still two decades later Luther’s books made up one-third of all German publications, a precious cache for both honest publishers and thieving pirates.

With the passage of years the figure of the Lamb was joined by a second Luther trademark that became a second family shield: the multilayered Lutheran White Rose. Unlike the sacrificial lamb, the White Rose, accompanied by a matching signet ring, was presented to Luther in around 1530 by the new elector, John Frederick. Intended to be an abstract or summary of Luther’s theology, it displayed a black cross within a blood-red heart in the middle of which lies a ‘‘heavenly’’ colored blooming white rose, a symbol of joy, comfort, and the peace of faith on earth and in the afterlife.

It was not until after 1517 that the two men got to know each other well. In 1520, Cranach was forty-eight and Luther thirty-seven, both men in their remarkable prime. In the same year, Cranach, at the Saxon elector’s bidding and Albrecht Dürer’s urging, engraved an official court portrait of the emerging reformer while Luther himself stood as godfather to Cranach’s lastborn child—a merging of their two families as well as their talents in the cause of reform.

Cranach’s portrayals of ‘‘Luther the monk’’ made the reformer’s name and face a household word and image throughout Saxony. Already a condemned heretic of the Church, Luther now became an outlaw of the Holy Roman Empire by the imperial decree of the Diet of Worms in May 1521. In that same year, he and Cranach answered back with their first collaborative blast against Rome: twenty-five irreverent pamphlet pages depicting and declaring the Holy Father to be the ‘‘Anti-Christ.’’ By this time both the “Serpent’’ and the ‘‘Lamb’’ were moving up to the front lines for the great battle with Rome. Each brought his special talents and top-of-the-line weapons to the battlefield, where a war like no other would be waged in European Christendom. Although coming from distant worlds strange and far apart, like the blood of the Lamb upon the curse of sin, the venom of the Serpent would also prove to be effectively life-giving, each, so to speak, ‘‘poisoning to save.’’

Mormonism has often been viewed by non-Mormon Americans and members of other Christian faiths with a sense of curiosity and distrust, as a faith filled with bizarre traditions and rituals. That Mormons wear “special underwear” seems to conform perfectly with the stereotype, and some have ridiculed the tradition as a part of a broader attack on Mormonism. Indeed, Mormons do wear “special underwear,” but what is meant by underwear must be clarified. It does not, in this case, refer to the kind of underwear the word traditionally refers to (i.e. boxers, briefs, etc.) given “special” significance, but it is a one or two piece article worn directly over the skin. In this function, it does replace conventional underwear for most Mormons who wear it, a condition which has led to its popular classification as underwear, but the correct term for it is a “garment.” To be more specific, what this question refers to is properly known as a “temple garment,” and it holds religious significance for Mormonism.

For the sake of clarity, it must be stated that not all groups classified under the Latter Day Saints Movement wear the temple garment, but most do. However, not all Mormons wear the temple garment—it is most commonly associated with the ritual of endowment and members wear the garment during the ceremony and continue to do so thereafter, day and night, except in certain situations. Endowment is a rite which involves anointment, washing, instruction on Adam and Eve, wearing the garment (as well as additional purity clothing) and ultimately making a sacred commitment to, and covenant with, God. As not every Mormon undergoes endowment, not every Mormon wears the garment, but males who are about to go on a preaching mission (it is traditionally a ritual for inducting preachers and priests) or women who are about to be married, are the primary recipients of endowment.

Endowment, and wearing the temple garment during and after endowment, was introduced by Joseph Smith himself around 1842-1843. The concepts of the garment and endowment were derived from Old Testament traditions of priesthood initiation, as with Aaron in the Book of Exodus. The temple garment, originally a one piece suit covering most of the body (arms down to the wrists, and legs down to the ankles) styled after the long-johns of the period, was also influenced by Masonry, which John Smith had become involved with shortly before he held the first endowment. The evidence of this was the presence of symbols: the “square,” the “compass,” and notably the cut knee, as a symbol of the necessity of kneeling down before God. This alludes to the official purpose of the temple garment: it is a symbol and reminder of the oath and covenant made with God. As the garment is worn at almost all times, so it serves as a constant reminder of the wearer’s pledge to God, as well as the need to live and dress in a modest, humble fashion, as Christ did. The garment is referred to as “armor” but officially only in the spiritual sense. Some Mormons may feel that the garment affords them protection from physical danger, but official Mormon doctrine only recognizes the spiritual dimension. The real challenges Mormons face in their religious life are evil, temptation and the difficulty of living righteously. As these are spiritual in nature, so is the temple garment spiritual armor, providing the strength to overcome these challenges.

Today, the temple garment has evolved to emulate modern clothing: for males it is a two piece set, which look like a normal, plain t-shirt, and shorts which go down to the knee, and designs for women are similar but appropriately more feminine. The sale of the temple garment is strictly regulated and only those who demonstrate their membership can buy the garment, though some try to violate these restrictions. There are circumstances under which it is allowable for the garment to be removed such as swimming, sports activities and military service. But overall, the temple garment retains all of its religious significance and remains a major feature of Mormon practice.

Related Links

HNN Hot Topics: Mormonism

Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign has revived interest in little-known aspects (to non-Mormons, anyway) of Mormon history. The “Utah War" of 1857-1858 certainly qualifies as one. The "war," which was relatively bloodless (aside from the tangentially related Mountain Meadows massacre) and devoid of battles between the two sides, was highly unnecessary and was ultimately an incredible display of miscommunication and misunderstanding.

The Mormons, after a trouble-ridden past of persecution in Missouri and Illinois, had moved west and begun to settle in Salt Lake Valley, Utah, in the summer of 1847. Mormon religious beliefs and practices, amongst them polygamy (which was not practiced by all Mormons), had earned the Mormons the disgust and distrust of many Americans, setting the stage for continuing conflict. At the time Utah was an American territory, and though President Millard Fillmore made a concession in granting Brigham Young (a Mormon) governorship of the territory, a number of other federal officials were appointed to the territorial administration. This situation proved problematic as the officials frowned upon Mormon practices as alien, and in turn the Mormons did not enjoy the administration of these outsiders. The circumstances lead many officials to abandon their posts and leave Utah after clashing with Young over questions of administration.

Things came to a head around 1856-57. The Mormons had had a particularly bad experience with William W. Drummond, a federal appointee to the Supreme Court of Utah who criticized polygamists while leading a questionable lifestyle of his own. He cracked down on Mormon courts, which were being used by the Mormons in place of official government courts. Feeling threatened, Drummond eventually left Salt Lake City, as did his ally, Judge George P. Stiles, who also had a tumultuous relationship with the Mormons (who, in an effort to intimidate him, threatened to burn his law library).

Reports from the officials who left the territory reached the ear of the President James Buchanan. In that period, slavery and the question of popular sovereignty were hot and dangerous topics. Republicans equated Democratic support for popular sovereignty over slavery with support for tolerating Mormon polygamy and church-dominated territorial goverment. As such, Democrats, Buchanan included, were eager to prove otherwise, and with exaggerated reports coming in about the situation in Utah, Buchanan acted. Believing the Mormons to be in a state of rebellion, Buchanan appointed a new federal governor and new federal judges for Utah, and in June of 1857 ordered a military force of 2,500 men to be dispatched to protect the appointees and establish a federal military presence in Utah. However, Buchanan and his administration neglected to provide Young with neither advance official notification of his replacement, nor of the mission given to the task force. (Captain Stewart Van Vliet was sent ahead of the army to notify Young of the situation, but his information was not complete and as the army already was on the march, Young and other Mormon leaders were not convinced of the mission’s peaceful intentions.)

The end result was that Brigham Young, without formal instructions from the Buchanan administration, believed the approaching army to be one of conquest, sent to persecute and destroy the Mormons. Consequently, Young made preparations to hold off the federal forces and protect as many Mormons as possible. Young declared martial law, ordered defensive positions to be established and called up the Nauvoo Legion to fight the federals, but he was actually more predisposed to a strategy of destroying all resources before the army and retreating, rather than one of confrontation. There would ultimately be no genuine battles, though the U.S. army group, harassed by raiding Mormons, was stalled and suffered under horrible conditions throughout the winter of 1857-58. In the end, the standoff was brought to an end through negotiations in June of 1858. Young peacefully turned over his power to his replacement, Alfred Cumming.

The suspicious nature of Tycho Brahe's death in 1601, and Johannes Kepler's possible role in his end, constitutes one of history's greatest unsolved murder mysteries.  The question has produced many claims from the plausible to the extraordinary, but it appears that while Kepler may in fact have had some motive for killing his superior, the evidence does not definitively point to him.  Kepler's involvement is just one of three reasonable theories.  The second suggests that his death was accidental; the final theory proposing that the perpetrator was in fact his cousin, Erik Brahe, working as a part of a broader conspiracy.

Tycho Brahe (1546-1601) was the famous and gifted Danish astronomer of the sixteenth century who contributed to the beginning of modern astronomy.  He made key observations of Mars and many stars, using his own personal observatory but without the use of a telescope (which had yet to be invented), and argued for his own version of the Copernican model.  Towards the end of his life, Brahe gained a notable assistant for his work on Mars, Johannes Kepler (1571-1630).  However, the two did not enjoy a particularly friendly relationship due to Brahe's condescending attitude as well as his withholding of the mass of his data about Mars from Kepler.  While it may be unlikely that Kepler desired to kill Brahe for any insults suffered, some wonder whether if Kepler may have killed him to obtain his data, which Kepler needed to validate his own theories.  Indeed, Kepler's seizure of Brahe's work after his death confirms this suspicion for many.  But at the same time, Brahe's efforts to have Kepler made an imperial mathematician under Holy Roman Emperor Rudolf II, in part to advance his own agenda, complicates these calculations as Kepler likely would not have eliminated his crucial, reputable supporter for the position if he truly wanted the job.

The common explanation for Brahe's death at the time—the one that Kepler himself put forth—was that at the banquet at the Holy Roman Emperor's court in Prague that Brahe attended several days before his death, Brahe desperately had to urinate but did not do so, not wanting to be leave and be impolite.  This caused some sort of urinary infection which killed him eleven days later.  This tale has been overshadowed by the 1991 discovery of high levels of mercury present in Brahe's body in the last few days of his life.  (As mercury is well known to be quite dangerous to humans, the discovery has in turn led to the belief that Brahe’s cause of death can be traced back to the kidneys rather than the bladder.)  For those who believe that Kepler killed Brahe, given the questionable story he offered, his physical proximity in Brahe's final days, and his actions after Brahe's death, the discovery of the mercury levels appeared to provide confirmation of a murder and even an indication of the murder weapon.

Joshua and Anne-Lee Gilder, authors of Heavenly Intrigue: Johannes Kepler, Tycho Brahe and the Murder Behind One of History's Greatest Scientific Discoveries and promoters of the Kepler-as-murderer theory have suggested that there was a second, heavier and ultimately lethal dose of mercury given by Kepler, who would have had access to Brahe's laboratory and chemicals.  However, the fact of mercury poisoning is not enough to convict Kepler.  Kepler could have been accidentally poisoned—it does happen, even today.  Brahe did deal with mercury and other chemicals in his experiments, and at the end he may have ingested mercury in the hope that it would cure him of the ailment that befallen him at the banquet.

Finally, there’s an even more thrilling plot proposed by Peter Andersen, who claimed that Brahe's Swedish cousin, Erik Brahe, at the behest of the Danish king Christian IV.  While Tycho had enjoyed the blessing and support of the previous king of Denmark, who had provided Tycho with the island on which he had built his research institute, his fortunes reversed after the ascension of Christian IV, who had Tycho's castle seized and destroyed.  This, in turn, prompted Tycho to seek the support of the Holy Roman Emperor at whose banquet he fell ill.  The exact cause behind Christian IV's blatant hostility is unknown, but a popular rumor of the time was that Brahe had had an affair with Christian's mother, posing a serious threat to Christian's legitimacy and security as king. Indeed, Erik Brahe, a most dissolute and disreputable figure, met with Christian IV and other enemies of Tycho shortly before Tycho fell ill, and his presence in Tycho's home in the final days of his life (especially after only having become familiar with Tycho earlier that year) and some very questionable entries in Erik's diary around the time point to him as a potential suspect.

While Kepler certainly could have killed Tycho Brahe, it’s also possible that Brahe’s own cousin did the terrible deed. And, of course, it really could have been an accident, prompted by Brahe’s own overly acute sense of decorum.  In the absence of more convincing and definitive evidence, it may never be known if Kepler had a role in his superior's downfall, or indeed if there was a role to be had at all.

There are many stories surrounding the invention of the martini, but it seems that the origins of James Bond's favorite beverage may never be definitively established.

The history of the martini can easily be traced back to the late nineteenth century, when it was first consumed and listed in bartending manuals.  The famous example of this was the drink's appearance in the 1887 manual of bartender Jerry Thomas, of the Occidental Hotel in San Francisco.  This has led to the belief that the drink originated at the hotel bar, possibly as early as the 1860s, where it would have been consumed by travelers heading to the nearby city of Martinez.

However, the city of Martinez has disputed this claim and has listed an alternate story on its website.  It suggests that the drink in fact originated in a prominent bar in Martinez, where it was known as a "Martinez Special." There it was served to a celebrating gold miner on his way to San Francisco, who, after enjoying the drink so much, delivered the recipe to San Francisco when he had to instruct a local bartender on how to make it.

The dispute between these two common theories has even gone beyond passing discussion, as the Court of Historical Review in San Francisco determined that the drink had been concocted in San Francisco.  In return, a court in Martinez overturned this decision.

Yet, others look to the Knickerbocker Hotel in New York, frequented by John D. Rockefeller, as the place of origin of the dry martini, in the early twentieth century. 

It seems safe to say the drink was invented in the middle to late nineteenth century, but exactly who invented the martini is likely to remain the stuff of legend.

Contrary to the popular view, the New Deal did not, at least depending on who you ask.  Some conservative economists believe the New Deal possibly extended its length.  What everybody agrees ended the Great Depression was World War II marked the end of the Great Depression.   Liberal economists point to the vast increase in government spending during the war as a reason for the end of the Depression.  (Of course, organized labor had its own plans for the recovery, and some economists still dispute the centrality of the war in ending the Depression.)

One may ask how on earth a war could bring economic prosperity to a nation.  War is a machination for destruction, not production.  Common results of war include the bombing of buildings and infrastructure, the loss of human lives and an emphasis on the production of war materiel rather than products that actually enhance a person’s status and happiness—like refrigerators, clothes, food, radios and medical advancements.

America was not bombed to pieces.  Besides the atrocities of Pearl Harbor, American land was untouched by the destruction that Europe, Northern Africa and Japan faced.

Factories were geared up and ready from the rapid construction of war materiel.  After the war these factories would transition to building more convenient appliances for Americans. 

Many feared that after the war, the Great Depression would resume.  Therefore, FDR had a long list of reforms he wished to implement.  Harry Truman, who succeeded him just prior to the end of the war,  advocated these reforms, but Congress wouldn't go along.  The New Deal had had long ago run out of steam.  As postwar economy boomed, the pressure for reform dissipated.

In the seventeenth century the Dutch built a wall in New Amsterdam in order to protect its borders from incursions from natives and the occasional pirates.  This same location soon became known as Wall Street; merchants began to reside there, and since the renamed New York was the first U.S. capital, the city and street garnered quite a prominent financial concentration which eventually spread to its legacy.  Because of the assembly of merchants and stockholders on the street, it became more prominently financially linked over the years, until it came to signify the prosperity of America in relation to the rest of the world.

But this bastion of capitalism was built on slave labor:

Slavery began in the city soon after the Dutch landing in 1609, and enslaved Africans became vital to the colony's economy. Africans built the first homes, brought in the first crops, turned an Indian path into Broadway, and built the wall at Wall Street. When it became the British colony of New York its bankers and merchants so successfully invested in the international African trade they made it the slave-traders' leading port. After the Revolution, with the city leading the way, slavery and its profits grew in the land of the free. A greater percentage of white households in Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island owned slaves than in South Carolina. The world's first stock exchange opened in New York in 1792 and half of its 177 stockholders owned slaves. Africans were auctioned to bidders at Wall Street and other city markets. Forced labor made the Empire State.

On May 17, 1792 the Buttonwood Agreement was signed, which initiated a much smaller, less inclusive version of the contemporary New York Stock Exchange. And thus the American stock market was developed and elevated over the years.

According to Steven Fraser, in his book Wall Street: America’s Dream Palace, “it is that through the years Wall Street has inspired dreamsand nightmares deep inside American culture, leaving its imprinton the lives of ordinary as well some extraordinary people.”  Throughout American history, Wall Street has represented the most marvelous parts of our nation, like social mobility, but also the most inglorious, immoral aspects, like the unearthing of Ponzi schemes, and corrupt government aid to failing institutions.

Under Andrew Jackson, and throughout the rest of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Wall Street came to signify an essential part of the American Dream.  Those field hands that thrived in America, could always one day hope that they could climb the ladder to Wall Street, for the American Dream proclaimed that anything was possibly in such a free society, where everyone has equal access to wealth.

But images of cupidity are also conjured when we think of Wall Street, perhaps Steven Fraser again says it best when he states that “[t]oday’s crony capitalists can’t help but remind us of those Gilded Age financial aristocrats whose power was so great it threatened to undermine the basic institutions of democratic government.”  Certain perceptions of Wall Street overshadow the others with the fluctuations of the economy.

The development of the Internet can be traced back to 1958, when, in the shadow of the USSR's launch of the Sputnik satellite, the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) was established to research and develop new technology for the United States military.  During the 1960s, computers became increasingly more standard and smaller, the first online networks were established and the ARPA network program began in 1966. Throughout the period there was great theorizing and excitement over the problems, components, and potential military and academic applications of computer networking.

The culmination of these efforts and developments came in October of 1969, when the first ARPANET (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network) host-to-host (meaning independent network-to-independent network) connection was established between the University of California at Los Angeles and the Stanford Research Institute.  This first packet sharing connection between two networks became the cornerstone for what came to be known in the early ‘70s as the Internet.  It was not long until the connection began to be used for email and in 1976, the first commercial email service, Comet, was established.

Many confuse the World Wide Web, a network of Internet websites, with the Internet, a network of computer networks, but the World Wide Web would not come online until much later, in 1993.

So, where does Al Gore fit into all of this? As a congressman, Gore championed various telecommunications projects, including ARPANET, that laid the foundation for the modern Internet....

“I’m for truth, no matter who tells it. I’m for justice, no matter who it is for or against. I’m a human being first and foremost, and as such, I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole”

Malcolm X (El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, born Malcolm Little) was an influential and inspirational figure to the Afro-Americans in the United States.  A powerful orator, excellent debater and willing to preach “The price of freedom is death,” led for his personality and teachings to be printed across the U.S. and the world.

There are three possible answers.  Three—because each on its own isn’t satisfactory.  Examining the motives behind the killing inevitably leads for more questions to be asked and before you know it, you’re in too deep.

Malcolm X’s countless speeches, debates, press conferences, letters and autobiography reveal many factors that could’ve contributed to his death.  Indeed, just as he had supporters, he also had many enemies.

Malcolm X, himself, commented in the last few pages of his autobiography on his possible death:

Every morning when I wake now, I regard it as a having another borrowed day.  In any city, wherever I go, making speeches, holding meetings of my organisation, or attending to other business, black men are watching every move I make, awaiting their chance to kill me, I have said publicly many times that I know that they have their orders.  Anyone who chooses not to believe what I am saying doesn’t know the Muslims in the Nation of Islam.

I know, too, that I could suddenly die at the hands of some white racists.  Or I could die at the hands of some Negro hired by the white man.  Or it could be some brainwashed Negro acting on his own idea that by eliminating me, he would be helping out the white man because I talk about the white man the way I do.

With this in mind, the three possible answers are as follows:

One, those who were convicted for his assassination were Talmadge Hayer, Norman 3X Butler and Thomas 15X Johnson.  This could imply they worked together on their own accord – no influence from outside power. However, all there were members of the Nation of Islam.

Did the Nation of Islam order his assassination? Malcolm X, during numerous press conferences claimed his life was at threat by the Nation of Islam.

Why?

He claimed that Elijah Muhammad had ordered his death simply because he had learned the truth—Elijah Muhammad was the father of eight children by four teenage personal secretaries.

The Nation of Islam had a figure in Malcolm who, judging by his speeches and expressions, truly believed in Elijah Muhammad and was willing to die for him, and represented the Nation of Islam at all times.  This should have been an advantage to them considering his vocal ability.  However, it was actually a disadvantage to Malcolm X—realised after his suspension from the Nation of Islam—as it created jealously and rivalry within the organisation.

After his pilgrimage to Mecca and his visits to various African nations, he began to have his own ideas on how to further the Afro-American movement.  He also converted to orthodox Islam, thus, gaining him international recognition and connections with Muslim leaders abroad. But this was a direct threat to Elijah Muhammad.

 Elijah Muhammad tore into Malcolm in his public speeches.  “Who was he leading?  Who was he teaching?  He has no truth!  We didn’t want to kill Malcolm!  His foolish teaching would bring him to his own end!”

‘We didn’t want to kill Malcolm!’?  This implies that they may not have wanted to, but they needed to and had to kill him.

Finally, federal government agencies could have been involved in Malcolm X’s death, if only in partnership with the Nation of Islam. A bold accusation, almost certainly not true, but Malcolm does mention in his autobiography that he was under constant surveillance by American agents. He met with African leaders like Nasser, Kenyatta, and Nkurmah, raising pan-African consciousness and drawing explicit parallels between racism in the U.S. and decolonization. That could’ve raised some hackles.