The Real Problem with MLK
References to his corrupt lifestyle can distract from the important task of undermining the MLK mythology
Across the present American political scene is a rising tide of younger conservatives far more ready to do what the official Conservative Movement of the 70s-90s was largely unable to do: criticize Martin Luther King Jr. and, especially, the creation of a Federally-backed day of celebration. Given the essentially religious nature of the Administrative State, it is appropriate that MLK Day is deemed a holiday.
The focus of recent criticism on the Right over the last two years has been on MLK the man— he was a moral degenerate, chronically sexually unfaithful to his wife, an agent of the Communists, a rapist, a theological heretic, etc. All important things to bring to light in our political moment of demythologizing the narratives of the twentieth century American Regime.
The trouble is that there is a difference between MLK the Man and MLK the Meme, so to speak. It is not the man himself who is set up as an object of our veneration, it is rather the meme; that is, what he represents in the development of the creation of a new nation, which was birthed in the 1960s. By focusing our attention on the man, we can sometimes forget that America doesn’t actually care about the facts of someone’s life, it cares much more significantly about their role within the unfolding American Drama.
The bad things that someone actually did are basically peripheral because in the game of national mythology, the function played by the figure is given all the weight. Thus, who cares what he did in his private life, or who he was outside of the socio-political purpose that he filled? Those on the Left and the centrist middle, are essentially correct to say that critics on the Right are distracting from the fact the MLK brought forth a new spirit within the nation, a new layer of sentiment that has a disposition-crafting function for the masses at large.
This is the real problem with MLK: the role that he fulfilled in engineering a new set of mass instincts for the populace. Aside from all the personal displays of a degenerate spirit, most people—even those who are sick of MLK Day as a battering ram against their own love of country—are unable to reflect on the manipulative nature of King’s “I Have a Dream” god-phrases. Most important of these, of course, is MLK’s stated desire to have a nation where people are judged based on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.
Never mind the fact that when the content of character is judged, cries of racism (another god-term) echo throughout the land. The intelligentsia that manage the opinions of the people will remind us that MLK’s dream is an ideal to be pursued, even if we don’t live up to it. Conservatives fall for this more frequently than anyone, because the accusation of hypocrisy means far more to them than the revolutionaries on the Left.
The trick that is employed in the character vs color dynamic is twofold: one, it takes an individualistic approach to judgement-rendering and applies it to the realm of politics; and two, it summarizes the real cultural-ethnic political realities in the shallowest, most meaningless way possible.
What I mean by number one is that by narrowing the problem to cases of individual character, we eliminate the factors of actual relevance in political affairs: pattern recognition, group interests, cultural hegemony, cultural identity, etc. In other words, the Neo-nominalist error that only individuals are real and there is no important role to be played in the protecting and reinforcing of the overall spirit of a culture or some sort of collective or community.
By narrow-mindedly focusing on individuals, you allow the deconstruction of elements of cultural transcendence which would, eventually, be rebuilt along different lines. Individualism is one strategy of replacing a culture. It is not the dogmatic collectivist strategy of the Soviets or the Maoists, but it is a particularly Western strategy toward the reshaping of society. It rests in paradox: individualism as the pathway toward a new collective.
Second, any attempt to argue that there are political realities beyond the “content of character” is framed as a prejudice against mere skin shade. This, of course, is absurd; but it’s not meant to be reasonable, it’s meant to be inarguable. It’s meant to get one bogged down into technicalities of color rather than the realities of politics. One cannot argue against the mobilization of the black racial groups by their power-hungry “representatives” while spending all his time arguing that he is not prejudiced against black-colored people. Those seeking to change the American political system have had the advantage of weaponizing grievances as a shield to counter those opposed.
Take, for instance, the question of the black vote. Imagine a smaller political unit, such as a county in the South, where there is building revolutionary fervor against white property or business owners, and the black communities are mobilized against them—perhaps in a spirit of revenge (such instances are usually artificial and created, rather than organically derived). As a matter of real politik, to prevent the social order from being overhauled, it might be made illegal for blacks to vote. This prevents democracy from being weaponized for revolutionary ends. It is not per se because the skin is unattractive or off-putting that such a rule is put in place, but rather as a matter of political recourse and defense.
And then imagine, as exactly took place with the voting rights acts after the I Have a Dream speech, that a more powerful central government in Washington, overruled this exercise of political defense by citing phrasing relating to the judgement of character, not skin. In this highly manipulative way, the black voting base can be manipulated and mobilized into giving power-hungry groups what they want. The few black conservatives are correct to see that the black communities are being used, though they are often severely lacking in their willingness to abandon the universalist instincts of Kingian rhetoric. You cannot at the same time legally apply the language of a color-blind national society while also allowing states to make rules appropriate for their specific situation.
One of the great tragedies of American politics is the ability of revolutionaries to employ historically bounded rhetoric on behalf of movements intended to undermine our political way of life. The real problem with MLK is that he represents a mythology of political change that was always meant to gut and replace the Old American system. One cannot treat political systems and political conflicts with the ethical strictures of dealing, in private affairs, with individuals. If the occasion presents itself for an individual citizen to judge another individual by the content of his character, he surely ought to do so.
But the idea that his moral obligation can be applied to wider cultural concerns or political dynamics is both absurd and dangerous. And the proof of this lies in the American experience in the post-MLK world. Legacy Americans need to wake up to the fact that they have been manipulated into a new political situation that finds them as the enemy class; and no amount of well-wishing or good intentions along the lines of MLK’s dreams can change this.