Fuck Martin Luther King Jr.

22 comments
Fuck Martin Luther King Jr.

Fuck Martin Luther King Jr.

Today is Martin Luther King Day. It’s one of those days that makes me really glad I don’t have a regular 9-5 job, because I don’t want to take the day off to celebrate this man. The memes, the senseless repetition of government propaganda, the complete and total ignorance that will abound on this day just makes me sick. I don’t want to celebrate him any more than I want to celebrate any of the other socialist fanatics who have dedicated their lives to reversing the course of mankind’s progress.

Needless to say, before we’ve even gotten through the first paragraph, people are already calling me a racist. The title alone is enough for most people to hurl that senseless pejorative. Whenever that is the reaction to criticizing someone, you know you’re dealing with a bad actor. It screams out “Treason! Thought crime! This person has been deified and to criticize him is heresy!”.

This is a common theme with socialists. Wait, back up, you didn’t know Martin Luther King was a socialist?

In a letter to his wife Coretta Scott King, MLK wrote;

By the way (to turn to something more intellectual) I have just completed Bellamy’s Looking Backward. It was both stimulating and fascinating. There can be no doubt about it. Bellamy had the insight of a social prophet as well as the fact finding mind of the social scientist. I welcomed the book because much of its content is in line with my basic ideas. I imagine you already know that I am much more socialistic in my economic theory than capitalistic. And yet I am not so opposed to capitalism that I have failed to see its relative merits. It started out with a noble and high motive, viz, to block the trade monopolies of nobles, but like most human system it fail victim to the very thing it was revolting against. So today capitalism has outlived its usefulness. It has brought about a system that takes necessities from the masses to give luxuries to the classes. So I think Bellamy is right in seeing the gradual decline of capitalism.

“Looking Backward” if you’re not familiar, was a Utopian fiction novel published in 1888. The author envisioned nationalization of all private property and industry, the use of an “industrial army” to organize production and distribution, drastically reduced working hours for people performing menial jobs, everyone retires with full benefits at age 45, and may eat in any of the public kitchens, the productive capacity of America is nationally owned, and the goods of society are equally distributed to its citizens.

It was easy enough for MLK to believe this idiocy, because he had already based his existence around another fiction novel. The Bible. In the same letter, King Wrote;

There is one point however, that I have learned from reading Marx and books like Bellamys, and that is that religion can so easily become a tool of the middle class to keep the proletariant oppressed. To often has the church talked about a future good “over yonder” totally forgetting the present enil over here. As a theologian and one deeply convinced that the way of Christ is the only ultimate way to man’s salvation, I will try to avoid making religion what Marx calls the “opiate of the people.”

On the negative side of the picture Bellamy falls victim to the same error that most writers of Utopian societies fall victim to, viz, idealism not tempered with realism. In other words, such systems are impractical. Bellamy with his over optimism fails to see that man is a sinner, and that he is give better economic and social conditions he will still be a sinner until he submits his life to the Grace of God. Ultimately our problem is [a?] theological one. Man has revolted against God, and through his humanistic endeavors he has sought to solve his problem by himself only to find that he ha has ended up in disillusionment.

Wow, a socialist religious fanatic, what could possibly go wrong with that?

King’s desire for “equality” was not one where people were treated equally under the law. It was one where people were equalized by way of State violence. It was not one where people were free to choose for better or worse, to make of their lives what they were able, but one where one group of people were brought up at the expense of another.

He is used as an example of peaceful change in society, while simultaneously appealing to the most violent element thereof, the State. Like the most incoherent of Occupy Wall Street demonstrators, he simultaneously begged for more government, even as it beat and caged him and his people. He sought not to reduce the violence in society, but rather to direct it at others. For him to speak of peace while doing so, only puts him on the same stage as some of history’s most ruthless dictators.

But the violence of the State was not the only thing King benefited from. As King set out speaking of changing the system, Malcolm X set out encouraging people to fight it. It is my firm belief that King only got the concessions from the State that he eventually did, because the State knew that it was the only way to pull the wind out of Malcolm X’s sails. “No need to overthrow your oppressor folks, look at how well peace works!”.

And so we got things like the Civil Rights Act. No, striking down and repealing Jim Crow laws just wouldn’t do, you see. Choice, you know, freedom? That was never the issue.  It wasn’t good enough that blacks could eat in the same restaurants and drink from the same water fountains as whites, King had to have the State force them on private property owners. Which made a great deal of sense to King, since he didn’t think private property should exist in the first place.

Of course, forcing yourself on some group of people does little to foster good relations. So if you’re terribly concerned with the state of race relations today, you have at least one thing you can thank Dr. King for.

So no, sorry folks. I won’t be joining in the celebration of racially inspired State violence today. I won’t be celebrating a socialist religious fanatic who cheated on his wife and forced his worldview on everyone else. In fact, I think I’ll work harder than usual today.

 

UPDATE: Didn’t take long for the social justice warriors to respond…

 

 

This is what I do for a living, and it’s far from luxurious. I rely upon your contributions to continue producing this content. So if you appreciate the work I do, please consider donating, or advertising here. If money is tight, I could also use some volunteers.

Follow me on, UStream, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Google+, LinkedIn, Tumblr, and Diaspora.

Subscribe via email and never miss another post!

 

 

History, Race, Religion , , , , , , , , , , ,
  • Edward Patrick Dunne

    Awwww. . . he cheated on his wife, does that upset your ethical feelz, Cantwell? #Trash

    • kubel

      I don’t think he gives a shit, except when there’s religious hypocrisy involved.

  • At Odds

    Love the irony in the morning!

    I haven’t read all of the related writings from MLKJr, but the excerpts here seem to be more in line with religious conservatives or neocons that go to church. I bet if you read the above excerpt to a religious conservative (statist-Christian), he’ll be all for it. Especially, the part “Ultimately our problem is [a?] theological one. Man has revolted against God, and through his humanistic endeavors he has sought to solve his problem by himself only to find that he [sic] has ended up in disillusionment.” They, too, believe that man revolts against God in doing all sorts of evil against each other, and therefore, must be tempered by government – the state. Yet, that’s the thing it’s not against God that they’re worried about; it’s against each other. They live in fear. In reality, what the atheists scream at the Christian for pontificating their God, is really the fear of no God in their lives. Hence, their need for government. The statist-Christian says it’s the relationship with God when pontificating at the pulpit, but they’re only contending with the relationship with each other, ignorantly- no understanding of economics or law. So, God has nothing to do with it.

    More irony, is that they’ll say it’s humanistic to have man over man as an animal tribe, but turn around and use force to “temper” the actions of man.

  • Rothbardian Slip

    We will miss you at the parade, Chris. We will be right next to the railroad tracks with the four crack whores.

  • Joseph Mirzoeff

    Geez Chris, one would think that a Libertarian could find some common ground with a fellow who stood up against government oppression, and did so in a peaceful manner.

    • Karl Schipul

      He adressed this issue in the article.

    • kubel

      He didn’t stand up against government oppression, he merely advocated for equal government oppression, and more of it. He wasn’t an advocate for peace, he was an advocate for state aggression. He didn’t agree with private property rights, he actively fought against them.

      There’s not much common ground Chris has with MLKJ, except both of them were under electronic surveillance by the government, and both were caught on tape by the FBI engaging in bisexual orgies.

  • Christopher Cantwell

    Odd that you mention it, shortly after you posted this, I saw the pingback from his blog… http://antoniobuehler.org/2015/01/19/merry-mlk-day/

    • Rothbardian Slip

      That account seems to have been suspended? That sucks!

  • Jada Marshall

    He cheated on his wife.
    Was that supposed to make the reader cringe.
    How many other great leaders have done that very same thing, some of which you favor?

    • Goodman Brown

      When you are a preacher, talking about morals and biblical principles all day, and you cheat on your wife, you are a liar. It should be pointed out. In the bigger picture, if I know a dude cheats on his wife, I don’t care much to be associated with him. It says a lot about his character. Also, I don’t know of any “great leaders”, but I would like to hear your suggestions on who may qualify as that? I don’t know about a great leader, but I know Ron Paul as one man of principle, who inspired others, who has no record of infidelity.

      • Jada Marshall

        I agree with you. In know way am I condoning what he did, which was very hypocritical. Many may not agree with his political views, but I’m not sure if any of us are perfect enough to attack someone’s personal faults. And when I say great leaders, I don’t mean excellent ones, I mean well-known ones.

    • zxvf

      Thought that was from a ‘fake’ letter sent by the FBI to pressure MLK to giving up.

  • From the linked blog: “I instantly realized he was a white capitalist, and that just explained everything I needed to know.”

    Yeah, I’d rather have a 100 CC’s than a libertarian who says genuinely bigoted things like that.

  • Don Duncan

    I recognized the mistake of MLK when he promoted sit-ins. This is violence against property, against a person’s right to earn a living. Would he have agreed if pointed out? From Chris’ quotes by him, I think not. This shows a blind spot with regard to business. Would this be corrected if he had to chose between capitalism and violence? Would he see voluntary business interactions as necessary and moral? Would he correct his mistake? We will not never know. But his fight included encouraging voting, i.e., indirect violence. This was another contradiction.

    I judged him with favor initially as I perceived him to be following in the footsteps of Thoreau and Gandhi. This was probably just a ploy by him.

  • Sam Cru

    I didn’t know it was MLK day until I read this. Good piece.

  • kaspa84

    Hi Christopher,

    Great piece. Do you plan to write more on Malcolm X in the future? Also, the Buehler site seems like satire to me…

  • Robert Ramrattan

    I think that MLK is just a reworked icon that the public can rally around or despise. Having said that,
    Define “Socialist” and why it’s so bad, please. Besides, what has capitalism ever done except made the rich richer and the poor poorer? Capitalism was made by the Wealthy to serve the Wealthy. I don’t think people – not necessarily you – should be using words like Socialist when you cannot define it.
    Wait, wasn’t Christ – if he existed – a socialist? All that free medical care, and loving your neighbor shite? What a Commie Pinko sandal-wearing, pot smoking, water-into-wine-bootlegger tree hugger!

  • marlene

    Back in liberal college days I was as dumb as i was taught to be and bought a framed picture of MLK on campus’ It wasn’t until I graduated that I began to use my brain. Aha – then I realized why I never hung it. Subliminally, I knew he wasn’t all that. So I offered it to my black neighbor and best friend. She didn’t want it either and she never went to college. Go figure.

  • drew

    We don’t love MLKj for who he was as a person, what he believed personally, what he did in his personal life, who he loved who he hated who he fucked etc. etc. etc. We love what his life (and death) inspired and brought about in the world. Who cares if Thomas Jefferson was a sexist and a racist and all the bad things you can say about ANY OF US for that matter? We admire those who inspire the world collectively. Obviously, you’re very well read, but from most of your writings, it’s very apparent that…you don’t get out much. Sure, religion is bad, politicians are hypocrites, and the elitists are assholes, but generally, people want to do the right thing and do good for themselves and those around them. We admire those we admire for what they inspire. Not their skeletons, ignorance or other shortcomings.

  • Doofor

    A mystic like MLK is driven by the urge to impress, to cheat, to flatter, to deceive, to force a like-minded group-think consciousness upon himself and everybody else.

    He is not a self-made man of honor, one who grows his own food, builds his own shelter. Sustains himself. He is a rent-seeker conniving to live off the productive efforts of others. And to assemble a like-minded mob to emulate him as well.

    It is only this mob of second-handers who are his only key to reality. He fears he will cease to exist unless he can harness their mysterious power and extort their unaccountable consent.

    The mass delusion of these second-handers is his only means of perception and, like a blind man who depends on the sight of a dog, he feels he must leash them in order to live.

    To control the consciousness of others becomes his only passion. Power-lust grows wild within like weeds that overgrow the vacant lots of him and his followers’ abandoned minds.

    MLK like every wannabe religious dictator is a mystic, and every mystic is a potential dictator.

    A mystic craves obedience from men, not their agreement. He wants them to surrender their consciousness to his assertions, his edicts, his wishes, his whims.

    He in turn surrendered to theirs. He wants to deal with men only by means of faith and force—he finds no satisfaction in their consent if he must earn it by means of facts and reason.

    Reason is the enemy he dreads, it is reason he finds threatening. Reason, to him, is flowery prose used as a means of deception; he feels that men possess some power more potent than reason—and only their causeless belief and their forced obedience can give him the sense of security he desires.

    At root, MLK’s lust was to command, not to convince. What he sought was power over reality and over men’s means of perceiving reality, which is their mind.

    MLK sought the power to interpose his will between existence and consciousness, as if, by agreeing to fake the reality he orders them to fake, men would, in fact, create a real world out of pretense.

    That was the true character of MLK’s oppressive and irrational dream.

  • Happy Lee-Jackson Day, everybody! (Which is what this day is for people who like ordered liberty better than they like do-gooder busybodies with the power of the state at their disposal.)