[A-List] Re: History and Sacrificial Death/MLK and sex as history
Waistline2 at aol.com
Waistline2 at aol.com
Sun Apr 29 01:55:57 MDT 2007
<< The issue of his sexual activities is about betrayal of those "People"
him and put their lives on the line for the Cause and not narrow or
"bourgeois" morality. If one is in a leadership position, trusted by many
who are also putting their own lives on the line but have no celebrity to
protect them, and one knows that one is a target of surveillance and
searches for "blackmail material, then there are two choices: do not
engage in behavior that can be used to compromise you and the Movement or
get the fuck out of the leadership of the Movement and make room for
someone who will not betray the Trust and not compromise the Movement.
Anyone who does not understand that is a dilettante playing at revolution
and social change like some kind of hobby and not serious in any serious
Dr. Kings celebrity status was not sufficient to stop the bullet that struck
him dead. The death of a leader becomes important because, if they achieve
recognition as historical markers of a period, meaning is found in their
Life without meaning is impossible.
Nor was the status of Malcolm X or President John F. Kennedy sufficient to
stop the bullet.
Once set in motion, the bullet manifest its inherent logic defies and
defines the gravitational force of opinion. Kennedy of course is said to have had a
sexual affair with Marylyn Monroe and the connection between Ms. Monroe’s
easy to look at body and the failed invasion of Cuba is to remote to pursue as
an inspiring logic for social change. Perhaps, if Kennedy had not had sex with
Ms. Monroe, the invasion of Cuba by Yankee imperialism would have been
Who but God can pursue such threads of meaning?
The qualities that cast one as leader are not sufficient to allow leaders to
"get the fuck out of the leadership of the Movement," in defiance of those
who elevated them to leading positions in organizations in the first place. And
the awareness of a leader is never more than an inverted understanding of “
the masses” in their striving because the masses are the abstraction that is
differences in the individual and classes. That is why people combine in
organizations rather than masses.
The 1 can never be the many or “think like the masses” or oneness cannot
hold form - shape.
No matter what an individual judge as the merits and demerits of another
individual, a speedy recall of public individuals - public people, (the
dialectic dances once again between mass and individual) and new elections are the
solution to the problem inherent in democracy constrained by concepts and
structures of political liberty.
The national political symbol that was King was not the King, assumed
commodity form and was nationalized at the moment of its occurrence (when Martin
became King) or it could not happen in America. King was a paramount leader in
the Southern Christian Leadership Council (SCLC). Questions of his
leadership rested with them as they danced in conformity with the music of their wing.
The question is not bourgeois or non-bourgeois morality, but morality as
immediacy because a popular will is interactive.
That Dr. King has assumed a commodity form in death, and that which was
critical to him as flesh, has been emaciated, emasculated and then ejaculated
into the organism of American society is to be expected and welcomed as the
standard operating procedure of the bourgeois order. That his wing of the Civil
Rights Movement is never examined by ”the order,” cannot but make one smile
and ponder the enemies weakness.
King of course led no movement and herein resides the issue of the masses
and the leaders. The Martin Luther King JR. wing of the African American Peoples
Movement for Liberation, was a reform organization to adjust the economic
and political relations between classes, within classes and amongst the
citizens if the United States of America.
King never defined himself different or advocate different.
Dr. King makes no sense outside this contest and within this context one can
postulate on his sexual prowess. Although the women’s opinion would complete
the picture and prevent . . . . an unrealistic assessment. The unreality
springs from the dream of the boy and boy passion in the world.
One plays at revolution - in its social logic and insurrectionary meaning,
until ot has moved from the dream world and become a vision of the possible,
and when it is possible . . . . this "playing" reveals itself as rehearsal that
allows success. Only the lucky few are born into a revolutionary period.
Most history is of the continuous re-form-u-late.
We measure this distance with the yard stick of revolution.
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
More information about the A-List