[A-List] Re: History and Sacrificial Death/MLK and sex as history

[Waistline2 at aol.com]

<< The issue of his sexual activities is about betrayal of those  "People" 
who trusted
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
way.>>
 
********** 
Observation 
 
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 
lives. 
 
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  
successful. 
 
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.
 

Comrade Waistline 
 
 



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.