As it’s MLK Day, it’s time for a post about the need to demonize our enemies. If you’re White, no matter what you think of Blacks, Hispanics, Puerto Ricans, etc., there are some reasons you might want to reconsider becoming a White nationalist. For starters, Martin Luther King is just about #1 on their enemies list! WTH? That sucks. MLK is now as American as baseball, Mom and apple pie. He’s one of my heroes, and he’s the hero of most decent Americans of all colors. Oppose MLK? What’s next? Trash George Washington, Abe Lincoln, Ben Franklin, Jesus Himself? Yes, he’s one of their worst enemies. Why? He stood up and demanded something completely outrageous for Black folks. Equal rights. We can’t have that! Now, race realists can go on and on about B-W IQ differentials, high Black crime rates, the tendency of Black districts and schools to decay and get run-down in a variety of ways, gangster rap, Detroit, this and that. Clearly, Black folks have lots of problems. Go to any web forum for middle class Blacks on the web and get an earful of this stuff. I would like to point something out there. Despite all of the above…Blacks, or any minorities, or any humans, really, are not exempted from the basic principle of democracy and fairness. Why did Blacks deserve equal rights? Because they are human. Does any of the above come into play? Not at all. Having problems certainly does not exempt you from the basic rights of a human. Now, onto MLK. White nationalists completely demonize this man, as they must, I suppose. Their supposition – that he was an immoral man. Forget for a moment that those accusing MLK of being less than moral are themselves guilty of a severe moral transgression – savage racism. So in this case we have some very immoral persons attacking MLK for being immoral. What’s their problem with that? They should welcome him with open arms if that were the case. Now, onto the accusations. The standard ones are that he’s a plagiarist, a Communist and a philanderer. The plagiarism accusation is apparently true. I forget what it deals with – possibly his doctoral dissertation. He lifted a few lines here and there. Heck, I’ve just about done so myself, though not word for word. I’m not stupid! I borrow ideas all the time. People have been writing for a few thousand years, and there are not a lot of new ideas floating around anymore. The next charge is that he’s a Communist. Apparently not true. MLK was never a Communist. Communists supported him, sure. MLK was a leftwinger with some socialist tendencies, sure. He may have had some Communist friends, but so do lots of folks. The FBI tailed him for years trying to pin this one on him, and they never could. The next one is that he was a philanderer. Like many Black men, he seemed to be incapable of monogamy. Yes, he cheated on his wife, possibly habitually. I would argue that many great men do such things. Added to this charge is the charge that he hired prostitutes and badly beat them. Apparently not true. That’s a lie made up by White racists out to destroy him. The scorecard? I would argue that what MLK did was less bad than what his critics are doing. Plagiarizing and philandering are not as bad as being an out and open racist. Sorry racists. My opinion. Notice here the tendency of people to demonize their enemies. Let’s take Hitler for example. Now he was a major scumbag for sure, but that’s not enough for those who really hate him. The super-Hitler haters I’ve run into were mostly Jews. Now surely Jews have a beef with Hitler. He killed 75 But look what the Jewish Hitler-haters say about him (I used to hear all this on the ME and Jewish newsgroups all the time). He was a failed artist. He was a sick, twisted, unhappy, neurotic or mentally ill boy, even as young as elementary school. Supposedly he had a severe flatulence and indigestion problem as a young person. He wouldn’t stop farting! He just stunk outright. They must have called him Adolf Fart behind his back. After high school, he wandered around Vienna as a footloose starving artist. This is usually parlayed into the “Hitler was a loser” gambit. As an artist, he was a failed artist, they say. They laugh at his paintings, atrocious and horrible, they say. A bitter man, wandering around Vienna, broke and homeless, getting more and more furious at Jews and other successful people. I’m not sure what they say about his military career. I guess he was a crappy soldier too. They’d probably say he was a coward, except he got badly wounded, so that won’t fly. Now I have done some investigating into Hitler, and the picture that emerges is quite the opposite of the above. As a child, he seems to have been pretty unremarkable. I don’t think he was either popular or seriously rejected. I’ve asked some artist friends about his art. They’ve told me that his art is good; it’s not crappy art at all. He just never hit the bigtime is all. Sure, he was a “failed artist.” Almost all artists, writers and musicians are failed artists, writers and musicians if we are going to play that game. As for his time wandering around Vienna, well, there are starving artist types out there. Orwell was one. Check out Down and Out In Paris and London if you don’t believe me. Big deal. Some of my best friends were starving writers, musicians, artists, etc. What about it? Now we get to the more crucial part. In Mein Kampf, Hitler paints a picture of Vienna life in which he is growing more and more furious at the Jews and some others in Vienna. I think this is a case of false memory syndrome. Thing is, if you ask people who knew him back then and hung out with him in cafes and whatnot, he didn’t seem that way at all. He spoke to and befriended Jews and could not be less interested in anti-Semitism, which was pretty popular at the time. When others got on the anti-Semitic kick, Hitler typically waved them off and defended the Jews or said leave them alone. So what happened? He went off to war, got wounded, and apparently went nuts. He came out of the hospital, and veterans were being demonized and blamed for the war. It was Vietnam, half a century too soon. The veterans were furious. Then there was Versailles, and Germany was driven to economic ruin. The Nazi Party grew out of the Freicorps, the far rightwing WW1 vets used by the elite to go into the streets and crush the Left. The worst enemies of the Freicorps were on the Left. They were shock troops to destroy the Left, and they did it well. The elite used them, but the pawns got out of hand. They made Frankenstein, then he got up, walked out of the lab, and trashed his inventor’s home and everything else for miles around. Hitler is a case of a good to ordinary man gone bad. Way, way, way, way bad. Psychologists insist he had to have been ill his whole life, but I doubt it. Good men go bad, bad men go good. It happens. One would think that all of Hitler’s crimes would be serious enough. He killed millions of people. Why not leave it at that? Because we can’t allow our enemies to have any positive attributes. It clouds the picture and causes cognitive dissonance. All black or all white. No gray areas. Hitler was a bad man who had some positive qualities, particularly before he went bad. Surely his bad qualities disastrously outweighed whatever good he did in life. MLK was a good man with some bad qualities, like most of us. I argue that the good he did far outweighed the bad. People are complicated. We want our heroes to dress in pure white, but their costumes are soiled here and here. We want villains to wear black all the time, but there are splashes of white glinting off their outfits, making us blink and wince. People are complicated. So is life. Everything’s a grey area. My motto.
Please follow and like us: