As expected, traditionalist and “race-realist” websites have published devastating critiques (for example, by Steve Sailer here and here) of the new Martin Luther King monument, while the mainstream media has gone over the top in its adulatory coverage of the same. I notice, though, that even committed supporters of the monument are a bit faint in their praise of the monument itself. How can you defend either the process or the result? Made by a Chinese sculptor who specializes in Mao statues – with Chinese granite? White in color? The King family demanding money for the use of MLK’s image? You can’t make this kind of thing up. Liberal-conservative Charles Krauthammer is unintentionally humorous in his attempt to praise the monument, since he undercuts his own message. It’s a wonderful monument except for, well, the statue and the un-American quotes on it. What is good about it? The “placement”! In other words, it’s a bad monument in a great location.
When I was in middle school we actually had, if memory serves me, Coretta Scott King come to speak once. At least, I think it was her, though it may have been another King relative. I can’t actually remember a word that was said. We kids all took for granted that King was a great man, a martyr for racial equality who helped make America a better place not only for blacks but for whites as well. And yet we never actually knew much about him or had a sense of what he was like as a man. My main impression, gathered from people like my parents, was that he was a “good” black leader, peaceful, as opposed to the “by any means necessary” Malcolm X. At some point, perhaps in the 1990s when Spike Lee’s movie came out, white America dropped their resistance to Malcolm, who since then has been much more popular among black people than MLK.
The unsavory aspects of King’s character – the plagiarism, the compulsive fornication – and the clear racial-socialistic tenor of his ideas have not prevented white Americans from going along with his elevation to the level of an American Founding Father. The particulars of his career do not matter; what matters is that in accepting him one is accepting the legitimacy of the post-1964 civil rights regime, with its aggressive transfers of power and wealth to blacks and other minorities, and its restrictions on free speech and freedom of association for whites. Nearly all Americans, “conservatives” included, do accept it.
I do not. I must admit, though, that I feel a little sad for those black people who are genuinely celebrating the opening of the MLK monument, like the members of the Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity (King’s fraternity) who worked to have it built. There is no doubt that the end of Jim Crow opened up a black version of the middle-class American Dream to those who were capable of working for it, and there certainly were and are many blacks who have happily pursued this without excessive ill will toward whites. But if white society continues on its present course of degeneration, along with decreased opportunity for blacks will come increased hostility toward “Black Run America” on the part of whites. How will the MLK memorial stand the test of time? Not well, I fear.