Sex and Social Theory
It’s telling that Earl Ofari Hutchinson’s [Jan. 16] article on Martin Luther King ties the civil rights movement to liberation priests in Latin America, when liberation theology is a heresy. Or that King inspired women’s right groups when MLK opposed the fetal killing fields of feminazis.
A champion of nonviolence and freedom, Rev. King harnessed the violence of northern criminal gangs and was slave to his passions. E. Michael Jones says that, “by spreading social disorder, King claimed to be releasing social pressure which might otherwise rupture society’s pipes, a theory generally known as “plumbing psychology.” King’s social theories were based, in other words on his personal morality, according to which King’s obsessive womanizing was a way to relieve stress. When a friend raised the subject of “his compulsive sexual athleticism,” King answered, “I’m away from home 25 to 27 days a month. F***ing’s a form of anxiety reduction.” King’s politics were based on his psychology, and both fused into an essentially Reichian view about the source of evil in both the soul and the polis. The source of evil, according to the spirit of the times which King imbibed was repression, specifically “repression of passion.”
King’s northern desegregation helped WASP social engineers destroy Catholic political power in ethnic neighborhoods and undermine traditional morality and large families. His libidinal athleticism made him ignore the moral problems eroding Negro families weakened by rootless urban life. The civil rights movement was dominated by the Left and its commitment to sexual liberation and the eugenics foundations funding the movement. Thus, when the Johnson administration pinpointed the root of the disintegration of black families, the president’s family policy was rejected by the movement’s sexual revolutionaries.
Hutchinson will forgive me if the King holiday isn’t on the top of my list.
Matthew V. Haltom