Seattle Martin Luther King Jr Day March for $15 Minimum Wage
The confused, who don't understand basic laws of supply and demand and that a higher minimum wage will result in higher unemployment, were out in force in Seattle on MLK day, with socialist City Council member Kshama Sawant leading the marchers.
Fantastic. Though MLK was wrong on state power and economics, he was still an opposing force against the state and most likely why he was killed. The very people that tout and glorify him have now reduced their own hero to be a figure head for devalued $15. As if there is no dream beyond devalued $15. As if the Dream was nothing but picking up scraps that came off the table. What a bunch of losers.
MLK agitated for "the guaranteed income" in the book, "Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?" (1967), and there's no way to guarantee any such income without intimidation and aggression. Of course, he had long pretended to disdain violence so that he could pose as a principled adherent of nonviolent change, but the slick theocrat hoped that cops and courts would do his dirty work nonetheless. Thus did he "March on Washington" in 1963 with his self-serving victimology about "a bad check" that has been returned with "insufficient funds" marked on it.
Now, note also the childish false dichotomy used in the title of his book. Is it obvious to you yet that MLK used the phrase "Chaos or Community" to trumpet to the world his long term strategy of leading Americans either to "Chaos" or to a law and order "Community" of guns held to the heads of people who are in a position to concede to his demands for loot.
What I'm saying is that the race riots of the late 1960s were not in spite of MLK's memory but entirely commensurate with what MLK planned for the long term.
think you're wrong on that one. While King had lots in common with powerful factions , He was against the war in Vietnam and was planning to shutdown DC in the same way he had shut down Memphis, The moral of the story being nobody dares do anything outside the system and you might get dealt in but only if existing players agree. After all how many of King's hangers on followed in his footsteps with his techniques?
Heath, even if all of "King's hangers on" such as Jesse Jackson had no stomachs for "Chaos", it doesn't follow that King did not foresee a brutal civil war with racial overtones. Remember that he was smart enough to recognize that his side was vastly outnumbered, outgunned, and outorganized. Remember also that people can and do change their minds. And when I read the dream speech, I am left with the impression that MLK was already on the verge of panic that blacks would provide a pretext for a war to wipe them out. Once he had been killed, however, many blacks gave up King's dream of a politically correct solution. Thus did America experience another round of race riots, but the rioters, being mostly just barbarians, didn't get "the guaranteed income" but instead a few consumer goods and the satisfaction of burning down buildings and destroying businesses within their own neighborhoods.
I would agree, however, that King was against the Vietnam war. But so what? Lenin huffed and puffed against about the Great War, but his long term goal was merely to replace Tsarist government with his own despotism. Opposing the war was just a means to an end. Further, after acquiring power, Lenin discovered his inner warmonger. So I think that MLK's self-righteous opposition to the Vietnam was rooted less in principle than in having an excuse for an emotional outburst and for public posturing that just happened to coincide with his sympathy for negroes conscripted to do the ruling class' dangerous work in SE Asia.
It will do no good to object that MLK didn't want to be a despot like Lenin, for it's not necessary to want personally to be a despot to oppose war for political reasons. Just recall how American leftists and centrists posed as principled opponents of war from 2002 through 2008 only to get bored with the tactic soon after President Hope N. Change came to power.
It's by the way that Mussolini too was an ardent opponent of Great War, but then he changed his mind at around the time that he was giving up radical leftwing politics in favor of a practical socialism. It's popular still to characterize that pragmatic socialism as "Far Right", as they do at Wikipedia, but we know the truth, do we not? Mussolini made a fetish of change and was about as far from being a crown and altar conservative as one might be in Italy without also killing the pope, too.
Fantastic. Though MLK was wrong on state power and economics, he was still an opposing force against the state and most likely why he was killed. The very people that tout and glorify him have now reduced their own hero to be a figure head for devalued $15. As if there is no dream beyond devalued $15. As if the Dream was nothing but picking up scraps that came off the table. What a bunch of losers.
ReplyDeleteMLK was an enemy of the state? Oh, bs.
DeleteMLK agitated for "the guaranteed income" in the book, "Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?" (1967), and there's no way to guarantee any such income without intimidation and aggression. Of course, he had long pretended to disdain violence so that he could pose as a principled adherent of nonviolent change, but the slick theocrat hoped that cops and courts would do his dirty work nonetheless. Thus did he "March on Washington" in 1963 with his self-serving victimology about "a bad check" that has been returned with "insufficient funds" marked on it.
Now, note also the childish false dichotomy used in the title of his book. Is it obvious to you yet that MLK used the phrase "Chaos or Community" to trumpet to the world his long term strategy of leading Americans either to "Chaos" or to a law and order "Community" of guns held to the heads of people who are in a position to concede to his demands for loot.
What I'm saying is that the race riots of the late 1960s were not in spite of MLK's memory but entirely commensurate with what MLK planned for the long term.
think you're wrong on that one. While King had lots in common with powerful factions , He was against the war in Vietnam and was planning to shutdown DC in the same way he had shut down Memphis, The moral of the story being nobody dares do anything outside the system and you might get dealt in but only if existing players agree. After all how many of King's hangers on followed in his footsteps with his techniques?
DeleteHeath, even if all of "King's hangers on" such as Jesse Jackson had no stomachs for "Chaos", it doesn't follow that King did not foresee a brutal civil war with racial overtones. Remember that he was smart enough to recognize that his side was vastly outnumbered, outgunned, and outorganized. Remember also that people can and do change their minds. And when I read the dream speech, I am left with the impression that MLK was already on the verge of panic that blacks would provide a pretext for a war to wipe them out. Once he had been killed, however, many blacks gave up King's dream of a politically correct solution. Thus did America experience another round of race riots, but the rioters, being mostly just barbarians, didn't get "the guaranteed income" but instead a few consumer goods and the satisfaction of burning down buildings and destroying businesses within their own neighborhoods.
DeleteI would agree, however, that King was against the Vietnam war. But so what? Lenin huffed and puffed against about the Great War, but his long term goal was merely to replace Tsarist government with his own despotism. Opposing the war was just a means to an end. Further, after acquiring power, Lenin discovered his inner warmonger. So I think that MLK's self-righteous opposition to the Vietnam was rooted less in principle than in having an excuse for an emotional outburst and for public posturing that just happened to coincide with his sympathy for negroes conscripted to do the ruling class' dangerous work in SE Asia.
It will do no good to object that MLK didn't want to be a despot like Lenin, for it's not necessary to want personally to be a despot to oppose war for political reasons. Just recall how American leftists and centrists posed as principled opponents of war from 2002 through 2008 only to get bored with the tactic soon after President Hope N. Change came to power.
It's by the way that Mussolini too was an ardent opponent of Great War, but then he changed his mind at around the time that he was giving up radical leftwing politics in favor of a practical socialism. It's popular still to characterize that pragmatic socialism as "Far Right", as they do at Wikipedia, but we know the truth, do we not? Mussolini made a fetish of change and was about as far from being a crown and altar conservative as one might be in Italy without also killing the pope, too.
Yeah sure, anyone who thinks that hard work should pay the bills is a total loser.
DeleteKeep up that attitude and see where it gets your side of the political debate in 2014 and 2016!
Did anyone ask them what is magic about the number 15?
ReplyDeleteAlso known as the MLK Full Unemployment Initiative...
ReplyDeleteThese idiots DESPERATELY need an economics 101 class.
ReplyDeleteHere, let me save you people the trouble. Look here:
http://mises.org/books/economics_in_one_lesson_hazlitt.pdf
A march for unemployment and failure. Stupid people.
ReplyDelete