Today's edition of Black Agenda Report points out the following:
If a thousand armed Blacks had gathered in one place, pointing rifles at federal officers, and two of them later cold-bloodedly assassinated policemen, the federal response would touch every Black neighborhood in America. But the armed white Right gets a pass. Racists are resources to those in power. “The national security state’s legitimacy is based on (white) mass fear and loathing of the Other.”
Here's what we should ask next. Is it the collection of armed people (black, white or otherwise) pointing rifles at federal officers an actual problem? I know a publication has to be quite careful that it doesn't appear to be promoting the armed resistance (or overthrow) of the US Government. 'Cause we all know that we can get the Syria, Iraq, Libya or Palestine treatment if we do anything more than walk around with protest signs.
That’s why the FBI puts a bounty on the head of sister Assata Shakur, living peacefully in Cuba, while allowing white racists to point high-powered rifles at the heads of federal officers in rural Nevada. Two of those fascists later put bullets in the brains of policemen in Las Vegas, but there will be no general crackdown on the Millers’ comrades in arms, no assassinations of Cliven Bundys in their sleep, no great Gulag of lifetime solitary confinement for white militiamen.
The Empire needs them. It always has.
So is it the case that the "white racists" ought to have bounties put on their heads for their opposition to the federal government (since, you know, they are a rare threat to black lives compared to say, random black men in certain cities are) or is it the case that the fed ought not be putting bounties on anyone's head who have not committed crimes? Or if the crimes are done with the aim of a social or political end?
Also lets take Black Agenda Report to task for the following:
who earlier this year had been among an army of fascists gathered in defense of racist rancher Cliven Bundy, shot two Las Vegas cops in the head and killed a bystander at a Wal-Mart. After declaring, “This is the start of a revolution,” they committed suicide.[My underlines]
The
actual definition of fascism is:
: a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government
By definition then, the events at the Cliven ranch cannot be defined as Fascist nor the participants "fascists" because they clearly
object to the central government and believe that they can in fact
disagree with the government.
This is what happens when one sloppily uses pejorative terms to describe those whom you disagree with. Those involved with the Cliven Ranch may well be racists (open or closeted) but does that mean their objection to Federal overreach is unwarranted? And if their objections are in fact warranted then perhaps effort is better put concentrating on those issues.
