Unfortunately, I truly doubt that this is such a moment. “Never let a good crisis go to waste”, overtly the mantra of the Obama administration, has lead, at least so far, to an overwhelmingly racial focus to the two recent examples of excessive police force. A divergence that I am sure serves the political interest of the White House and the power elites in ways beyond their current protestations, while the issue of a massively overly militarized police in America is far more dangerous for the entire nation, not for any one racial or ethnic class. “Solutions” will be proposed, changes at the margin will be effected all smoke and mirrors.
Nothing of substance will be done in regards to either the underlying anger and frustrations of the black proletariat underclass, nor the militarized swatification of all of this nations law enforcement agencies. Because the true issues are directly the result of a welfare state imposed by the ruling elites that over many years has created an emasculation and dependency that could take generations to reverse and which is clearly also a key cornerstone of the fascist empire. It does bear to remember that the militarization of local police forces is also being matched by the arming of practically every federal agency in the nation, not just those with the specific tasks of protecting the American citizen.
There is so much more hidden beneath the surface of the current turmoil. We are being fooled once again, and the racial animus engendered by two unnecessary and very unfortunate deaths at the hands of police is very, very convenient for focusing the nations attention, while the American war machine is preparing to once again be unleashed and here at home, our civil freedoms are being ever more rapidly consumed by the insatiable voracious appetite of the total surveillance police State.
The struggle of people against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.
Have We Reached “Peak Jackboot”?
In 1768, amid escalating tensions between the British government and independence-minded “radicals” in New England, two full regiments were deployed in Boston as peacekeepers. Their presence was, in historian David Ramsay’s elegantly ominous phrase, “a fruitful source of uneasiness.”
London tried to preserve the pretense that the troops sent to police the colonies were deployed to maintain public order. However, as Ramsay observes, there was “a general conviction” within the population that the Redcoats had been dispatched as tax collectors, and “there could be no security for their property” until they were forced to leave.
By 1770, royal pronouncements and speeches in both houses of parliament increasingly characterized the Americans “as a factious turbulent people, who aimed at throwing off all subordination to Great Britain,” Ramsay continues. That hostility was reciprocated by “fiery spirits” in Boston “who thought it an indignity to have troops quartered among them, [and] were constantly exciting the townspeople to quarrel with the soldiers.”
Benjamin Franklin, who at the time had not abandoned hope of reconciliation between the Throne and the colonies, warned that stationing troops in Boston was akin to “setting up a smith’s forge in a magazine of gunpowder.” A random spark was set off on March 2, 1770, when a British soldier got into a shouting match with a local resident. Within hours a melee had broken out between Redcoats and “radicals” that rapidly escalated into a mob scene. Punches were thrown, and property was damaged, but nobody was killed.