A Black Agenda Radio commentary by executive editor Glen Ford
These days, a radical label can get you killed. In National Security Speech, “it is clear that to ‘radicalize’ means very much the same as to ‘weaponize’; the radicalized person has been transformed into a weapon.” Under such assumptions, the secret police feel justified in using lethal force on purely political pretexts.
Radicalized = Weaponized = Kill at Will
A Black Agenda Radio commentary by executive editor Glen Ford
“The line between political beliefs and illegal action is eradicated, so that the ‘radicalized’ person or group is inherently deserving of liquidation.”
Like all advanced police states, the U.S. national security regime has begun speaking its own, degenerate language. It is a mode of speech that simultaneously defines the “enemy” and justifies his or her destruction. The soulless, bureaucratic roots of National Security Speech belie the ruthless intent, which is to make the utter destruction of the targeted group or individual appear to be the natural order of things.
“Self-radicalization” is one of the terms coined by national security speakers. To people like President Obama, a guy who adds targets to his Kill List every Tuesday, “self-radicalization” represents a grave threat to the American state. “One of the dangers that we now face,” said Obama, in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing, “are self-radicalized individuals who are already in the United States,” because it is difficult to prevent them from carrying out “plots.”
In this context, it is clear that to “radicalize” means very much the same as to “weaponize”; the radicalized person has been transformed into a weapon. A radical is no longer simply an individual “who advocates thorough or complete political or social reform,” but someone who by their very thought processes represents a clear and present danger to the United States. The line between political beliefs and illegal action is eradicated, so that the “radicalized” person or group is inherently deserving of liquidation. The operative word is “radical.”
Obama is not talking about “Manchurian Candidates” who have been programmed against their will and without their knowledge to carry out acts dictated by others. He’s talking about people who quite consciously object to U.S. policies, who might do something about it at some time in the future, or influence others’ opinions about the United States. Obama’s problem with the people he calls “self-radicalized” is that they cannot be easily entrapped or shown to be guilty by association with others who think as they do – and if they do act, their actions do not necessarily implicate others. For the fascist-minded, this must be quite frustrating.
“Assata remains radical.”
Assata Shakur was radicalized
They don’t believe that, of course. The political police are simply determined to make radicalism – of the “self” or group inspired variety – synonymous with criminality, much in the way that “Black” is now inextricably linked with crime in the public mind. According to that formula, a Black woman radical makes the perfect poster for a political witch hunt.
For Black Agenda Radio, I’m Glen Ford. On the web, go to BlackAgendaReport.com.
BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com .
A veteran Grenadian revolutionary explains the situation of Venezuela today, condemns the US build-up, and offers his advice and solidarity.
In this week’s segment, we hear about an international tribunal for Palestine, which will document and render a ruling on evidence of genocide in Gaza and the West Bank. We also examine the…
The U.S. regime change effort against Venezuela has recently intensified with the killings of Venezuelans, Trinidadians, and Colombians said to be drug traffickers, the latest salvo in the long U.S.…
We're joined by Farah Imad, an organizer of the International People's Tribunal for Palestine, which takes place in Barcelona on November 22nd and 23rd. She is a lawyer who has written about…
The Trump administration’s threats against Venezuela are a reminder that U.S. aggression is thoroughly bipartisan. In 2019, Glen Ford provided this analysis of a Democratic Party presidential debate…
