Do too many unarmed Blacks get killed by White police, who then get off under White justice? That is certainly the sentiment of those in the staged protests, not only here but abroad. And who can count how many others feel the same way, but have not joined protests?

The killing of Blacks by White authorities, or with tacit approval of White authorities, is an old story in the United States. The best thing that can be said is it's not as bad as it once was. That's an ounce of justice.

We don't evolve fast enough for racial prejudice to go away so people will be dealing with it probably into the distant future. And the changes, when they do come, will not be brought on by the government but by people, like they always have. Mass movements of people force changes on the government.

The first job of the state, the unadvertised one, is to insulate and protect itself by controlling its people. The two main components of control are (1) a monopoly on force, and (2) a propaganda system. This goes for any state so of course it goes for our state. Much will remain inexplicable about state behavior without accounting for its need to control.

A divided people is a weak people. So long as there is a Black/White divide, or any other interpersonal divide, the masses become easier to control. From the point of view of the state, Black/White disharmony is unthreatening. The state will simply referee it.

What is really going on, and what is really threatening to the state, is class disharmony. This is where Martin Luther King, Jr. became such a problem for the dominant political culture. He went beyond race to poverty, militarism, and materialism as deeply rooted evils in the structure of American society. He spoke of the gulf between the haves and the have-nots, advocating a radical redistribution of economic and political power. By early 1968 he publicly was stating, “We are engaged in the class struggle.”

Not a thing has changed since then, unless you want to count the racial co-opting by the dominant culture, known as affirmative action. Barack Obama, in a sense our affirmative action president, commented on the recent tragic events by staying safely within the narrow boundaries of race; the mistrust that exists between law enforcement and communities of color.

The protests are necessary, he says, so long as they remain peaceful. When they turn violent, they will be counter-productive. He doesn't have to remind us that the state has a monopoly on violence. Mirroring King, he wants his children to be viewed by the content of their character, and not by the color of their skin. But unlike King, he makes none of the wider connections that underlie societal ills.

How militarism (industrial state violence) uses the rank and file to benefit an elite minority. How capitalism places the reins of political and economic power in the hands of an elite ruling class. How and why law enforcement is necessary against the poor.

Not only is Obama not engaged in the class struggle, he is essentially a shill for American imperialism. We don't have to look back as far as Dr. King. There's a closer example provided by Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and some “controversial” remarks he made.

Wright referenced an interview he saw of former U.S. Ambassador Edward Peck, where Peck cited blowback as the cause of the September 11 attacks in 2001. Wright put it in the terminology of Malcolm X — America's chickens are coming home to roost. Peck's remarks were more nuanced, though contextually similar.

Wright went on about the U.S. decimation of indigenous Indian tribes, U.S. supported state terrorism, and then this:

Blowback is a well understood phenomena, hardly controversial. A recent headline informs as much:

White House: US embassies preparing for security risks from release of torture report Tuesday.

More from Wright:

And of course this:

After ABC News brought to national attention these earlier excerpts from Wright's sermons, Obama was moved to distance himself. At first, he and his handlers characterized Wright's statements and beliefs as being used “out of context”. That's a strange approach because the context couldn't have been clearer. It was too clear. Soon, Wright's statements had to be completely repudiated, just one of the difficult decisions ambitious politicians have to make.