Christopher Dorner Isnt Malcolm X 2.0

Like many American Blacks, the late El Hajj Malik Shabazz ( here after Malcolm X ) made an impression upon me.

It's through the lens of this impression that I now view the Christopher Dorner case.

Surprisingly to some, Dorner enjoys an active fan base of otherwise opposed progressives and constitutionalists who mutually mistrust police, especially LAPD.

I could make the obligatory anti-LAPD statement, but suffice it to say I too find them heavy handed, but also recognize the hyper violent opposition they face.

When poor people of all colors run wild in the streets, they prompt creation of municipal armies like this department to combat them.

Critics of his day ( and now ) accused Malcolm X of being a racist and proponent of violence.

To his credit he always preached restraint and obeying the law, including using self-defense statutes- a stance, along with his White liberal critique, which endears him to numerous modern conservatives.

His quote, " I don't even call it violence when it's in self-defense; I cal it intelligence " could have been made by current conservative state legislators while drafting " Stand Your Ground " laws.

Unlike Malcolm X, Dorner chose as his first two victims folks un-involved in his LAPD grievance. He allegedly gunned down an unarmed woman and man, not quite a Malcolm X move.

The silence from Dorner's groupies is deafening over this gruesome issue. Condoning private brutality like this to oppose police brutality places them in the same league as Rodney King's tormentors and the uniformed drug dealing assassins of the Rampart Division scandal.

Even the police officers he shot ( one of whom died ) played no role in his termination from the department.

LAPD's brutality and corruption are used to cloak a private variety as extra-legal retaliation.

Yet another non-Malcolm X stance.

His White liberal supporters must grin and bear it in the face of statements like this from his famous lecture, " God's Judgement of White America, " better known as, " The Chickens Come Home To Roost " speech:

" The white liberal differs from the white conservative only in one way: the liberal is more deceitful than the conservative. The liberal is more hypocritical than the conservative. Both want power, but the white liberal is the one who has perfected the art of posing as the Negro's friend and benefactor; and by winning the friendship, allegiance, and support of the Negro, the white liberal is able to use the Negro as a pawn or tool in this political "football game" that is constantly raging between the white liberals and white conservatives. "

This December 4, 1963 presentation prompted the late Elijah Muhammad to suspend him from the Nation of Islam for describing the Kennedy assassination, " as chickens coming home to roost. "

It also led to his leaving Black separatism for a more inclusive nationalism where he worked with anyone interested in human rights reform.

This included socialists and alarmed the US government to no small end as the head of Soviet client states welcomed him with open arms overseas.

Compared to the support Dorner's manifesto lavishes upon progressive policy like an assault weapons ban ( look at the above photo to guess Malcolm X position ); liberal politicians and news casters, amounts to another disqualification of Dorner as a latter day Malcolm X

In the final analysis, Christopher Dorner is no Malcolm X. His violent response to injustice is at odds with the restraint and self-defense stance Malcolm X advocated.

Cap Black, The Hood Conservative

504 214-3082

Donate Dollar Super Power
To American History Month-
Cap Black’s alternative to Black ( Liberal ) History Month:

http://www.gofundme.com/197xk8

" Be your OWN Superhero!"

6 members like this

Comment

You need to be a member of Tea Party Nation to add comments!

Join Tea Party Nation

Comment by Debrajoe Smith-Beatty on February 12, 2013 at 4:17am: I believe that we have not heard all of the story or the real story. What is true and what is fiction?

Comment by Dennis OBrien on February 12, 2013 at 1:15am: To Michael A. Divine: It's PRESUMED to be innocent, The presumption of innocence is usually shot down to the general public's mind when the suspected felon makes a public admission or a threat to do more mayhem. The legal system still will presume the offender "innocent" until the conviction is made even though everyone knows the suspect is guilty as sin.

Comment by Dennis OBrien on February 12, 2013 at 1:09am: That final sentence should be indicated as Dorner's violent response to his PERCEIVED "injustice". Now here's a guy that held an O-3 military rank and was an LA Police officer. It seems that he was doing pretty handily up until a certain point. Obviously, his murderous snit was a result of being dumped from LAPD. What's the story on that???

Comment by Roni Freels on February 11, 2013 at 9:26pm: This is one screwed up mess. The assiliant has encountered many enemies along the way and is running either for his life, or to show his expertise in escaping those hunting him.

I find the whole episode a bit strange. Right at the onset of government gun banning there has been two major incidents, first Sandy Hook and now this. Prior to the two mentioned events was the Batman shooter and then the one who shot th Senator.

Humm-mm, makes a person wonder if some or not all of the incidents have government finger prints on them.

Comment by Michael A. Divine on February 11, 2013 at 8:57pm: What ever happened to "Innocent until Proven Guilty" in a Court of Law?

Comment by Lizzie on February 11, 2013 at 8:38pm: Granted, it has been many, many years since I saw Denzel Washington play Malcolm X... but I don't remember Spike Lee including that particular critique of White Liberals. Interesting... and thanks for the background info.

I read the uncensored version of Dorner's manifesto, which definitely leaves the reader thinking, "...sounds like they screwed the wrong guy!"... but how morally bankrupt would you have to be, to be a liberal and take a break from trying to destroy the second amendment, to cheer on a guy on a killing spree??

I don't support crooked police officers. But... seriously??