As long as the same lens is applied equally to far-right and white supremacist groups, then this is fine.
This question is rhetorical with this administration, however.
This question is rhetorical with this administration, however.
Just look at how the US treats "ecoterrorists" versus white supremacist; or if you want historical examples look at how the FBI treated labor groups versus fascists ones in the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s (no need to worry about the decades after, they killed enough leaders to stop leftwing voices in the US).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_policies_of_Americ...
[2] Whole Foods' heat map says lower rates of racial diversity increase unionization risks - https://www.businessinsider.com/whole-foods-tracks-unionizat...
[3] Factors including racial diversity, proximity to other unions, poverty levels in the surrounding community, and calls to the NLRB were named as contributors to "unionization risk." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amazon
[4] Ohio universities involve FBI in investigation of ‘It’s okay to be white’ and white nationalist group’s postings on campus - https://www.thefire.org/news/ohio-universities-involve-fbi-i...
[5] https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/sep/15/biden-accus...
[6] Did you know ADL trains every new FBI agent on their role as protectors of the American people and the Constitution? - https://x.com/ADL/status/472384478464061441
> look at how the FBI treated [white supremacist] labor groups versus fascists ones in the 20s [..] no need to worry about the decades after, they killed enough [white supremacist?] leaders to stop [white supremacist??] leftwing voices in the US
So the fact that the labor groups the FBI targeted were white supremacist by today's standards makes those sentences complete nonsense.