Home > Current Affairs, Dystopia, Economy, Musings, Philosophy sans Sophistry, Reason, Secular Religions, Skepticism > Some Thoughts on Continued Existence of the Black Misleadership Class

Some Thoughts on Continued Existence of the Black Misleadership Class

Regular readers of this blog know that I have written more than a few posts about the topic of race in america- specifically as it relates to factors behind continued and systemic racism against black people. And yes, they are were and are discriminated against because of their (relatively darker) skin color and ancestry rather than the continent of their origin. For all those people who want to keep using the term ‘African-American’- let me remind you that Elon Musk is technically African-American. Anyway.. in some of my previous post on this subject, I have written about why the quest for respectability and acceptance by whites was based on a flawed idea, how the willingness of blacks of accept white narratives about them has been super problematic and why conversion to Christianity was the second worst thing that happened to black people in USA.

And this brings me the topic of this post, or more precisely, how I came up with idea of writing it. Over the past few years, I noticed something interesting about the response of almost all of the so-called ‘black leadership’ types to large protests about police brutality against black people. To make a long story short, even though they acknowledged the existence of this problem almost every single one of them did nothing beyond push for a few cosmetic measures and make long speeches. And this includes that black neoliberal president aka Obama. In other words, they took great care not to upset the status quo while using those events to cynically get more black people to vote for them in elections. When I looked at this issue in more detail, it became obvious that we have not gone past the level of change achieved by the civil rights moment of 1950s-60s.

Which is a nice way of saying that black ‘leadership’ since the 1970s has largely been about pretending to fight for equality for their constituency while simultaneously supporting the status quo and getting rich. As a recent example, Stacey Abrams (one of the alleged new non-white stars of democratic party) was supportive of republican gerrymandering to reduce the power of black voters in Georgia as long as it consolidated her own position. You might also remember that in 2015 it was revealed that Chicago police operated a “secret” site for disappearing mostly black people, and this occurred in a city that has been democratic control (and significant non-white presence in local government) for decades. The point I am trying to make is there is something peculiar about the black leadership class in USA which makes it unusually willing to screw over its own people while pretending to care about them.

Contrast that to what you see in politicians from other ethic groups, who either simply pretend to be “honorary” whites (Booby Jindal, Nikki Haley) or are actually involved in taking effective steps to benefit both their constituencies and ethnicities. Most black political leadership types, on the other hand, build their careers and rise to power via strong support of black voters but then conveniently go along with narratives and policies which perpetuate systemic racism and discrimination against their own people. You might remember how enthusiastically many members of the congressional black caucus (including frauds such as Maxine Waters and John Lewis) supported Hillary Clinton during the 2016 democratic primary. Which is funny since legislation passed under her husband, Bill Clinton, to reform the criminal and welfare system screwed over the lives of millions of black people. Also, HRC tried to become popular with white voters in the 1990s by labeling young black men as super-predators.

Moving on.. why did people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have such long careers in the public spotlight? Can you think of two more ineffectual “leaders” for the “black community”? It is as if they were supported from outside to bamboozle their own community. More importantly, what did they achieve other than getting themselves in the news by making speeches? Can you think of one major problem (even at the local level) which these two conmen helped solve, over their multiple decades in the public spotlight? How can these people be even presented as semi-authentic leaders? There are, in anything, living examples of almost everything a leader should not be. To make matters worse, their younger replacements are at least as bad.

Take Kamala Harris, a woman who built her career by pandering to the fears and prejudices of white CONservative voters. A woman who gleefully described how she enjoyed jailing poor black women for the truancy of their children, but did not prosecute foreclosure fraud perpetrated by rich white guys, tried to help cover sexual abuse by clergy and laughed at prospect of marijuana legalization in 2014. Now she has suddenly remembered her Jamaican roots and pretends to give a shit about black people. Then there is the overwrought drama queen aka Cory Booker. We could write a paperback about his dishonest behavior, and here is a small taste. He is also a well-known confabulater, faithful servant to pharma and all-round embarrassment. And let us not forget Obama, the ultimate black neoliberal politician, who had no qualms about throwing millions of poor (and heavily non-white) people on the street in aftermath of housing bubble after 2009.

How do these self-hating scam artists end up becoming “leaders” of their communities?

What do you think? Comments?

  1. Gp
    February 18, 2019 at 2:27 pm

    This seems to be a classic case of collaborators. Which is understandable as they Rose to prominence within the rules laid down by Caucasian liberals

  2. February 18, 2019 at 4:18 pm

    Yes, this is spot on. Most black “leaders” are frauds and self-serving talking heads – doesn’t matter if they are liberals, CONservatives or even those in the so-called “afrocentric”, “pan afrikan” or “nation of islam” movement. If they aren’t kissing up to white COnservatives by adopting their ideologies in a desperate attempt to push the “black folks vs. n*ggas” rhetoric, they preach what they have no intention of practicing – not even in their own personal lives (and it’s deeper than Dr. Umar Johnson’s sex scandal). Even Farrakhan was in on Malcolm X’s assassination (fighting for “top dog” status) and does nothing but offer mass lip service.

    Personally, I don’t care about none of this shit anymore and I personally have no interest in calling ANYONE my “leader” as if I don’t have a sound mind of my own.

    Oh, Kamala Harris does an embarrassing “Wakanda Forever” (hence “Black Panther”) ad found somewhere on YouTube. Does she actually think most people are that easily sold?!

  3. doldrom
    February 18, 2019 at 4:53 pm

    I would be less harsh in my judgement. The qualities that propel a person to leadership in black culture/community are different than those required to get things done in the white society at large and vice versa. One could counter that the same applies to any other ethnic leaders, but this is not true. Black and aboriginals have not been able to keep their own social and cultural identity which has been transformed/destroyed in interaction with colonial white society. A Korean or Ukrainian-American leader can move between roles and cultures in a way that blacks or aboriginal Indians cannot. You also see the difference in the way that blacks from Africa and American blacks are uneasy in recognizing each other’s experience of discrimination, even though they are subject to the same types of discrimination at the superficial level.
    I think things are more complicated than just black leaders being hucksters and sell-outs.

  4. February 18, 2019 at 8:23 pm

    a big factor is that a lot of black leaders who actually have the black community interest at heart are either marginalized or out and out killed. take ferguson, MO for example, a lot of the public leaders that came out of the movement werent even from ferguson and just came down there for a very short while before being co opted by white benefactors. an example of that would be deray mckellson. A dude who is actually from ferguson darren seals and who stayed in ferguson doing activism was found burned to death inside his car mysteriously. The same things happened the more radical leaders were gunned down or marganlized in the 60s and the substitute teachers who would pplay mostly the status quo while looking like activists kept the spotlight and secured positions.

    I knew someone would make that point, and here is my counter. Why have attempts by USA to assassinate leaders in the Middle East and Asia backfired so spectacularly? If assassination of leaders were a viable strategy there would be no more terrorist groups based in Islamic teachings. If they worked, USA would have won Vietnam war and Iran would still be a puppet state.

    Now look at what actually occurred. USA lost the Vietnam war, lost Iran, had to abandon their plans in Iraq and is trying to negotiate with Taliban in Afghanistan. They have also lost control of their puppets in Libya and lost the war in Syria. In other words, USA has lost every single war in recent memory where it tried those tactics.

    So why do you think those tactics would work in USA? American exceptionalism or a rational (if somewhat unpleasant) explanation. Ever considered the possibility that black people in USA have internalized the negative views of whites about themselves? There is a reason I said that Christianity (and its attendant baggage) was the second worse thing to happen to them.

    • John
      February 21, 2019 at 3:14 pm

      So Saddam Hussein and Mohommad Ghadafi don’t count?

  5. February 18, 2019 at 10:31 pm

    “Ever considered the possibility that black people in USA have internalized the negative views of whites about themselves?”

    Yes, this is true…. 99.999% and not even consciously in a LOT of cases. Being outside of this is, quite frankly, a waking nightmare. It’s significantly worse than any of you could imagine and ofc the immediate response by most will be to call me an SJW/ Victim mentality etc etc. I’m honestly almost at the point where I kind of applaud morons like the sell outs you listed in this post because at least they are rich. ALMOST. Why fight for the future when the present, (which was fought for by the past) is such an outright joke. Fuck it all

  6. Conscience Constituent
    February 19, 2019 at 4:00 am

    The funny thing is that christianity is not part of anglosaxon culture,they were converted to it by Charlemagne.
    Christianity,much like judaism and islam originated in the middle east they look so disdainfully upon and was then brought in the cold shithole that is known as britain.

  7. Conscience Constituent
    February 19, 2019 at 4:01 am

    The funny thing is that christianity is not part of anglosaxon culture,they were converted to it by Charlemagne.
    Christianity,much like judaism and islam originated in the middle east they look so disdainfully upon and was then brought in the cold shithole that is known as britain.

  8. Yusef
    February 19, 2019 at 7:08 pm

    In some ways I’d like to believe John Lewis and Jesse Jackson, though they fit your descriptions, are still somehow in a different class. Both showed great courage and strong leadership characteristics long, long ago, when MLK was still alive. Both were close to him. Why courage and talent left them, I’ve often considered. I think the assassinations of MLK and Malcolm X were decisive events in the destruction of the movements. MLK was himself in certain ways groomed to a misleader, i.e. not really to lead but to carry the Man’s water, but was aware of the danger and began to defy it. At the time of his death, he was close to having the power to do so, and before he got more, had to be stopped. The organizations left behind simply were not robust enough to withstand the systematic and continuing disruptions afterwards. It seems likely to me Lewis and Jackson could live with themselves as long as they believed they were more valuable alive than dead as long as they knew they were doing some good. It’s unlikely people here would agree, but many, many black people understand the terrible predicament of their situation and sympathize.

    I would also add you really cannot imagine the degree of police brutality and outright massacre of black people showing any resistance to acting the way white people think they need to act. I just do not believe any other ethnic group in America has seen anything close. Please check out this basically forgotten event in Philly:

    https://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/13/25_years_ago_philadelphia_police_bombs

    Move started in the early seventies. This happened in 1985.

  9. February 20, 2019 at 12:51 am

    https://carm.org/apollo-quiboloy-summary

    Quiboloy has some good ideas…

  10. MikeCA
    February 20, 2019 at 10:31 am

    Look what happened to the Black Panthers. The FBI labelled the Black Panthers a communist nationalist hate group and used the COINTELPRO program for surveillance, infiltration, and police harassment to divide the Panthers and ultimately destroy them while portraying them as a revolutionary socialist organization.

    In 1960-1980s black leaders always had to walk a fine line. If they protested police violence too strongly, then they could meet the same fate as the Black Panthers, smeared as revolutionary socialist or communist.

    So how do you explain USA losing every significant long-term conflict since end of WW2? If violence worked, they would not have lost Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria etc. Also, if violence worked, there would be fewer Islamic extremists now than in 2001. Why did things not work out that way?

    Here is an alternate explanation- violence does not work if the other group is large enough and does not see you as somehow special or intrinsically superior. All those people in the ME, SE Asia and now increasingly Latin america did not see white people as intrinsically special or superior. They did not aspire for social acceptance.

    Contrast that to the black community in USA, who through their willing acceptance of a white god and CONservatism saw themselves as deserving of being treated like animals. That is why there are no black american versions of all those organisations with their deep leadership cadres who kicked white american ass out of their countries.

    Interestingly, Africans had no problem inflicting violence on their colonizers to kick them out of that continent in the 1950s and 1960s. Here is a link to info about 2014 documentary on that topic – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concerning_Violence .

    • February 20, 2019 at 1:45 pm

      Exactly. Now the FBI and even Russia wants to say “black lives matter” is an extremist and terrorist group, when all that movement has done is just simple protests.

    • Yusef
      February 25, 2019 at 6:45 pm

      The original post ended with the question, ” How do these self-hating scam artists end up becoming “leaders” of their communities?” There is no follow-up answer, which is sad, because the answer to the question is more interesting than simply listing some good examples of “self-hating scam artists who have become leaders.” (Actually I question the self-hating designation in the that. At least some of these so-called leaders appear to love themselves very much, and that’s even more loathsome than if they were self-hating.)

      Here, however, AD appears to supply an answer, maybe: black people have internalized the white man’s view of them as intrinsically inferior. There’s no doubt this has happened, but there is still a question whether this is the case in the majority of politically active black people. I think there was a very widespread and serious disillusionment with the eight years of the Obama administration, and many, many– I think a majority–black people understood their hopes for the man had been false, they’d been betrayed, and they were, stunningly, worse off than before. They simply do not sit there and take it as if they accept mistreatment in the way a dumb animal. However, there is simply no good answer as to what effective choices exist for doing something about it.

      AD appears to think they have the alternative of violence against white oppression to “kick the white asses out of their country.” First, there’s the problem AD seems to believe there’s some comparison in what a foreign people with a separate and independent country, their own history and culture, their own language and so on can do and what an oppressed domestic population can do. ( I can’t get into all the differences, but on top of everything else, it must be remembered these people came to this country as slaves, and that matters. Also, they actually were treated as livestock for a long, long time. They weren’t freed in “the war to free the slaves either, as evinced by the fact they didn’t have the basic right of citizens to vote–until the 1960s! It seems significant some of the misleaders named here were already adults when that right was achieved.)

      AD has a few examples where oppressed foreigners were able to fight back, but these aren’t really the majority of cases. The world is filled with countries operating according to American interests against the interests of their own people. The people in charge in the countries, known as the comprador elites, very much fit AD’s descriptions of the black misleaders. They themselves are allowed to line their own pockets and have the best of everything while creating some illusion of caring for their own people. Also, if here and there someone in this class wants to change that order of things, they get assassinated, as described in John Perkins’ book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.

  11. MikeCA
    February 21, 2019 at 2:25 pm

    “So how do you explain USA losing every significant long-term conflict since end of WW2? If violence worked, they would not have lost Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria etc. Also, if violence worked, there would be fewer Islamic extremists now than in 2001. Why did things not work out that way?”

    This argument is BS.

    You are intentionally confusing very short-term vs medium to long-term.

    Why does Putin imprison or assassinate his political enemies?

    Or the USA supporting coups since 1945? Same question..

    What about the 25,000-50,000 people killed in the 2nd Chechen war? Did that violence not eventually work to re-establish Russian control of the region?

    Funny thing… I was actually going to write a piece about why Russia succeeded in Chechnya while USA failed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The very short answer is that Russia cultivated relationships with a lot of non-fundamentalist Chechens, who saw the Islamic upstarts as usurpers of their traditional position. They also put in a lot of money and effort to properly rebuild cities like Grozny.

    In contrast, the USA never spend much time cultivating local popular leaders- in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then they compounded that by treating every brown person in that country like shit and acting like the “chosen people”. To make it worse, they never paid much attention to properly rebuilding what they had destroyed. And that is how you lose insurgencies.

    Of course violence can work or it can not work. It depends on who you are applying it to and what your objective is. The USA has been trying to apply violence to countries to try to force them to setup governments friendly to the USA. This is a stupid application of violence. The neocons that have advocated this strategy are totally delusional about how a US intervention is perceived in the rest of the world.

    The real problem is that most people in USA still think that the world is stuck in the 19th or early 20th century. There was a time when some white people with machine guns could prevail over illiterate non-white people armed with not much more than spears. That time is long over, but too many idiots in this country don’t want to accept that reality.

    If violence does not work, why do I bother paying for my groceries? Why not just walk out of the store with them?

    Wrong.. you pay for groceries because you can afford to pay for them. Let’s see how that works out if, one day, most people cannot pay for their groceries.

  12. Jarien21
    March 31, 2019 at 2:02 pm

    “So how do you explain USA losing every significant long-term conflict since end of WW2? If violence worked, they would not have lost Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria etc. Also, if violence worked, there would be fewer Islamic extremists now than in 2001. Why did things not work out that way?”

    Consider that Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria etc are not in the USA. Let me explain:

    And we all know too well violence does work when the people are semi-colonized on your own land. Look at the Native Americans. Or rather, the ones who are left…

    Had these places been cities in America, those cities would be bombed out ghost towns with their inhabitants dispersed in jails around the country. America severely underestimated the navigating the land in those countries – not in their backyards they won’t. It’s easier to stop weapons sales to undesirables you monitor in your country. And you can only get so far with a few “sucker punch terrorist attacks”, before you are taken out and replaced with puppets (which in this case would be the Respectable Black Politicians).

    As for Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria? In the 20th century, USA learned the same thing Great Britain learned in during the Revolutionary War – it’s not worth it to waste logistical resources telling people far away what they need to do. Cut your losses and move on.

    Black Americans, in contrast, live in America where it’s easy to get them. They don’t have an an official army, or even a promise of a war of attrition. If they did, the USA would know the costs outweigh the benefits. They’d avoid a Civil War 2.0 at all cost. Yet this assumes that all Black people want to fight, when really it’s a small armed segment. Most Black Americans just want to live peacefully, even though agitated racist whites are going back on the good faith of racial equality everyday their lives don’t improve and Blacks do.

    The pot is boiling and the frogs aren’t jumping out.

  1. March 3, 2019 at 12:43 pm
  2. June 3, 2019 at 10:07 pm
  3. July 29, 2019 at 11:19 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: