Posted on 06/24/2014 1:16:12 PM PDT by dignitasnews
Growing up in a black neighborhood in Oakland, California pretty much guaranteed that I was destined to be a Democrat. As a child whatever exposure I was given to politics had a simple message, Democrats are good and Republicans are bad. When I became a teenager I accept this as gospel and when Barack Obama was elected President this confirmed all I had been taught and was excited to become old enough to one day follow in his footsteps and be a strong Democrat to fight the good fight and bring social justice to black folks all over. However, in my junior year of high school I was given an assignment to write a term paper and this changed my entire outlook on life and America. I chose to write my report on Malcolm X and by the time I was finished it was obvious to me that I was a Republican.
I'm not suggesting that Malcolm X was a Republican, in fact to my knowledge he never did align himself with either party, but it clear to me that his philosophy for black empowerment was without doubt a conservative one and had he not been murdered his message of self-reliance and the importance of a black-owned business base would have led to a stronger black community today and less dependence on the Democratic Party and its desire to spread the growth of the welfare state.
To a lot of my friends and family, my becoming a young Republican was met with laughs and good-natured joking. My sister's first reaction was "that makes sense, you've always been kinda white," something she often made fun of me for, because of the way I talked and that I was a bookworm growing up. I love my sister very much and I know she did that just to get under my skin, but it is something that I've experienced with other black folks that has made me both sad and upset and is a huge part of the problem our community faces. Is it somehow "being white" to want to better yourself and make your mark in the world? For many in the black community, that is the feeling. And the anger that it brings up in me is because we have been conditioned to believe that, and that belief comes from our so-called political leaders and from the hip-hop community.
When I began my research on Malcolm X, I was a young "militant" filled with the same feelings of many of my generation. I sincerely believed that the black community suffered from effects of racism and that the history of slavery and Jim Crow still lingered and presented challenges to us that were responsible the state of black America. I bought into all the notions that "we deserved" welfare as a sort of "reparations" for all that we had suffered. Even at the time, my plan was to go on to college, get involved in the Democratic Party and one day run for office and set about to make things right by "getting even" at the America that had done so much wrong to my people. I had a poster of Barack Obama on my bedroom wall that I would look at often, giving me inspiration that "yes we can" but in the span of a few short weeks all of this began to change for me.
As I started to pour through various speeches and writings of Malcolm X, there was one I highlighted early on and decided to base my report on. More than any other of his statements, this stayed with me, but also made me challenge everything I believed in. It honestly changed my life.
When I first read this, I looked at the "oppressor" as so many of my brothers and sisters do. Large corporations, the business world that wouldn't hire us, racists in the KKK, the Tea Party I read about, Christian conservatives and of course the biggest oppressor, that evil Republican Party, who I've heard since I was a little kid were out to get black folks. I looked forward to the day I was an adult and could be part of that "clash" to bring down our oppressors."I believe that there will ultimately be a clash between the oppressed and those that do the oppressing. I believe that there will be a clash between those who want freedom, justice and equality for everyone and those who want to continue the systems of exploitation."
But as a began to contemplate this statement, which I kept hearing in my mind more and more, I looked around and wanted to find the evidence of this oppression in my people, I wanted to find it so badly. But a funny thing happened, I didn't see it. I did see oppression, but it wasn't from these forces. The folks in my neighborhood who were "making it" were the ones who were part of this so-called oppression. They worked for the "evil corporations" or had their own business, participating in "unfair capitalism" and the one's that were suffering were the people being "taken care of" by the people who said they understood our plight, who cared about the black community....the liberals.
I remember this time so clearly because I was in a bad mood all weekend. It was as if my entire world was being turned upside down. I even considered changing my topic because it was becoming so upsetting to me. This couldn't be, I told myself. The liberals are the "good guys," or at least that's what everyone says. But this made me question even more, who says that. They say that, of course.
I decided to stick with he report and then researched further. I then came across a speech he did in 1963, titled "God's Judgement of White America" in which Malcolm got into the differences between white liberals and white conservatives. One piece from this speech really struck me, but unlike the first, didn't disturb me as much as started to make everything seem clear to me:
Crumbs and token gains. The crumbs of welfare, the token gains, like black folks who could barely pay their bills but were supposed to be happy that Barack Obama was President.I was lucky, I felt, because I lived in a pretty decent neighborhood, but just a couple blocks down we could hear nightly shooting and I've personally had two cousins killed in drug and gang violence. I realized that there was no "football game" going on in our neighborhoods anymore. That game had been won a long time ago, by the liberals and the Democratic Party that they control.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.
Politically the American Negro is nothing but a football and the white liberals control this mentally dead ball through tricks of tokenism: false promises of integration and civil rights. In this profitable game of deceiving and exploiting the politics of the American Negro, those white liberals have the willing cooperation of the Negro civil rights leaders. These “leaders” sell out our people for just a few crumbs of token recognition and token gains. These “leaders” are satisfied with token victories and token progress because they themselves are nothing but token leaders….
The white liberals hate The Honorable Elijah Muhammad because they know their present position in the power structure stems form their ability to deceive and to exploit the Negro, politically as well as economically.
I also started to think about the title itself, God's judgement. I noticed that a lot of white liberals weren't very religious, and often made fun of people who believe din God. They were forever making comments on Facebook, Twitter and elsewhere about how stupid people who bought into the "fantasy" of God and Jesus were. Yet, when they would come to our churches and neighborhoods, they wouldn't talk all that mess. They would talk the talk of the church, proclaim their Christianity, which made me think of the first part of that speech...the liberal is more hypocritical than the conservative. As I looked back at our history, it was religious conservatives who first started the abolitionist movement and Republicans who helped us gain our freedom. What happened in all that time between that brought us to the reality of today where there are more of who grow up without a father than with? Why are so many of our people on welfare or in prison? Why do we have more drug dealers than business owners? The more I searched for these answers, the more I saw the hand of the white and black liberal, telling us "the man" was responsible. They may be right about that, but "the man" isn't who they say it is. They are that man.
As much as I'd been taught to "fear" conservatives, I always had to admit, Republicans were always consistent. They stood for what they stood for and didn't seem to play the same game Democrats did. Even as the "young militant" some of what they said resonated with me, but I would fight it off like an instinct. I began to understand that even though I didn't like hearing some of the things they said, like welfare makes people lazy and rewards poor choices, it was absolutely true.
All of this took place right around the time of the Trayvon Martin situation. As all of these words from Malcolm X were swirling in my head, I began to see the case in a different light. I saw how Al Sharpton and Jessee Jackson were whipping us into a frenzy over this. While I didn't think Trayvon deserved to be shot over this, their message wasn't about that. It was designed to tell me that my biggest fear should be getting shot by a white man, when all the people I've in known in my life who have been killed were killed by another black man. While they were telling me to be fearful of walking in a white neighborhood, it wasn't there I felt nervous, it was in my own area that I had to be on alert and look over my shoulder.
I was almost done with my report when I came across a speech Malcolm X gave that sent chills up my spine. In it he spoke directly to the Democrat Party and our allegiance to it. Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House, Harry Reid was leader of the Senate and Obama was President. Every one of the elected officials in our neighborhoods are Democrats. Yet what were they doing for black folks? Like Malcolm said, we put them first but they put us last. We were, just like he said we were, "political chumps." The full speech is long, but this section says it all:
I am not a Muslim and I don't agree with everything Malcolm X stood for or believed, but from the time I finished my high school report on him, I've turned into a die-hard black Republican. But I believe strongly that if he were alive today, he would continue to speak out against the way the Democrat Party and liberals use black Americans for political gain. Today, the black community still does not have the place in our society that we by right deserve. This is our largely own fault, because we have been led to believe that by following a certain mindset, we will be "given" our due justice. Nobody will give us anything, nor should they. We are a people that are talented, gifted and have proven our ability to rise from the lowest circumstances to gain a place at the table of America. But none of the gains we made are because of charity, they came from hard work and good folks that helped us find a path where we could find our own place in the American society. A society that I believe with all my heart, and with all our problems, is the greatest on earth.
By Gary Youngston Dignitas News Service Guest Columnist
Sources:
MalcolmX AFieldNegro FaithInActionOnline BlackAndRight (via YouTube)
Or, to simplify what I’m saying, you can also google the Islamic practice of “taqiyya” (religious tenet of lying to non-Muslims)
So where does posting rants about minor stories rate? Give. It a rest, dude.
Like the Apostle Paul says, “Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice.”
Of this applies to conservative discussion, them the same rules apply. There are plenty of real wrongs being committed in the world and blogging is not the problem.
A Tree and its Fruit
(Matthew 12:33-37; Luke 6:43-45)
15Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
By your own insisted-upon standards, the lack of proof of your personal moral purity renders your words not only garbage, but possiblly dangerous poison to the soul that I would never want heard in my own house.
Please note those are the exact standards you declared necessary to evaluate any person's teachings, positions, declarations or even truth itself.
As you have not been forthcoming with proof of your moral purity for the entirety of your life, I reject your words, based on your own declared evalutaion system, as lacking proof of this necessary purity. Per your standards, it doesn't matter what you say - it matters who you are, and who you've been every moment of your life, and if you've ever sinned. Furthermore, failure to provide said proof after you have been challenged to meet your own standards suggests tha you cannot provide such proof, and that you are hiding some vile moral failure you made at some point in your life. Of course, per your standards, failure to be perfect at any time, means anything whatsoever you say now about any subject is - by definition - untrue, poisonous, vile and something that should never be listened to, considered, studied or brought into anyone's home.
Therefore, until you provide proof of your own moral purity, for the entire extent of your life, I dismiss your words as meaningless at best - and morally dangerous at worst.
Per YOUR standards.
Bye.
To simplify the “moral purity” argument, let me publicly state that unlike Malcolm X I have never engaged in gay prostitution.
Says you.
And it's not like ther aren't any number of other sins that you could have committed - any ONE of which would disqualify anything you ever learned or said and came to understand for the rest of your life. Because it's not just about gay prostitution, is it? It's about SIN. And according to YOU, if a person has sinned - that's it. Shunned. Nonexistent. Cannot be taken at face value, forgiven, understood or considered from ANY other point of view, such as your actual words or actual teaching on any particuler subject.
And YOU ain't provided no PROOF of your sinlessness.
Now why is that, hmmm?
Keep your sleazy hustler comments to yourself. I'm not interested in anything you have to say until you prove me some moral purity, viper.
Elijah Muhammad's successor is Louis Farrakhan, who despite all the "conservative" rhetoric still supports the "Black Left" by name in all his speeches and publications. And Elijah Muhammad didn't believe in a G-d external to himself but in the "'gxd' within," which is the "gxd" of atheists.
Do you deny that with the exception of his later years where he learned to temper his rhetoric a bit, Malcolm X espoused precisely the "collectivist hatred" and racial violence that you claim to condemn? Admire him if you like, but don't demand that everyone else regards someone who vomits rhetoric about "White Devils" as some sort of conservative icon and hero.
If David Duke toned down some of his racial rhetoric and focused on fiscal conservatism and small government in his final years, you'd be understandable skeptical of him. So perhaps you can understand why many people similarly loathe Malcolm X.
If David Duke toned down some of his racial rhetoric and focused on fiscal conservatism and small government in his final years, you'd be understandable skeptical of him. So perhaps you can understand why many people similarly loathe Malcolm X.
Oh look, a tag team.
For the HUNDREDTH time, TO THE EXTENT that Malcom X espoused the conservative ideals of self-respect, staying of of the government dole, finishing school, starting small businesses and avoiding criminal activity to the black community - AS EXEMPLIFIED by the testimony of the personal essay that started this thread - I COMMEND AND SUPPORT HIS TEACHINGS.
For the simple fact that IF the blackk community had heeded his teachings in these areas, and had he not been murdered FOR these teachings, MILLIONS of black deaths would have been avoided, drug laws wouldn't have been allowed to morph into open civil forefeiture by force, blacks would be filling hugely higher percentages of ALL employment levels, the Democrats would have nowhere near their power, and neither CLinton or Obama would EVER have been elected.
For the freaking GENIUSES in the audience, that's EXACTLY WHY the Left killed him.
And if anyone has a problem with that, whether you, any further tag team members, the morally perfect, any anybody else, then they can SIT ON IT AND SPIN.
/discussion
That’s the best thing I’ve read on race/politics in months. Great job and keep up the good work. Ping me if you post more.
Just ignore humblegunner aka mumblegummer. His only job is harassing bloggers as if they hurt FR. Some people collect yarn in big balls, others tinfoil in giant rolls, but HG collects bloggers who post to FR. In that way he’s a bit of a hoarder.
You once told me “feel free to ping me if you ever see a blogger who follows the rules (post the blog post in its entirely and in the blogger section, until told otherwise) getting lambasted anyway.
I don’t think you will though. There is a method to the madness around here.”
This thread was a great article, posted in full and harassed by the blog police.
I'm sure David Duke and various Klan leaders support all of these things for the "white community," but somehow I doubt you'd be as solicitous towards their views. Do you "commend" and "support" Duke on these issues too? If Duke's self-proclaimed fiscal conservatism doesn't make him acceptable to conservatives, why should conservatives overlook your hero Malcolm X's racial hatred?
/discussion
I see that you can't or won't deal with the "white devil" rhetoric spewed by your hero, so I can well understand why intellectually bankrupt charlatan followers of Malcolm X would throw a tantrum. What more can they do?
How ironic that you write this when you're so filled with arrogant self-righteousness yourself.
The only "dangerous poison" I see on this thread is your admiration for one of the most vile, hate-filled bigots in US history. For the record, I don't care about rumors of his sexual immorality, those may just be rumors for all I know. What isn't open to debate is that the essence of your idol's worldview is hatred for whites. His rhetoric and ideology is part of what made the bloody race riots of the late 60's possible.
Of course, per your standards, failure to be perfect at any time, means anything whatsoever you say now about any subject is - by definition - untrue, poisonous, vile and something that should never be listened to, considered, studied or brought into anyone's home.
You obviously think of yourself as some kind of wordsmith. It sounds more like the ravings of a lunatic to me. Isn't there some black nationalist forum that you and the rest of the Louis Farrakhan fan club can spew on instead?
Oh look, a straw man waved by a second tag-team shill who's dodging the first shill's screwup and pouring on personal insults to hide the "sophistication" of his efforts.
Whatever will I do? Besides yawn, I mean.
Well I suppose I could re-read the article, which was written by an actual black person who actually studied the life of Malcom X and as a result, turned away from liberal, Leftist, progressive, socialist, communist, self-destructive rhetoric and became - against all odds - a black conservative in middle of one of the most self-destructive black communities in the nation.
Or I could earnestly consider your frothing comparisons to whatever your shill handbook tells you will emotionally trigger conservatives into kneejerk collective rejection of a subject without studying it for themselves.
Decisions, decisions.
Bwahahahahaha....
Sorry it took so long to respond.
Thanks for the ping. I don’t see the poster in questioned being harassed by the “blog police”. Only criticized by one person. Just or unjustly seems to be a matter of opinion. I too, personally, kind of think the title “news service” is a bit presumptuous for a blog. BUT, on the other hand, all “news services” had to start somewhere!
If I may also point out, the original poster was in fact defended against any charge, implied or otherwise, of blog pimping. Also this poster engaged in conversation on the thread, and posted the entire length of the article from the blog, thus making it not necessary to visit said blog to read the whole thing. These factors combined with the fact that he posted in the correct section (Bloggers) kept any reasonable suspicion of “blog pimping” at bay. As I said before.
Unfortunately blog pimps are a dime a dozen around here. My hope is that the genuine bloggers who really do wish to contribute to the greater cause of conservatism, and not merely obtain hits for their blog, continue to post here. Once they are established as genuine contributors, they won’t have to endure such harassment.
This is the norm for any discussion board though. We all went through a rough initiation when first coming here, for various reasons. Myself, I was flamed so badly one time for posting a non-breaking news article in the Breaking News sidebar, I still have a burn scar to this day. Was that “bad”?
Other times, like now, I have witnessed FReepers coming to the defense of someone when attack is unwarranted or unreasonable.
Looking back, I can see the benefit of it all now, although of course I didn’t then. Those who endure, are willing to at least consider other points of view, and learn from them when due, will last. Even the blog pimp (not this poster; I certainly would not call him a blog pimp and hope he returns with more work like this) who returns with enough contrition and follows the rules, I’d be willing to wager, would probably be given another shot.
Most of us have had to endure such initiation, usually incited by our own stupidity or laziness. If not, one should consider oneself lucky. It’s just the nature of the “beast” (discussion boards). One shouldn’t take it personally.
I also see that you are either too cowardly or too stupid to answer a simple question: if Malcolm X's alleged conservatism on some social issues excuses his hatred towards whites, why don't the same standards apply to the fiscally and socially conservative David Duke? I guess it's a matter of whose ox is being gored, isn't it.
“Cowardly and stupid”? Oh gee look, rank insults referencing a three weeks dead thread. Let’s see, what should my answer be? How about the fact that I already supported all my positions at length in multiple posts - three weeks ago? Or are you one of those “time” people, you know, who believe that if you wait long enough a person you disagree with has to start all over again? I’ll bet you think there’s more milk in a tall skinny glass than a short fat glass, too!
Or are your masters pissed over something else, hmmm?
LOL!
You already outed yourself when you said to google “gay prostitute.”
Only someone wanting the services of a gay prostitute would ever google that.
Understanding hate speech, like that of Malcolm X, requires knowledge of the context of a person’s background and experiences.
The description of Malcolm X’s gay prostitution activities, helps explain why he made the later choices that he did. His prison-based claim of religious cleansing through his conversion to a warped version of Islam, allowed him to dismiss accurate accounts of what he did in his earlier life by allowing him to say he was no longer the person he used to be.
That’s not hard to understand, as that’s a standard line of many convicted criminals following their release. That’s also a consistency of action of one who was part of a shuck-and-jiving culture, to continue to find a spoken “line” that they could use that would work for them to get what they want from others (when it was doubtful they could get respectable employment as an ex-con).
Now look at Obama, who used some of the rhetoric of Malcolm X before black audiences in 2008, and compare that to activities of his youth in Hawaii according to Mia Marie Pope, to the alleged gay activities at the church of Jeremiah Wright, and to the present-day gay activities of his high-school “choom gang” friends like Robert Titcomb (arrested in 2011 for attempting to secure a prostitute).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/08/barack-obama-gay-hustler-_n_4242447.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.