>>"You're trying to make a distinction between the two supposedly based on intentions. And I'm saying what does intentions have to do with the basis of their arguments? Either those arguments are right, or they're wrong. What their "intentions" are for making the argument is irrelevant."

My criticism of these people does not rest on my being able to intuit their 'intentions'. I'm talking about their *record* of actually engaging with black people themselves. Most of these black neocons have no real record of service to the community to stand on when they make all of these statements. I just see them spewing a lot of vitriolic rhetoric, with no background in terms of trying to do anything constructive.

When these people spend all of their time talking, with no record of implementation or service to the community, their words ring hollow. If they have such a problem with the way that black people are living today, why don't they spend time in the community trying to create solutions, instead of spending their time talking to white conservatives (many of whom have been openly hostile to the advancement of blacks in the past)?

The answer to this is that the white conservative foundations who have made these individuals into 'experts' and 'pundits' actually have no real interest in improving the lot of blacks. Their purpose is served merely by having these individuals with black skin make vitriolic statements that validate the beliefs of white conservatives.

The juxtaposition that you are making between Cosby's comments and the rhetoric of the black neocons is false and superficial. Cosby is critical, as are the neocons, but that is where the similarity ends. There are a lot of things that the neocons are saying that have nothing to do with Cosby's statements--the simple fact that they both have criticisms of certain aspects of black American culture does not make them the *same*.

As I said before, one of the main differences is that Cosby has a record of genuine service and philanthropy in the black community that none of the ne(gr)ocons can touch. As far as I can see, they're just running their mouths in order to make white conservatives feel good.

>>"As for their audience, that's mainly because it's only conservative audiences that will listen. Most black people just make assumptions of what they're saying and never try to thoroughly read or listen to what they have to say."

Hmm...this is a very patronizing statement. I'm not sure how you know what 'most black people' think about these matters. So, you think you are somehow magically able to think about these things in a more clear-headed way than 'most black people'? (LOL)

This type of patronizing attitude is one of the main reasons why most black people don't pay attention to black conservatives.

You are making a reckless assertion about the views of black people on these matters, which is contradicted by the fact that many blacks *have* listened to what Cosby has said, and many people in the community do indeed agree with the substance of his remarks.

The *reason* why Cosby is taken seriously by blacks (and the black neocons are not) is that he has *shown* that he wants to do something to improve the situation. The neocons haven't proven that they want to do anything other than talking yang about blacks to predominantly white conservative audiences.

If these individuals are really sincere about improving the situation of blacks, they obviously aren't going to have an impact on the problem by directing their message toward a white conservative audience. (LOL)

It is a bit much for you to argue that the reason why they do this is that black people lack the rational faculties to evaluate the merits of their message.

The reason for the difference in the reception of Cosby's comments, versus those of the neocons, can be reduced to one word: credibility. Cosby has it, based on his record--and the neocons don't.


>> "And considering very few of them do lecture circuits to begin with (the most they do is an occasional speech or book interview), it kind of defeats the purpose. But I doubt if any have placed "whites only" signs on the auditoriums they speak in."

I didn't suggest they prohibited blacks from coming to their speaking engagements. My point is that if, in fact, these people were genuinely trying to remedy the problems in the black community, they would go *out of their way* to engage blacks directly, so as to have an impact *on the actual problem*.

The fact that they do not do this is a clear indication that, unlike Cosby, they are not really interested in doing anything constructive about the problem. Their purpose is merely to throw stones, and validate the views of their white conservative sponsors.

>>"Now, I'm sure Ward Connerly was supported by white conservatives as well as black in his causes to eliminate affirmative action in Cali.

Did that mean Connerly and others never REALLY want to see an end to affirmative action...that they were just paid to be frontmen to do so? "

Connerly's sincerity (or lack therof) is irrelevant to my point. My point is that the people who put the money and resources behind that movement were white--but they specifically recruited Connerly to their cause for tactical and strategic reasons.

Connerly wasn't just a 'participant' in that controversy, he was the primary public face of the movement--and this was not an accident or a coincidence. The white conservatives who were the real muscle behind the initiative knew that they would have a *lot* more trouble if they made a white person the pointman.

Connerly was portrayed as this 'noble' black individual who was compelled to participate in that movement for reasons of conscience alone. The fact is that the man was specifically recruited by white conservatives, because they knew that they needed a minority face to push their message in order to have a shot at victory. A white man saying the same thing as Connerly would have created a very negative image for the movement, and they were well aware of this.

The ironic thing is that Connerly was supposedly against giving special privileges to people because of their race, but the only reason that he was chosen to head up that movement was that he was a black guy who was prominent in the UC administration, which meant that he could be used as a Trojan Horse by white conservatives.

I *guarantee* you that he wasn't the progenitor or the primary sponsor of that movement--so why was he the pointman? The answer is obvious.

Also, if you think that Connerly wasn't well compensated for the hatchet job that he did on AA in the UC system by wealthy conservative alumni of UC, you are naive. He gave them the victory that they had been gunning for for 30 years. I'm sure he has been well taken care of.

>> "The "right-wing" created black conservatives? You make them sound like Frankenstein-like robots. Where are these "historical facts" that supposedly created them?"

It's not a secret that these people were brought to prominence for the specific purpose of promoting the white conservative agenda on race issues--to this day, most of them have links with conservative think-tanks like the Manhattan Institute and the Hoover Institution. Many, if not most of them owe significant parts of their livelihood to white conservative donors and foundations. They are bought and paid for.

You don't have to look very far into these people's backgrounds to see that they wouldn't be where they are today without financial support from these conservative donors and foundations. They certainly have no background or record in terms of advocating for blacks, or implementing any approaches to black develeopment or advancement.

>>"However, how does this differ from the NAACP being supported by communists and socialists, even having white presidents up until the 1960's? According to your logic, black leftists were created by the far left too?"

In point of fact, black civil rights activists *have* been heavily influenced by white leftist groups and donors (including Dr. King and his movement, NAACP, SNCC, The Urban League, etc.)--and this influence continues up until today. Much like the black neocons, the influence of the white leftists on the civil rights movement has manifested in the form of white sponsorship, and in the presence of whites in the upper administration of many of these so-called 'black' organizations.

Indeed, many of the shortcomings of these organizations can be traced to the fact that black people oftentimes were *not* the ones who were making they key decisions about the strategy and tactics of the movement (they still aren't, in many respects). These left wing white sponsors had their *own* reasons for being involved, as well as their own agenda, and ultimately their money and influence were the determining factor in the direction of many aspects of the movement.

This is no secret to anybody that knows anything at all about the history of the civil rights movement. Sounds like you need to read some Harold Cruse (LOL).

What you fail to understand is that the white conservative movement recruited the black neocons *in response* to the successful strategy of left wing groups that had previously recruited and influenced black civil rights leaders in a similar manner. It was an adjustment that was made after the defeat of the right wing agenda in the civil rights battles of the 60s.

The conservatives eventually realized that they would never regain the moral high ground on the race issue until they found some blacks that they could use to push their agenda. The black neocons confer a level of legitimacy to the white conservative agenda on race that a white advocate of the same policies could never achieve.

The white liberal establishment, in certain respects, does indeed 'own' the black civil rights leaders, ministers, etc.--but wealthy white conservatives have the same relationship to the black neocons.

>>"As long as you and others try to label political ideologies based solely on racial polarization the black community will continue to suffer not only through the travails of a bloc group being taken for granted in elections but also because of close-mindedness due to social issues regarding the community as well. The misinformation of some supposed right-wing conspiracy in regards to black conservatives won't help any of us to prosper."

I'm not positing any 'right-wing conspiracy'. How can something be a conspiracy when it is right out in the open? (LOL) The relationship of the ne(gr)ocons to their conservative masters is hardly a secret. People are bought and sold all the time in politics--what do you think political advocacy and lobbying *is*? (Hello...).

You are operating on the false premise that I am some kind of blind follower of the left, and the black civil rights establishment. You are making a lot of wild assumptions that are not based on anything in my posts.

I am surprised at your apparent ignorance of the dynamic that has given rise to the black neocons, given that you are a black conservative. I would definitely recommend that you do some research into the backgrounds of the ne(gr)ocons, and the history of white influence on black political movements in the U.S. in general.