ABSTRACT: Nation of Islam (NOI) Minister Louis Farrakhan has long labeled himself as a strong (patriarchal, hyper-masculine) Black man – presumably the type of man necessary for authentic Black leadership. For this reason, many in the Black community are reluctant to criticize even his most egregious words and actions. Such an attitude by the Black community only encourages more demagoguery. It is time for African Americans to raise their standards for Black leadership.

KEY WORDS: REACTIONARY BLACK NATIONALISTS, PATRIARCHAL, HYPER-MASCULINE, OGONI, AFROCENTRISTS, PAN-AFRICANISTS

The biggest lie is that the people want the truth. – Old proverb

Minister Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam have come full circle since the days of the civil rights movement. Then, it was obligatory for mainstream civil rights leaders to denounce such authoritarian and Reactionary Black Nationalists (RBNs), primarily for their anti-White bigotry.

However, since then, in the name of Black unity, many, if not most, African Americans give such charismatic bigots free reign to be as outrageous as they wish. This is largely because Black reactionary groups have duped unsuspecting African Americans into believing that any Black person who harshly criticizes them must be a sellout, or controlled by Whites – especially White Jews.

Farrakhan has slyly billed himself as a strong (patriarchal, hyper-masculine) Black man who always speaks the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth (i.e., God’s Truth). Many Blacks regard him as a true man of God who must be defended at all costs. Indeed, when Whites denounce Farrakhan, his supporters unthinkingly double down on his defense.

Farrakhan’s critics do themselves no favor when they absurdly compare him to Hitler. The Sinister Minister easily dismisses this nonsensical claim and, with it, even legitimate criticisms of the leader and many of his messages.

Farrakhan has defended some of the most despicable leaders in the world. He supported Mobutu Sese Seko, the military dictator of the Democratic Republic of the Congo from 1965-1997. Mobutu, working with Moise Tshombe, who was the country’s prime minister from 1964-1965, with the help of the CIA, arrested and assassinated the nation’s first prime minister, Patrice Lumumba. Mobutu went on to rob his people of millions of dollars. (Though Farrakhan routinely criticizes the CIA, he seemingly gave them a free pass in this case.)

Farrakhan also defended Nigerian dictator Sani Abacha, who, working with greedy multinational oil companies, moved against award-winning environmentalist and peaceful human rights activist Ken Saro-Wiwa and his Ogoni people. The Nigerian government killed Saro-Wiwa along with other activists in 1995. Farrakhan merely used a red herring and said that the U.S. government had lynched many Blacks, so they had no right to criticize Abacha.

Farrakhan’s most despicable and unforgivable offense has been his defense of bigoted slave owners in Sudan. While the minister often rails against the enslavement of Black people hundreds of years ago, he believes that the literal enslavement of Black people today is just fine.

Sadly, the vast majority of Afrocentrists, pan-Africanists and other “strong Black” leaders, thinkers, intellectuals and activists seem afraid to address this issue. Perhaps the only one of note that had the good sense and the intestinal fortitude to take a stand in defense of the enslaved Black Africans of Sudan was the late scholar John Henrik Clarke. He said that Farrakhan was a “faker.” The historian could not understand why so many Blacks were willing to join Farrakhan at the Million Man March. Clarke said that, as long as Farrakhan continued to support the enslavement of Blacks in Sudan, “I’m not marching anywhere with Farrakhan.”

Members of the Nation of Islam, after Farrakhan’s admitted role in helping to create the “climate of hate” against Malcolm X, assassinated the leader in 1965. Farrakhan still insists that Malcolm “deserved to die.” And Farrakhan’s supporters don’t seem to be bothered by such talk. However, just imagine if anyone said that Martin Luther King deserved to die. (In reality, many of Farrakhan’s defenders admit that they don’t care if the Nation of Islam had Malcolm killed. Conversely, they certainly care that James Earl Ray assassinated Martin Luther King.)

Farrakhan is a master at coming to the rescue of his former critics. When former D.C. Mayor Marion Barry was on trial, Farrakhan was in the audience to lend support. When Qubilah Shabazz, Malcolm’s daughter, tried to have Farrakhan killed to belatedly avenge her father’s death, Farrakhan supported her.

Prior to the first Million Man March, many of Farrakhan’s supporters harshly criticized Black scholar Julianne Malveaux for complaining that Black women were not included in the March. The criticism reportedly hurt her deeply. However, in the second march, Malveaux was the master of ceremonies. She recently wrote an article in defense of Farrakhan and his supporters.

One easy way to silence Farrakhan’s detractors is to claim that “Black people can’t be racist.” Therefore, it is believed that there is no need to condemn his supposedly powerless hatemongering, sexism, patriarchy, homophobia and anti-Jewish bigotry. Powerless hatemongers should always get a free pass. It just seems to be the Christian thing to do.

This might be why the Nation of Islam has formed loose alliances with the American Nazi Party, the White Aryan Resistance, Holocaust deniers and other White supremacist riffraff. What good is a strong Black leader if he doesn’t support the sworn enemies of Black people?

Malcolm used to teach that Black people should not criticize their leaders in public. However, this will not work. If a leader speaks in public, she or he should be prepared to face public criticism. Otherwise, they should simply stay out of the public eye.

There is a popular notion that when the masses support the leaders of their choice, collective wisdom has won out. However, history shows this is certainly not always the case. Hitler was popular among the masses. Today, Donald Trump is wildly popular among his base, but his detractors hardly see him as fit for public office. Simply put, the masses do not always get it right. They are often – some might even say usually – dead wrong.

There are those who say perhaps Farrakhan’s supporters simply are not aware of his serious faults discussed in this article. If this is so, why are they so supportive of someone they simply do not know enough about? Is Farrakhan’s rhetoric so seductive that many of his followers are willing to get behind him based mostly on emotionally charged sound bites? If so, they seem to be like a naïve young girl blown away by the smooth rap of some unscrupulous player.

An entire book could be written on Farrakhan’s and the Nation of Islam’s reprehensible words and positions. However, more than enough examples have been given in this article. No leader should ever be above criticism and people need to greatly raise their standards of leadership. However, this can never be done as long as there is a taboo against critically examining and critiquing certain individuals in positions of leadership.