Actually, you are sadly predictable. Bell didn't admire Farrakhan or Muhammad or hate them. Everyone who is trying to trash Bell now uses the same, same quote and sequence. In 1994, Farrkakhan had become the unofficial leader of Black people. That's because it was obvious what Bell had described happens in America was happening. There were some gains and then, the racial pushback and regression of any racial progress. In 1994, Bill Clinton was President, so this time the pushback was by Democrats who were willing to toss one of their most loyal voting blocks - Blacks, into the fire. Bell's observation was Farrakhan and Muhammad had seized upon that as well and had now become the voice of Black America, and that, as always, would force the Democrats and liberal white America to take stock of itself. Malcolm X's alterative view towards America's race problem always made Dr. King's dominant view work better. You have to know that. But Malcolm evolved and him and King were moving closer in 1965 when Malcolm was killed. As for Bell, and the NOI, he refused to also denounce them because they were having a similar effect on the discourse. He was asked to condemn Farrakhan and he refused. When Farrakhan organizes the Million Man March of 1995, I recall clearly Bell and a host of other prominent Black people being asked to condemn him and the march. Bell for one did not.
He asked: why do I need to denounce Farrakhan - because I am Black? Farrakhan is anti-Jewish. That is pretty well known. The Nation of Islam is poisoned with that ideal. But, Bell is not an anti-Semite, or whatever. Never was. It would be like me calling you a white supremacist because you think highly of Abraham Lincoln (most Americans do). And Lincoln is a white supremacist. Should each American history class lecture on Lincoln begin with the teacher denouncing Lincoln as a white supremacist before the lecture? You and many others should try harder at attacking Bell.