COZY: BLM leader (Deray) lives in home owned by Soros’ Open Society board member

[Isaiah Bradley]

the problem is that you are disputing the facts themselves

its a historical fact that dubois and members of the naacp colluded with the government to deport garvey

25 Facts about Marcus Mosiah Garvey

its also a fact that the naacp was founded and funded by white liberals

which of these facts are you disputing?

why are you getting mad at me because these facts would lead any person of reasonable intelligence to ask how did the funding of the naacp effect how the members of the naacp acted toward garvey, which in turn would lead to ask how is the funding of blm effecting how blm members ask

you seem to be mad, not just mad but infuriated that i bring these facts up, are you being funded by white liberals?

and bottom line all the essays you wrote in this thread is because you are mad that i questioned soros and white liberal funding and your whole purpose is to assert that black people should ignore the issue of who is funding blm



is it not your position that economics is just one issue out of many?

Now you trying to portray me as emotional despite exposing you as just talking outcheass

Again..."members of the NAACP" now means the entire NAACP?
They could've just said the NAACP, but they specified members to distinguish from the organization

Sidenote: To some lazy thinkers, Booker T Washington would be dismissed as a koon and begging the whiteman because he used white liberal funding to establish black schools and training facilities for black folks. Garvey being a man of action, like Washington, needed some funding for yet another project. Guess who he reached out to, despite knowing where the funding would directly or indirectly come from...

This is why facts should be used to only provide proper context, clarity and understanding because it empowers an individual to think for self. Using facts to fit a narrative encourages folks to be sheeples

So no evidence for NAACP, do you at least have any evidence to the other points?

 

[theworldismine13]

Now you trying to portray me as emotional despite exposing you as just talking outcheass

Again..."members of the NAACP" now means the entire NAACP?
They could've just said the NAACP, but they specified members to distinguish from the organization

Sidenote: To some lazy thinkers, Booker T Washington would be dismissed as a koon and begging the whiteman because he used white liberal funding to establish black schools and training facilities for black folks. Garvey being a man of action, like Washington, needed some funding for yet another project. Guess who he reached out to, despite knowing where the funding would directly or indirectly come from...

This is why facts should be used to only provide proper context, clarity and understanding because it empowers an individual to think for self. Using facts to fit a narrative encourages folks to be sheeples

So no evidence for NAACP, do you at least have any evidence to the other points?

yes it is correct that the naacp did not officially as an organization collude with the us government to deport the Honorable Marcus Garvey, but the leading members of the organization did, so its the same difference

the difference between the actual naacp and members of the naacp is just a technicality that you are trying to hide behind

booker t washington's legacy is mixed, lets just put it that way

 

[Isaiah Bradley]

yes it is correct that the naacp did not officially as an organization collude with the us government to deport the Honorable Marcus Garvey, but the leading members of the organization did, so its the same difference
the difference between the actual naacp and members of the naacp is just a technicality that you are trying to hide behind
booker t washington's legacy is mixed, lets just put it that way

You have no reason to mention "leading members," except to push a false narrative
There's nothing technical to argue on. Nikka acting like "members of the NAACP" is a bewildered shakespearean phrase. It's has a clear meaning. It doesn't hint at a member's gender, wealth, race, activity level or position in the NAACP

Washington's legacy is only mixed to nikkas like you with self serving agendas
-Garvey had issues with Du bois, who was apart of a white liberal funded org
-Garvey had a positive relationship with Washington, who was funded by white liberals
A reasonable argument could be made that if Washington was told to be a "good boy" by white liberals, then planning on working and investing with an outspoken leader like Garvey would be the last thing he would do
OR maybe not

Regardless of how you feel about each man, all three tried to help black people

Your kind think black folks should be sheeple, so once racial phrase like "white liberal funding," is mentioned, then a black person reasoning should be solely based on stereotypes and fears, with sprinkles of misleading facts to seem legit

You're not the first or the last to point out the possible dangers of manipulation from outside money, while ignoring where the lack of money is coming from

Again, nikkas are fed up of hearing from your kind about the "whiteman" and speeches about "the dangers of white liberals" that's not complimented by actions, achievements, and practical short/long term goals

Preaching about generic goals, that has no timeline, no way of measuring success, thus no way of establishing accountability, has been the norm in the Black community for decades

 

[theworldismine13]

You have no reason to mention "leading members," except to push a false narrative
There's nothing technical to argue on. Nikka acting like "members of the NAACP" is a bewildered shakespearean phrase. It's has a clear meaning. It doesn't hint at a member's gender, wealth, race, activity level or position in the NAACP

Washington's legacy is only mixed to nikkas like you with self serving agendas
-Garvey had issues with Du bois, who was apart of a white liberal funded org
-Garvey had a positive relationship with Washington, who was funded by white liberals
A reasonable argument could be made that if Washington was told to be a "good boy" by white liberals, then planning on working and investing with an outspoken leader like Garvey would be the last thing he would do
OR maybe not

Regardless of how you feel about each man, all three tried to help black people

Your kind think black folks should be sheeple, so once racial phrase like "white liberal funding," is mentioned, then a black person reasoning should be solely based on stereotypes and fears, with sprinkles of misleading facts to seem legit

You're not the first or the last to point out the possible dangers of manipulation from outside money, while ignoring where the lack of money is coming from

Again, nikkas are fed up of hearing from your kind about the "whiteman" and speeches about "the dangers of white liberals" that's not complimented by actions, achievements, and practical short/long term goals

Preaching about generic goals, that has no timeline, no way of measuring success, thus no way of establishing accountability, has been the norm in the Black community for decades

whether the naacp was technically against garvey doesnt change my point

booker t washington's legacy is mixed, him accepting white money in return for not demanding equality is exactly why his legacy is mixed, everybody knows that

but bottom line is the verbal diarrhea coming from you is all because you got mad at me for dismissing and warning about about white liberal money, this is just a pathetic that a black man (assuming you are black) would go to such efforts to defend white money in black causes

your whole purpose in this thread was to demand that black people accept and be grateful for white money, lets marinate on that

 

[UserNameless]

From a realtors website..not sure how accurate it is but they say its a $600,000 house....


..many have sold for their souls for less

Nice stone facade.

 

[Isaiah Bradley]

whether the naacp was technically against garvey doesnt change my point
booker t washington's legacy is mixed, him accepting white money in return for not demanding equality is exactly why his legacy is mixed, everybody knows that
but bottom line is the verbal diarrhea coming from you is all because you got mad at me for dismissing and warning about about white liberal money, this is just a pathetic that a black man (assuming you are black) would go to such efforts to defend white money in black causes
your whole purpose in this thread was to demand that black people accept and be grateful for white money, lets marinate on that

lets marinate on "everybody knows it," but you are wrong about Washington
The basis of the Du bois and Washington debate is which path to take in order to gain equality

oh there is the cac deflection attempt
-I gotta be a cac cause I don't share in your idiotic belief that tax payer money is white money
-I gotta be a cac cause I don't believe a black person that's about action using "white liberal resources" is automatically a koon or an agent
-I gotta be a cac cause I'm asking you for more evidence and action, less rhetoric
-I gotta be a cac cause I'm asking you to provide alternate means to funding black agendas
-I gotta be a cac for pointing out the lack of funding from black folks to orgs and individuals that follows an unapologetic black agenda
-I gotta be a cac cause I don't get temporary jolts of inspiration or fear at the use of black prefixed concepts and racial buzz words


bottom line is you're just talking outcheazz with no evidence

 

[theworldismine13]

lets marinate on "everybody knows it," but you are wrong about Washington
The basis of the Du bois and Washington debate is which path to take in order to gain equality

oh there is the cac deflection attempt
-I gotta be a cac cause I don't share in your idiotic belief that tax payer money is white money
-I gotta be a cac cause I don't believe a black person that's about action using "white liberal resources" is automatically a koon or an agent
-I gotta be a cac cause I'm asking you for more evidence and action, less rhetoric
-I gotta be a cac cause I'm asking you to provide alternate means to funding black agendas
-I gotta be a cac for pointing out the lack of funding from black folks to orgs and individuals that follows an unapologetic black agenda
-I gotta be a cac cause I don't get temporary jolts of inspiration or fear at the use of black prefixed concepts and racial buzz words


bottom line is you're just talking outcheazz with no evidence

im not wrong about washington or dubois, i'm not even saying anything controversial, i'm taking a middle ground and saying that both dubois and washington had mixed records

in the end both booker t and dubois were right, they did a lot of good things and had a lotof good ideas and bottom line black people should pursue equal rights AND develop skills and education

BUT

booker t fuked up by coming out publicly against equal rights and dubois fuked up by his treatment of garvey and embracing communism and these fuk ups were caused by them excepting white money

i never said you were a cac, i dont even use the word cac or nikka

im just pointing out this whole argument is you getting your panties in a bunch because i called out white liberal money in black causes, so we should marinate about what infuriates you about suggesting that black people avoid white liberal money and liberal politics and that we should abandon archaic paradigms created by said white liberals

essentially according to you we po black folks cant do nothing and are doomed without the benevolent white liberal aka the good white folk aka kind massa

 

[Isaiah Bradley]

im not wrong about washington or dubois, i'm not even saying anything controversial, i'm taking a middle ground and saying that both dubois and washington had mixed records

in the end both booker t and dubois were right, they did a lot of good things and had a lotof good ideas and bottom line black people should pursue equal rights AND develop skills and education

BUT

booker t fuked up by coming out publicly against equal rights and dubois fuked up by his treatment of garvey and embracing communism and these fuk ups were caused by them excepting white money

i never said you were a cac, i dont even use the word cac or nikka

im just pointing out this whole argument is you getting your panties in a bunch because i called out white liberal money in black causes, so we should marinate about what infuriates you about suggesting that black people avoid white liberal money and liberal politics and that we should abandon archaic paradigms created by said white liberals

essentially according to you we po black folks cant do nothing and are doomed without the benevolent white liberal aka the good white folk aka kind massa

Context is everything. Facts are the only thing that provide context. There's nothing mixed or controversial about Dubois and Washington actions

Washington did not stress in political or social equality, instead wanted folks to focus on vocational training / education to establish economic base, while staying separate from white folks. Isn't that similar to what you are saying?

Dubois and Garvey went beyond philosophical disagreement to personal attacks like Garvey calling Du bois the "whiteman nikka." So two powerful men undermining each other is what it is, it's not right or wrong

Mentioning "if you're black" is a passive aggressive attempt at implicitly calling me a cac, so stop the BS

Calling out white liberal funding to caution and either present evidence to your claim or alternate funding is one thing
VS
Calling out white liberal funding to insinuate that the taker is a koon/puppet/agent because he/she/they are using white liberal funding is another thins. Which is what I'm calling you out on for talking outcheazz

The "according to you" portion of your post should now be followed up with some evidence from the various things I've said in this thread to support that claim. So we're back to...evidence OR STFU

 

[theworldismine13]

Context is everything. Facts are the only thing that provide context. There's nothing mixed or controversial about Dubois and Washington actions

any student of african american history would agree that dubois and booker t had mixed records, there is nothing controversial about saying that

Washington did not stress in political or social equality, instead wanted folks to focus on vocational training / education to establish economic base, while staying separate from white folks. Isn't that similar to what you are saying?

well like i said im a garveyite, and garvey was highly influenced by booker t, so in that sense im more booker t than dubois, but like i said booker t's record is mixed and he was wrong for coming out publicly against equal rights and he should have been more circumspect about excepting white money

in the end black people will not get equal rights until we have the economic and military power to punish those who try to violate our rights, getting it on paper (the dubois and naacp way) is good, but that is not real equal rights

in reality dubois "won" the argument, in the sense that most black people and black politicans pursued the dubois/naacp ideology, but IMO with the election of barack obama (aka the Kwisatz Haderach) the dubois/naacp ideology has reached it's goal and it aint all that, as can be seen by the present and continued violation of black rights and continued black poverty

both booker t and dubois were done in by the lack of a black economy and their dependence on white money, so i think that's a lesson learned and that is why this story of white funding of BLM is very important

now that we have reached the limit of the dubois naacp philosophy, imo its time to go back and refine the the booker t/garvey philosophy of pursuing economic power, and because we are intelligent we will try it again but not repeat the mistakes of the past of basing our economic plans on benevolent white money

that is why i oppose efforts by you and other posters to rationalize and minimize this story

Dubois and Garvey went beyond philosophical disagreement to personal attacks like Garvey calling Du bois the "whiteman nikka." So two powerful men undermining each other is what it is, it's not right or wrong

name calling is one thing, colluding with the us government to deport the Honorable Marcus Garvey is unforgivable, that will always be a stain in dubois' record

Mentioning "if you're black" is a passive aggressive attempt at implicitly calling me a cac, so stop the BS

true

Calling out white liberal funding to caution and either present evidence to your claim or alternate funding is one thing
VS
Calling out white liberal funding to insinuate that the taker is a koon/puppet/agent because he/she/they are using white liberal funding is another thins. Which is what I'm calling you out on for talking outcheazz

The "according to you" portion of your post should now be followed up with some evidence from the various things I've said in this thread to support that claim. So we're back to...evidence OR STFU

i dont know the history of every person that "leads" blm but they are misguided, they should stop focusing on social activism, stop accepting white funding, stop begging white people to feel their pain and should focus on economics

deray however is a koon/puppet/agent, this story is evidence of that

 

[theworldismine13]

my bad for people that already know this but for those dont dont here are the basics of the booker t vs dubois argument

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ug03/souls/washingtonvsdubois.html

 

[Isaiah Bradley]

any student of african american history would agree that bubois and booker t had mixed records, there is nothing controversial about saying that

well like i said im a garveyite, and garvey was highly influenced by booker t, so in that sense im more booker t than dubois, but like i said booker t's record is mixed and he was wrong for coming out publicly against equal rights and he should have been more circumspect about excepting white money

in the end black people will not get equal rights until we have the economic and miltiary power to punish those who try to violate our rights, getting it on paper (the dubois and naacp way) is good, but that is not real equal rights

in reality dubois "won" the argument, in the sense that most black people and black politicans pursued the dubois/naacp ideology, but IMO with the election of barack obama (aka the Kwisatz Haderach) the dubois/naaccp ideology has reached it's limit and it aint all that, as can be seen by the present and continued violation of black rights

both booker t and bubois were done in by the lack of a black economy and their dependence on white money, so i think thats a lesson learned and that is why this story of white funding of BLM is very important

now that we have reached the limit of the dubois naacp philosphy, imo its time to go back and refine the the booker t/garvey philopsophy of pursuing economic power, and because we are intelligent we will try it again but not repeat the mistakes of the past of basing our economic plans on benevolent white money

save the "everybody knows" or "any student of history" jargon and let the facts present the context

You do realize that "equality" is different than social and political equality? it's clear that you don't respect authorship. Things are written to provide details for readers to have context, not for reckless summarizing to support a narrative

Dubois wasn't against economic efforts, he felt in addition to economic effort we need not to ignore the social and political effort. So your "dubois/naacp" miscategorizing is yet another failed attempt to incorrectly summarize to fit a narrative

both booker t and bubois were done in by the lack of a black economy and their dependence on white money

smh . It's this kind of generalizing and utter disregard for fact is why nikkas like you need to be called out. Both men established legacies have helped black folks of different tax brackets from then to the present. How is that not a success, but "being done in"?

Where should both Washingon and Dubois have gotten their money?

name calling is one thing, colluding with the us government to deport the Honorable Marcus Garvey is unforgivable, that will always be a stain in dubois' record

true

No emotion needed ,just facts.
Two powerful / influential men,
both about black empowerment,
but with personal vendetta with each other,
was trying to undermine each other by using their resources.

With one man having more resources to shyt on the other

it what it is, no right or wrong

i dont know the history of every person that "leads" blm but they are misguided, the should stop focusing on social activism, stop accepting white funding, stop begging white people to feel their pain and should focus on economics
deray however is a koon/puppet/agent, this story is evidence of that

No history of members
Return to using racial buzz words in place of facts
Do you at least have evidence for Deray claims?....evidence OR STFU

 

[Isaiah Bradley]

my bad for people that already know this but for those dont dont here are the basics of the booker t vs dubois argument

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ug03/souls/washingtonvsdubois.html

all it takes is a simple innanet search to have facts, no need to present links with wording as "criticized by many today"

 

[theworldismine13]

all it takes is a simple innanet search to have facts, no need to present links with wording as "criticized by many today"

i was just posting that because i think there are people that dont know about the booker t vs dubois argument, its a quick link that summarizes the issue and its not something that is taught in schools except in university AA history classes

 

[Isaiah Bradley]

i was just posting that because i think there are people that dont know about the booker t vs dubois argument, its a quick link that summarizes the issue and its not something that is taught in schools except in university AA history classes

But you same nikka that write "everybody knows" lol

besides, there's no way two paragraphs finna give context to these two great men efforts. Especially when the link is using phrases like "horribly disagreed"

 

[theworldismine13]

save the "everybody knows" or "any student of history" jargon and let the facts present the context

no i wont, because i know its true, there is nothing controversial about stating that both booker t and dubois had mixed records, that is a very middle of the road statement that 90 percent of black scholars would agree with

You do realize that "equality" is different than social and political equality?

there are many different ways to define equality just like there are different ways of defining civil rights

it's clear that you don't respect authorship. Things are written to provide details for readers to have context, not for reckless summarizing to support a narrative

things are written so a human being can analyze the writing and come to their own conclusion

i came to my conclusion based on facts

Dubois wasn't against economic efforts, he felt in addition to economic effort we need not to ignore the social and political effort. So your "dubois/naacp" miscategorizing is yet another failed attempt to incorrectly summarize to fit a narrative

the issue isnt being for or against, the issue was priorities

dubois was for economic development, and booker t was for civic rights, they differed on which was the priority

smh . It's this kind of generalizing and utter disregard for fact is why nikkas like you need to be called out. Both men established legacies have helped black folks of different tax brackets from then to the present. How is that not a success, but "being done in"?

dubois embraced communism a horrible economic system that was worse then capitalism and colluded with the government to deport garvey booker came out publicly against pursuing civic rights for blacks

their dependence on white money caused this

Where should both Washingon and Dubois have gotten their money?

from black people, that is why ultimately it all comes down to economics

people like you that think black people cant do this or that simply lack creativity and imagination

Garvey raised millions of dollars from black people and that is why garvey is so important to AA history and why black people need to study him

if dubois had turned to garvey instead of his white patrons they both would have accomplished way more

No emotion needed ,just facts.
Two powerful / influential men,
both about black empowerment,
but with personal vendetta with each other,
was trying to undermine each other by using their resources.

With one man having more resources to shyt on the other

it what it is, no right or wrong

i dont know what you are saying here

my point was about blm being koon/puppet/agents