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

[theworldismine13]

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"

its a summary and its accurate

yeah i did say everybody knows but then i realized i learned about the details and issues about garvey, dubois and booker t from a class in college so "everybody" would have to be limited to people that studied AA history or took a class on it and not everybody in the board has done that so i was just putting up that link for their benefit

so anybody that has taken or studied AA history would know that there is nothing controversial about stating that both booker t and dubois had mixed records and any black person especial blm members should study history so they dont make the same mistakes as dubois and booker t

a proper reading of AA history and the mixed legacies of booker t and dubois would let you know why its wrong for blm to get money from white people, even if its from "good white folk"

 

[Isaiah Bradley]

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

smh. now you just pulling out numbers from thin air
So if I say I know 99% of scholars will disagree. I win

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

blatant example of nikkas arguing just to argue. This doesn't even makes sense

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

facts? lol

this kind of conclusion based on facts...

You have no facts whether the Soros' provided BLM an agenda
OR
whether BLM provided the financiers with an agenda

never said i did, but i wouldnt be surprised if they did

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

This is why you need to visit websites that doesn't offer watered down summaries in place of full facts

Trying to force a debate about priorities on goals that you admitted could be striven for simultaneously, without undermining each other, further shows you are arguing just to argue

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

smh. Now you wanna talk about economic ideologies
The raceless/genderless debate between communism vs capitalism has nothing to do with who was funding who

evidence or STFU

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

black people during the mid 19th century to 20th century, had money to fund these efforts?
So black folks' wealth became poorer as the years went by?

i dont know what you are saying here
my point was about blm being koon/puppet/agents

Claiming something is unforgivable is being emotional
You should focus on the facts and stop man worshiping and choosing sides like a sheeple


My point is you are still talking outcheazz...you have
No history of members
Return to using racial buzz words in place of facts
Again, do you at least have evidence for Deray claims?....evidence OR STFU

 

[Isaiah Bradley]

its a summary and its accurate

yeah i did say everybody knows but then i realized i learned about the details and issues about garvey, dubois and booker t from a class in college so "everybody" would have to be limited to people that studied AA history or took a class on it and not everybody in the board has done that so i was just putting up that link for their benefit

this nikka said this while on the innanet

 

[theworldismine13]

smh. now you just pulling out numbers from thin air
So if I say I know 99% of scholars will disagree. I win

its not out of thin air, its from my understanding of the issue and from scholars that have written about it, its 100 percent as far as i know, i just say 90% because there is a possibility that there is some c00n scholar somewhere that thinks dubois did the right thing with garvey and that booker t was right to come out against civic rights

blatant example of nikkas arguing just to argue. This doesn't even makes sense

there are different ways of defining equality and civil rights, why does that not make sense,

facts? lol

yeah facts

this kind of conclusion based on facts...

i have evidence that soros and other liberals are providing funding for blm

i didnt say that soros provided blm with an agenda or that blm provided soros with their agenda

i dont think you need that level of cooperation for the pernicious effects of white money to manifest themselves

i said that blm represent an archaic paradigm where white liberals support black people engaging in social activism aka begging white people and that white money distorts and misguides black people about whats important

that is my conclusion from reading the facts about booker t, garvey and dubois

This is why you need to visit websites that doesn't offer watered down summaries in place of full facts

Trying to force a debate about priorities on goals that you admitted could be striven for simultaneously, without undermining each other, further shows you are arguing just to argue

everything in that link is accurate

i never admitted or agreed that goals should be striven for simultaneously, im a garveyite, i believe that the #1 priority should be economic development, everything else is secondary, that is my beef with blm

smh. Now you wanna talk about economic ideologies
The raceless/genderless debate between communism vs capitalism has nothing to do with who was funding who

its just my opinion but i think dubois not prioritizing economics and being dependent on white patrons led him to communism

black people during the mid 19th century to 20th century, had money to fund these efforts?

yes they did, garvey raised millions

this type of negativity is how the pernicious effect of white money manifests itself when you start accepting white money for black social endeavors

apparently you cant even fathom or imagine black people doing something on their own and get your panties in a bunch cuz the God Emperor suggest avoiding white patronage

lets remember this whole multipage argument is simply you asserting and demanding that black people accept white money

So black folks' wealth became poorer as the years went by?

what?

Claiming something is unforgivable is being emotional

saying that dubois colluding with the us government to deport garvey is a stain in his career is neither emotional or controversial, its an accepted fact by most black scholars and most black people that read about it

You should focus on the facts and stop man worshiping and choosing sides like a sheeple

the facts are that dubois colluded with the us government to deport garvey, you need to stop avoiding that fact

My point is you are still talking outcheazz...you have
No history of members
Return to using racial buzz words in place of facts
Again, do you at least have evidence for Deray claims?....evidence OR STFU

i posted this story in this thread, this story that started this thread is evidence of deray being a koon/puppet/agent

 

[Isaiah Bradley]

its not out of thin air, its from my understanding of the issue and from scholars that have written about it, its 100 percent as far as i know, i just say 90% because there is a possibility that there is some c00n somewhere that thinks dubois did the right thing with garvey and that booker t was right to come out against civic rights
there are different ways of defining equality and civil rights, why does that not make sense,

So I should accept stat information from a nikka that says tax payer money is white money?
So I should accept stat information from a nikka that admits to pushing a narrative, regardless of the lack of evidence?
So I should accept stat information from a nikka that doesn't know the word equality is not the same as the words social and political equality?
So I should accept stat information from a nikka that doesn't know Civil Rights has one meaning?

Again, you have no regard for authorship. You are clearly a troll

yeah facts
i have evidence that soros and other liberals are providing funding for blm
i didnt say that soros provided blm with an agenda or that blm provided soros with their agenda
i dont think you need the level of cooperation for the pernicious effects of white money to manifest themselves
i said that blm represent an archaic paradigm where white liberals support black people engaging in social activism aka begging white people and that white money distorts and misguides black people about whats important
that is my conclusion from reading the facts about booker t, garvey and dubois
everything in that link is accurate

Purely insinuation, assumption, and speculation without evidence
You did not present Washington, Garvey, or Dubois' efforts accurately to earn any reasonably amount of credibility and trust.
I already told you racial buzzwords with winks don't inspire or scare me, save it for the next person

i never admitted or agreed that goals should be striven for simultaneously, im a garveyite, i believe that the #1 priority should be economic development, everything else is secondary, that is my beef with blm

ohhh fail attempt with the should vs could slight. But you're contradicting yourself again

yeah pretty much, black people that are concerned about police brutality can march on the street for some emotional release but the real question they need to ask ask themselves is, what is their credit score, how many stocks they own, how much real estate do they own and how many business do they own and how many black business do you patronize, do they know who garvey is?

Every question you posted is what responsible and informed adult that are citizens will do, regardless of race
You could answer all those questions and support BLM. Trying to undermine other efforts to prop your own up is childish and ego tripping

Like knowing who Garvey is will suddenly spark motivation and commitment. His story has been around since the early 20th century breh
Prefixing the word black on concepts, doesn't spark motivation and commitment
Having a good credit score, doesn't spark motivation and commitment
Black skin, doesn't spark motivation and commitment
Labeling with terms like "whiteman begging", "white liberal funding," doesn't spark motivation and commitment

yeah i didnt say you couldnt, what i said its important to get your economics straight first and then go march in the street, economics comes first social activism second

its just my opinion but i think dubois not prioritizing economics and being dependent on white patrons led him to communism

You giving opinion while I'm talking facts means I'm wasting my time with you

yes they did, garvey raised millions
this type of negativity is how the pernicouse effects of white money manifests itself when start accepting white money for black social endeavors apparently you cant even fathom or imagine black people doing something on their own and get your panties in a bunch cuz the God Emperor suggest avoiding white patronage
lets remember this whole multipage argument is simply you asserting and demanding that black people accept white money
what?

evidence or STFU

Without knowing the history of Washington, it would be misleading to simply say a blackman funded Garvey
So to say that white liberal money did not directly or indirectly fund Garvey's efforts, is you man worshiping and talking shyt

saying that dubois colluding with the us government to deport garvey is a stain in his career is neither emotional or controversial, its an accepted fact by my most black scholars and most black people that read about it
the facts are that dubois colluded with the us government to deport garvey, you need to stop avoiding that fact

"stain in his career" is emotional chatter and biased gibberish

I already addressed the Dubios and Garvey result...

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 posted this story in this thread, this story that started this thread is evidence of deray being a koon/puppet/agent

lol. A nikka living in a crib is evidence of koon/puppet/agent




After this multipage discussion the facts are...
no evidence of who wrote the agenda for BLM, so manipulation claims are assumptions
no evidence of deray downplaying wealth building

 

[theworldismine13]

So I should accept stat information from a nikka that says tax payer money is white money?

this is perfect example of the inanity of your posts

black people are 12% of the population, so 88% of tax revenue comes from non black people , but when you factor in corporate tax and the lower income of black people, black people probably make up less then 10% of tax revenue

so its accurate to say that the police are paid by white people, so they answer to white people

So I should accept stat information from a nikka that admits to pushing a narrative, regardless of the lack of evidence?

ive presented all the evidence for my assertions and statements

i havent pesented any evidence for any statments that i would hypothetically make, according to you

So I should accept stat information from a nikka that doesn't know the word equality is not the same as the words social and political equality?

equality can mean any number of different things depending in what context you are using it and what adjective or qualifier you put before or after it

So I should accept stat information from a nikka that doesn't know Civil Rights has one meaning?

same thing goes for civil rights

so the point is you have to specify what you mean by equality and civil rights

Again, you have no regard for authorship. You are clearly a troll

i dont know what the phrase "no regard for authorship" means

im not a troll, im the God Emperor aka the Humble African

Purely insinuation, assumption, and speculation without evidence
You did not present Washington, Garvey, or Dubois' efforts accurately to earn any reasonably amount of credibility and trust.
I already told you racial buzzwords with winks don't inspire or scare me, save it for the next person

well its actually an extrapolation

if you look at how accepting and being dependent on white money effected booker t and dubois its easy (for anyone of reasonable intelligence) to extrapolate what will happen to blm and the limits it will place on blm

anybody that thinks its no big deal that soros or other liberals are supporting blm doesnt know their history

ohhh fail attempt with the should vs could slight. But you're contradicting yourself again

so your evidence is a bunch of quotes of me saying that economics comes first and social activism second?

LOL, ok

like i said, people can march on the street, but people need to make sure you are working toward high credit scores, and owning business and/or real estate before you go joining any marches

deray, blm and other social activists need to slow down and re orientate themselves and put economics first (not equal)

You giving opinion while I'm talking facts means I'm wasting my time with you

if you say so

evidence or STFU

you need evidence that garvey raised millions of dollars from black people?????


thats AA history 101, go read a book

Without knowing the history of Washington, it would be misleading to simply say a blackman funded Garvey

a black man did not fund garvey, black people got together and funded garvey, many black men and women funded garvey

So to say that white liberal money did not directly or indirectly fund Garvey's efforts, is you man worshiping and talking shyt

i said that garvey raised millions from black people, instead of being proud of that, your response is to assert that its impossible that garvey raised money without white liberals and that there had to be white liberal money involved




for the love of god, stop the c00ning

"stain in his career" is emotional chatter and biased gibberish

if you say so

I already addressed the Dubios and Garvey result...

yeah you addressed it by ignoring and trying to downplay the fact the dubois colluded with the us government to deport garvey, i believe the technical term for what he did was snitching

now granted he did a lot of good things but he was essentially a snitch and a government informant against another black man, that is a stain on his legacy

lol. A nikka living in a crib is evidence of koon/puppet/agent

yeah

After this multipage discussion the facts are...
no evidence of who wrote the agenda for BLM, so manipulation claims are assumptions
no evidence of deray downplaying wealth building

facts is this multipage discussion is just you crying like a little bytch cuz i said blm should avoid getting funded by white liberals

apparently my wise and innocuous statement got your panties in a bunch, sent you you into an uncontrollable rage and made you start writing essays

so lets marinate on this, why is white liberal money so important to you that made you start writing all these essays and causes you such anger????

why is it that you are so sure that the black race is doomed if they are not supported by white liberals?

why are you so distraught, foaming at the mouth and gnashing your teeth over the notion that black people, blm specifically, should seperate from white liberals?

why do you lack the creativity and imagination to figure out how black people can raise money without white liberals?

(for the record, these questions ^^^^ are rhetorical and its just my passive aggressive way of calling you a c00n)

 

[Isaiah Bradley]

this is perfect example of the inanity of your posts
black people are 12% of the population, so 88% of tax revenue comes from black people max, but when you factor in corporate tax and the lower income in tax, black people probaly make up less then 10% of tax revenue
so its accurate to say that the police are paid by white people, so they answer to white people

smh. Stop with smart dumb nikka rationalizing

To be a tax payer is not based on race
So tax money comes from tax payers. If you don't pay taxes, you are not a tax payer

ive presented all the evidence for my assertions and statements
i havent pesented any evidence for any statments that i would hypothetically make, according to you

really?

You have no facts whether the Soros' provided BLM an agenda
OR
whether BLM provided the financiers with an agenda

never said i did, but i wouldnt be surprised if they did

Post evidence OR STFU

equality can mean any number of different things depending in what context you are using it and what adjective or qualifier you put before or after it
same thing goes for civil rights
so the point is you have to specify what you mean by equality and civil rights
i dont know what the phrase "no regard for authorship" means
im not a troll, im the God Emperor aka the Humble African

more smart dumb nikka reasoning is adding vocabulary words to an explanation, thinking he's answering the question

Context, adjectives, and qualifiers has nothing to do with whether the word equality is the same as the words social and political equality. And whether Civil Rights has a distinct meaning

authorship means the occupation of writing. You don't respect why the author chose the words that they do in order to communicate to the reader. This is evident in your post about equality and civil rights, and your inability to understand that "members of NAACP" doesn't mean NAACP

well its actually an extrapolation
if you look at how accepting and being dependent on white money effected booker t and dubois its easy (for anyone of reasonable intelligence) to extrapolate what will happen to blm and the limits it will place on blm
anybody that thinks its no big deal that soros or other liberals are supporting blm doesnt know their history

To attempt to make educated assumptions of a pattern, you must first prove the behavior of the pattern is true

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"?

so your evidence is a bunch of quotes of me saying that economics comes first and social activism second?
LOL, ok
like i said, people can march on the street, but people need to make sure you are working toward high credit scores, and owning business and/or real estate before you go joining any marches
deray, blm and other social activists need to slow down and re orientate themselves

The evidence is to show that you're just ego tripping. Fake outrage
You've agreed that you could achieve goals simultaneous because they don't directly undermine each other
So you talmbowt what should be first or last is purely grandstand Who you trying to impress?

if you say so
you need evidence that garvey raised millions of dollars from black people?????


thats AA history 101, go read a book

Oh word, so if it's in a book, with the innanet, it should be easy as hell for you to present the facts
I'm sure a breakdown of how money was raised is available?

a black man did not fund garvey, black people got together and funded garvey, many black men and women funded garvey

i said that garvey raised millions from black people, instead of being proud of that, your response is to assert that its impossible that garvey rasied money without white liberals and that there had to be white liberal money involved


for the love of god, stop the c00ning

No respect for authorship

Has nothing to do with "impossible," it's a lesson in allowing facts to provide context and understanding, regardless of who/what we talk about

You being a self proclaimed Garveyite, should be able to present this information with no problem
But instead you responded with a generic "look in a book"
Not even a page reference from his autobiography, you couldn't respond with

if you say so
yeah you addressed it by ignoring and trying to downplay the fact the dubois colluded with the us government to deport garvey, i believe the technical term for what he did was snitching
now granted he did a lot of good things but he was essentially a snitch and a government informant against another black man, that is a stain on his legacy

How could I address something and ignore it at the same time
Like I said, stop being emotional and let the facts provide context

Snitching? So Dubois and Garvey did dirt together, then got caught. Then Dubois went state witness against Garvey?

yeah
facts is this multipage discussion is just you crying like a little bytch cuz i said blm should avoid getting funded by white liberals
appareantly my innocous statement sent you you into an uncontrollable rage and made you start writing essays

so lets marinate on this, why is white liberal money so important to you that made you start writing all these essays and causes you such anger????
why is it that you are so sure that the black race is doomed if they are not supported by white liberals?
why do you lack the creativity and imigination to figure out how black people can raise money without white liberals?
(for the record, these questions ^^^^ are rhetorical and its just my passive aggressive way of calling you a c00n)

If all else fails, call the other person a cac or koon
this is coming from someone who says living in a crib means a person is a koon/agent/puppet

Multipage request for evidence, suggestions for alternate orgs, alternate funding from you results in

 

[theworldismine13]

smh. Stop with smart dumb nikka rationalizing

To be a tax payer is not based on race
So tax money comes from tax payers. If you don't pay taxes, you are not a tax payer

this is inane

i didint say being a tax payer is based on race, i said 90 percent of tax revenue comes from non black people

really?

yeah, really

Post evidence OR STFU

for what?

more smart dumb nikka reasoning is adding vocabulary words to an explanation, thinking he's answering the question

Context, adjectives, and qualifiers has nothing to do with whether the word equality is the same as the words social and political equality. And whether Civil Rights has a distinct meaning

im confused about what point you are trying to make

authorship means the occupation of writing. You don't respect why the author chose the words that they do in order to communicate to the reader. This is evident in your post about equality and civil rights, and your inability to understand that "members of NAACP" doesn't mean NAACP

ok, sure

To attempt to make educated assumptions of a pattern, you must first prove the behavior of the pattern is true

booker t came out against black civic rights to get white money

dubois turned against garvey to please white people

that is where blm is headed, blm will never say anything against white liberalism if they are getting money from white liberals and it will continue pursuing the archaic paradigm of po black folk being led by white liberals

The evidence is to show that you're just ego tripping. Fake outrage

ok but i thought you were going to show that i was contradicting myself

You've agreed that you could achieve goals simultaneous because they don't directly undermine each other

i never agreed with that, in every quote i said that economics comes first, there is no contradiction in what im saying

So you talmbowt what should be first or last is purely grandstand Who you trying to impress?

its not for show, its what ive been saying from the beginning, thats why you cant find any post where i contradict that

if you disagree with my opinion thats fine, but you disagreeing with me or you thinking im just grandstanding doesnt mean im contradicting myself

my position has been clear, economics first everything else second, economics is not equal

Oh word, so if it's in a book, with the innanet, it should be easy as hell for you to present the facts
I'm sure a breakdown of how money was raised is available?

i dont know if there is an exact figure of how much the unia raised in its history but it was in the millions

Black Business Network | Marcus Garvey

His most famous business venture was a shipping company known as the Black Star Line. Garvey started the shipping company in 1919 as a way to promote trade but also to transport passengers to Africa. He believed it could also serve as an important and tangible sign of Black success. The Black Star Line, Inc. was incorporated in Delaware as a U.S. domestic corporation on June 27, 1919. It began with ten million dollars in investment capital. It sold shares individually valued at five dollars to both U.N.I.A. members and non-members alike. Proceeds from stock sales were used to purchase first the S.S. Yarmouth and then the S.S. Shadyside. The Shadyside was used by the Association for summer outings and excursions, as well as rented out on charter to other organizations. The Black Star Line later purchased the Kanawha as its third vessel. This small yacht was intended for inter-island transportation in the West Indies and was rechristened the S.S. Antonio Maceo.

No respect for authorship

Has nothing to do with "impossible," it's a lesson in allowing facts to provide context and understanding, regardless of who/what we talk about

You being a self proclaimed Garveyite, should be able to present this information with no problem
But instead you responded with a generic "look in a book"
Not even a page reference from his autobiography, you couldn't respond with

again lets make this clear, this whole paragraph is you being incredulous that a black man raised million of dollars, this whole paragraph is exhibit A of a pathetic black man and how white liberal money corrodes the black mind

you have no creativity and no imagination, you are just a zombie

How could I address something and ignore it at the same time
Like I said, stop being emotional and let the facts provide context

Snitching? So Dubois and Garvey did dirt together, then got caught. Then Dubois went state witness against Garvey?

you are doing it right now, your way of addressing it is ignoring it and downplaying it

If all else fails, call the other person a cac or koon
this is coming from someone who says living in a crib means a person is a koon/agent/puppet

Multipage request for evidence, suggestions for alternate orgs, alternate funding from you results in

i dont even like calling people c00ns, but there is no other word for a black man that would write essays for pages and rage just because the Humble African said that black people should not accept white liberal money

and now you are sitting here in complete shock that a black man raised millions of dollars without any help from white liberals, i think i just shattered your whole world

 

[Isaiah Bradley]

this is inane
i didint say being a tax payer is based on race, i said 90 percent of tax revenue comes from non black people

tax payer money is not white money, thus it's not based on race
It's amazing you're still arguing about this

yeah, really
for what?

I ask for evidence to prove your claims, and you ask why?
If you posted evidence or had it, you wouldn't ask why

im confused about what point you are trying to make

lol. There's nothing confusing in saying that you're doing too much with the smart dumb nikka reasoning by using unnecessary vocabulary words (peep what I did there?) in an explanation. It doesn't answer the question of whether the word "equality" has the same meaning of the words "social" and "political equality"

ok, sure
booker t came out against black civic rights to get white money
dubois turned against garvey to please white people
that is where blm is headed, blm will never say anything against white liberalism if they are getting money from white liberals and it will continue pursuing the archaic paradigm of po black folk being led by white liberals

to say ok to meaning of authorship, but then still violate it, shows that your comprehension skills are low AND/OR you're trolling

Switching between the word "equality" and "civic rights," further shows your lack of respect and understanding for "words"
There's nothing interchangeable between these words because they have different meanings

ok but i thought you were going to show that i was contradicting myself
i never agreed with that, in every quote i said that economics comes first, there is no contradiction in what im saying
its not for show, its what ive been saying from the beginning, thats why you cant find any post where i contradict that
if you disagree with my opinion thats fine, but you disagreeing with me or you thinking im just grandstanding doesnt mean im contradicting myself
my position has been clear, economics first everything else second, economics is not equal

Oh yeah, you did not say you agreed, you said "i didnt say you couldnt," lmao
You're about ego and opinion, but you should be about facts by not using watered down technicality arguments like this

You did contradict yourself when you claim that BLM efforts were hurting black folks, while later admitting that their efforts could be done simultaneous with other efforts, so they are not hurting black folks or any other efforts

You're grandstanding and clearly jealousy that nikkas that are about action, are able to network within and outside of their social circles to get shyt done. You can't, thus the word play "i didnt say you couldnt"

You're dealing with opinions, thus the emotional, bias, and misleading summaries of Washington and Dubois efforts

i dont know if there is an exact figure of how much the unia raised in its history but it was in the millions
Black Business Network | Marcus Garvey
again lets make this clear, this whole paragraph is you being incredulous that a black man raised million of dollars, this whole paragraph is exhibit A of a pathetic black man and how white liberal money corrodes the black mind
you have no creativity and no imagination, you are just a zombie

The exact figure don't matter, that wasn't my point. It has nothing to do with whether blackfolks could build something, it has to do with what you could present as facts

Like I said, without knowing the history of Washington, it would be misleading to simply say a blackman invested in Garvey. Washington networked among various racial groups to get things accomplished

How many Washington-isc folks existed back then that chose to support or not to support Garvey? There's no record to show the educated, financial, social breakdown of the type of Black folks that supported Garvey efforts. Was it the rich, poor, educated etc

Knowing that Garvey don't fawk with whitefolks, FBI sent black faces to infiltrate. How many black faces did white entrepreneurs send inorder to get returns from a successful company or to also sabotage? 0,1 or 15

So like Washington, the act of securing money doesn't make a person a koon/puppet/agent. His actions and intentions determines that

you are doing it right now, your way of addressing it is ignoring it and downplaying it

For you to misrepresent Washington and Dubois efforts to push a narrative is more agent like than Deray living in a crib

For crying out loud, we're having a discussion about the meaning of words because you choose to recklessly present Washington's economic focus, while staying separate from white folks, as mix and controversial. But you don't mention Garvey's efforts with the KKK and white supremacist

You misrepresent Dubois efforts as a puppet to white funding because he assisted the government against Garvey, while ignoring their personal dislike of each other and Dubois views that any person claiming black separation is implicitly suggesting that they are inferior to white folks

Only a self serving, ego tripping smart dumb nikka that's trying to push a narrative would choose to misrepresent these great men legacies

i dont even like calling people c00ns, but there is no other word for a black man that would write essays for pages and rage just because the Humble African said that black people should not accept white liberal money
and now you are sitting here in complete shock that a black man raised millions of dollars without any help from white liberals, i think i just shattered your whole world

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

If all else fails, call the other person a cac or koon
this is coming from someone who says living in a crib means a person is a koon/agent/puppet

Multipage request for evidence, suggestions for alternate orgs, alternate funding from you results in

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

no alternate orgs to suggest + no funding to offer + racial labels = stereotypical black militant

I'm pro-black,
not
pro-rhetoric,
pro-emotion,
pro-jealousy,
pro-manworhsip
pro-narrative

 

[I_Got_Da_Burna]

I never understood the problem folks have about who's funding BLM, instead of who;s not funding BLM


what makes him an agent?

What's wrong with a billionaire liberal funding liberal interest?

there's a huge problem

as you can see, BLM lacks direction, leadership, and focus. that's clearly from the billionaire putting in his hand-picked nobodies in Deray and Netta, who haven't accomplished anything in their lives, into leasership positions. Another problem from a liberal donor funding the BLM is that we are seeing other liberal special interest groups muddy-up the whole purpose of the movement. You got this fruitcake Deray talking about gaylivesmatter because he's gay and he and netta feel like they need to crowbar the LGBT movement into BLM, which is ridiculous. The movement was originally for black people, not the LGBT community, or democrats, or black feminists. That's the fukking problem with a liberal funding the movement...he controls and dictates the direction of the movement, when it should be black people who control it.

 

[theworldismine13]

there's a huge problem

as you can see, BLM lacks direction, leadership, and focus. that's clearly from the billionaire putting in his hand-picked nobodies in Deray and Netta, who haven't accomplished anything in their lives, into leasership positions. Another problem from a liberal donor funding the BLM is that we are seeing other liberal special interest groups muddy-up the whole purpose of the movement. You got this fruitcake Deray talking about gaylivesmatter because he's gay and he and netta feel like they need to crowbar the LGBT movement into BLM, which is ridiculous. The movement was originally for black people, not the LGBT or democrats, or black feminists. That's the fukking problem with a liberal funding the movement...he controls and dictates the direction of the movement, when it should be black people who control it.

bu bu bu bu what is we gon do without the good white folk supporting us

 

[theworldismine13]

tax payer money is not white money, thus it's not based on race
It's amazing you're still arguing about this

if 90% of it is coming from white people it can be reasonably described as white money

I ask for evidence to prove your claims, and you ask why?
If you posted evidence or had it, you wouldn't ask why

the proof of my claims is the first post in this thread

lol. There's nothing confusing in saying that you're doing too much with the smart dumb nikka reasoning by using unnecessary vocabulary words (peep what I did there?) in an explanation. It doesn't answer the question of whether the word "equality" has the same meaning of the words "social" and "political equality"

i just dont really care about this semantical point

to say ok to meaning of authorship, but then still violate it, shows that your comprehension skills are low AND/OR you're trolling

ok

Switching between the word "equality" and "civic rights," further shows your lack of respect and understanding for "words"
There's nothing interchangeable between these words because they have different meanings

sure, if you say so

Oh yeah, you did not say you agreed, you said "i didnt say you couldnt," lmao
You're about ego and opinion, but you should be about facts by not using watered down technicality arguments like this

yeah i said you can prioritize civic rights, you can prioritize economics or you can make them equal, you can do anything you want, i wasnty disputing that it can be done

i think you are confusing my acknowledging that there are different ways of prioritizating with me cosigning, you can, i just disagree that we should

i was saying that IMO economics comes first, not second and not equal, economics is priority #1

You did contradict yourself when you claim that BLM efforts were hurting black folks, while later admitting that their efforts could be done simultaneous with other efforts, so they are not hurting black folks or any other efforts

multiples goals can be pursued simultaneously, im saying it shouldnt, its a mistake, goals should be prioritized

since you are such a stickler for language, do you know the difference between could and should, me saying it could is not me saying it should

You're grandstanding and clearly jealousy that nikkas that are about action, are able to network within and outside of their social circles to get shyt done. You can't, thus the word play "i didnt say you couldnt"

and this is where the c00ning starts folks and whats wrong with people like deray and where dubois fukked up, he is measuring his progress by how many white people he can convince and associate with

what exactly has deray gotten done by associating outside of his social circle?

You're dealing with opinions, thus the emotional, bias, and misleading summaries of Washington and Dubois efforts

the summary i posted was perfectly accurate

The exact figure don't matter, that wasn't my point. It has nothing to do with whether blackfolks could build something, it has to do with what you could present as facts

i said garvey raised millions of dollars from black men and women, and i posted evidence of it

Like I said, without knowing the history of Washington, it would be misleading to simply say a blackman invested in Garvey. Washington networked among various racial groups to get things accomplished

How many Washington-isc folks existed back then that chose to support or not to support Garvey? There's no record to show the educated, financial, social breakdown of the type of Black folks that supported Garvey efforts. Was it the rich, poor, educated etc

i never said a black man invested in garvey, i said black men and women invested in garvey

why would i care what type of black people supported garvey, the point is they were black and not white

Knowing that Garvey don't fawk with whitefolks, FBI sent black faces to infiltrate. How many black faces did white entrepreneurs send inorder to get returns from a successful company or to also sabotage? 0,1 or 15

i have no idea what the hell you are babbling about

you apparently are going through some cognitive dissonance due to the fact that you have spent pages saying that black people cannot raise money and they have to depend on white liberals

i posted proof of black people raising money without white liberals

So like Washington, the act of securing money doesn't make a person a koon/puppet/agent. His actions and intentions determines that

yeah and washington publicly denounce equal rights for black people to get white money, i wouldnt call him a koon because dude was fresh out, but he was wrong for what he did, and its a perfect example of why black people should not depend on white money

For you to misrepresent Washington and Dubois efforts to push a narrative is more agent like than Deray living in a crib

i didnt misrepresent anything, both dubois and booker have stains in their career, im just pointing them out

For crying out loud, we're having a discussion about the meaning of words because you choose to recklessly present Washington's economic focus, while staying separate from white folks, as mix and controversial. But you don't mention Garvey's efforts with the KKK and white supremacist

what about garvey's efforts with the KKK?

You misrepresent Dubois efforts as a puppet to white funding because he assisted the government against Garvey, while ignoring their personal dislike of each other and Dubois views that any person claiming black separation is implicitly suggesting that they are inferior to white folks

dubois' dislike of garvey and his criticism of garvey was due to white money and his desire to integrate with white folks, imo

Only a self serving, ego tripping smart dumb nikka that's trying to push a narrative would choose to misrepresent these great men legacies

i havent misrepresented anything, ive made a middle of the road statement concerning both men and i have acknowledged the good they did and the bad

I'm pro-black,
not
pro-rhetoric,
pro-emotion,
pro-jealousy,
pro-manworhsip
pro-narrative

so bottom line, lets continue to marinate that this whole multi page discussion is due to you getting your panties in bunch because i said that black people should avoid white liberal funding

why did it get you so mad?

why are you so convinced that black people cant raise their own money?

why do yo c00n so much? is a white liberal paying you?

 

[Isaiah Bradley]

there's a huge problem

as you can see, BLM lacks direction, leadership, and focus. that's clearly from the billionaire putting in his hand-picked nobodies in Deray and Netta, who haven't accomplished anything in their lives, into leasership positions. Another problem from a liberal donor funding the BLM is that we are seeing other liberal special interest groups muddy-up the whole purpose of the movement. You got this fruitcake Deray talking about gaylivesmatter because he's gay and he and netta feel like they need to crowbar the LGBT movement into BLM, which is ridiculous. The movement was originally for black people, not the LGBT community, or democrats, or black feminists. That's the fukking problem with a liberal funding the movement...he controls and dictates the direction of the movement, when it should be black people who control it.

I don't follow narratives
There's nothing "clearly" about something you can't prove with evidence/facts

Having no direction, leadership and focus are descriptions that can be applied to fortune 500 companies and high school group projects, it has nothing to do with who is funding who

How could they have no "direction, leadership and focus" but they
-presented an agenda,
-have nationwide network of activist,
-interrupted political rallies,
-met with political figures,
-are the focus of FBI investigations
-have constant news coverage

The narrative that BLM is being manipulated could easily be proven by providing evidence, not insinuations, assumptions and allegations

Without evidence, to prove your claim, you will have to depend on stereotypes, insinuations, and forced correlations like, Deray is living in a house owned by a rich person, so he's a koon/agent/puppet
The notion of having "connections/strong network/good boypoosay" to get options in your living situation is ignored to push a narrative

Let's start simple, provide evidence to...
Either Deray was able to network various social circles to secure funding for his efforts
OR
The various social circles chose Deray to be the face of the efforts...



BLM has from the beginning, promoted a black agenda, making sure not to use words like "people of color" or "minorities"

If you watched Dr. Umar Johnson videos, you will see a video of Dr. Umar following a similar unapologetic black agenda, where he specifically said that he's able to support black gays because he's able to separate the sexual orientation and the black person. Because that black person will still be a target of white supremacy agents

If you read those Dr. Umar threads, you will see me defending him from so-called pro-blacks that are desperate to undermine his efforts cause they don't like him. There are men in that thread pissed/complaining cause he a single man fawking a single woman

 

[theworldismine13]

I don't follow narratives
There's nothing "clearly" about something you can't prove with evidence/facts

Having no direction, leadership and focus are descriptions that can be applied to fortune 500 companies and high school group projects, it has nothing to do with who is funding who

How could they have no "direction, leadership and focus" but they
-presented an agenda,
-have nationwide network of activist,
-interrupted political rallies,
-met with political figures,
-are the focus of FBI investigations
-have constant news coverage

The narrative that BLM is being manipulated could easily be proven by providing evidence, not insinuations, assumptions and allegations

Without evidence, to prove your claim, you will have to depend on stereotypes, insinuations, and forced correlations like, Deray is living in a house owned by a rich person, so he's a koon/agent/puppet
The notion of having "connections/strong network/good boypoosay" to get options in your living situation is ignored to push a narrative

Let's start simple, provide evidence to...
Either Deray was able to network various social circles to secure funding for his efforts
OR
The various social circles chose Deray to be the face of the efforts...



BLM has from the beginning, promoted a black agenda, making sure not to use words like "people of color" or "minorities"

If you watched Dr. Umar Johnson videos, you will see a video of Dr. Umar following a similar unapologetic black agenda, where he specifically said that he's able to support black gays because he's able to separate the sexual orientation and the black person. Because that black person will still be a target of white supremacy agents

If you read those Dr. Umar threads, you will see me defending him from so-called pro-blacks that are desperate to undermine his efforts cause they don't like him. There are men in that thread pissed/complaining cause he a single man fawking a single woman

this is exactly the problem with blm movement its lack of focus on economics

economics should be the measuring sticks of accomplishments, not attention and not networking

blm is making the same mistake that booker t, dubois, naacp made, they were bamboozled because they thought attention and networking were accomplishments

killer mike has done way more than blm has ever done simply by focusing on economics, he was wasting his time trying to network and bring attention to bernie sanders, but the #bankblack movement is one of the most significant things black people have done in decades, blm and deray on the other hand is a joke and always will be as long as their main goal is attention and networking and other gibberish

 

[Isaiah Bradley]

if 90% of it is coming from white people it can be reasonably described as white money
the proof of my claims is the first post in this thread
i just dont really care about this semantical point

Using "reasonably described" to something that has a state of either being or not being, is further indication of ego tripping and talking shyt

You're making claims, with no evidence, so I'm checking you on your sloppiness and selfserving efforts

lmao. There's nothing semantics about knowing how to use words properly

ok
sure, if you say so
yeah i said you can prioritize civic rights, you can prioritize economics or you can make them equal, you can do anything you want, i wasnty disputing that it can be done
i think you are confusing my acknowledging that there are different ways of prioritizating with me cosigning, you can, i just disagree that we should
i was saying that IMO economics comes first, not second and not equal, economics is priority #1

What a fail attempt at trying to distort the point that your careless use of words and meanings negate any credibility to be seen as a thoughtful, detail oriented, and pragmatic individual

Again. Switching between the word "equality" and "civic rights," further shows your lack of respect and understanding for "words"
There's nothing interchangeable between these words because they have different meanings

Respect authorship

multiples goals can be pursued simultaneously, im saying it shouldnt, its a mistake, goals should be prioritized
since you are such a stickler for language, do you know the difference between could and should, me saying it could is not me saying it should

"Mistake," suggest a penalty and consequence. There's no penalty or consequence to achieving goals simultaneously that doesn't undermine each other

You being a stickler for a narrative. is grandstanding for your own ego. There's no reason for the should/could argument because either options will not undermine whether any goal could be achieved. Again, who are you trying to impress?

and this is where the c00ning starts folks and whats wrong with people like deray and where dubois fukked up, he is measuring his progress by how many white people he can convince and associate with
what exactly has deray gotten done by associating outside of his social circle?

and this is where the jealous smart dumb nikka rhetoric starts folk, to downplay the fact that you created a thread about a man, you don't know, living conditions. His social and/or professional network was able to spark action, while you are on the sideline forcing an unnecessary should/could discussion

the summary i posted was perfectly accurate
i said garvey raised millions of dollars from black men and women, and i posted evidence of it
i never said a black man invested in garvey, i said black men and women invested in garvey
why would i care what type of black people supported garvey, the point is they were black and not white

You're so quick to click the reply button, how about just reading for comprehension

It has nothing to do with a black man or blackmen investing

Just like you don't care that you cannot use two different meaning words interchangeably, why would you care about the actions and motivations of black folks who are able to network within various social/political/professional circles to attain money for their personal interest

i have no idea what the hell you are babbling about
you apparently are going through some cognitive dissonance due to the fact that you have spent pages saying that black people cannot raise money and they have to depend on white liberals
i posted proof of black people raising money without white liberals

You don't understand, so instead you rather write stereotyping nonsense
Show me where I said black people cannot raise money?
evidence or STFU

yeah and washington publicly denounce equal rights for black people to get white money, i wouldnt call him a koon because dude was fresh out, but he was wrong for what he did, and its a perfect example of why black people should not depend on white money
i didnt misrepresent anything, both dubois and booker have stains in their career, im just pointing them out
what about garvey's efforts with the KKK?
dubois' dislike of garvey and his criticism of garvey was due to white money and his desire to integrate with white folks, imo
i havent misrepresented anything, ive made a middle of the road statement concerning both men and i have acknowledged the good they did and the bad

this is so repetitive

you giving opinions while I'm using facts

you trying to give a "middle of the road statement," instead of presenting facts

again...

For you to misrepresent Washington and Dubois efforts to push a narrative is more agent like than Deray living in a crib

For crying out loud, we're having a discussion about the meaning of words because you choose to recklessly present Washington's economic focus, while staying separate from white folks, as mix and controversial. But you don't mention Garvey's efforts with the KKK and white supremacist

You misrepresent Dubois efforts as a puppet to white funding because he assisted the government against Garvey, while ignoring their personal dislike of each other and Dubois views that any person claiming black separation is implicitly suggesting that they are inferior to white folks

Only a self serving, ego tripping smart dumb nikka that's trying to push a narrative would choose to misrepresent these great men legacies

so bottom line, lets continue to marinate that this whole multi page discussion is due to you getting your panties in bunch because i said that black people should avoid white liberal funding
why did it get you so mad?
why are you so convinced that black people cant raise their own money?
why do yo c00n so much? is a white liberal paying you?

this is so repetitive...

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

If all else fails, call the other person a cac or koon
this is coming from someone who says living in a crib means a person is a koon/agent/puppet

Multipage request for evidence, suggestions for alternate orgs, alternate funding from you results in

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

no alternate orgs to suggest + no funding to offer + racial labels = stereotypical black militant

I'm pro-black,
not
pro-rhetoric,
pro-emotion,
pro-jealousy,
pro-manworhsip
pro-narrative