During the home stretch of President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign there was a shift in the public discourse that impacted the presidential race.
On February 26 of the same year, 17-year-old Trayvon Martin had a fatal encounter with Neighborhood Watch Coordinator George Zimmerman in Sanford, Florida.
Martin was visiting his father from Miami Gardens, Florida where he attended High School and lived with his mom. He was notoriously accosted and slain by Zimmerman, who identifies as Hispanic but was labeled “white” by the media.
Zimmerman claimed self-defense. The black community called it a “lynching.”
Black women in particular became more vocal and confrontational across social media platforms. They referred to themselves as “Social Justice Warriors” and grew into an intersectional movement of activists.
This mobilization helped define the political discourse, with race becoming a defining issue in our nation since then. Thus, “hashtag” activism was born.
Racism and police brutality was thrust front and center of a presidential election involving America’s first black president. All too aware of the power of social media due to the role it played in his historic 2008 election, President Obama lent his voice to the cause by proclaiming, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”
Like summoned imps, “neo-civil rights leaders” manifested online seemingly out of nowhere to monetize the despair and trauma of the black community. Black male tragedy had become political and social currency for a litany of opportunists.
There was Deray Mckesson, an openly gay black man with an apparent endorsement deal from Patagonia, the manufacturer of his trademark blue vest he was never seen without.
Deray visited the Obama White House several times for sit downs with the president to discuss race, and he also developed a convenient friendship with Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey. Twitter and Facebook play a significant role in driving the racial narrative.
Deray also had a failed run for mayor in his hometown of Baltimore, MD where despite being the best funded candidate, he garnered less than 3% of the vote. So much for being a representative of the people.
There was also Johnetta “Netta” Elzie, a Missouri native who burst onto the scene with the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson in 2013. Elzie eventually graced the cover of Essence Magazine, a publication catering to black women, where she was presented as an example of “Black Girl Magic.”
Netta now has an agent and booking fee for speaking engagements. The “magic” is still paying dividends for her.
With so much easy financial opportunity and overnight fame, being black became fashionable for the grifter crowd.
“Trans-racial” activists like Rachel Dolezal and Jessica Krug capitalized on the sudden emphasis on racial injustice and white guilt.
Both “identify” as black but are white women who grifted their way to being President of an NAACP chapter and History professor at George Washington University, respectively.
The most infamous of this lot is Shaun King, an ordained minister.
King’s racial identity was questioned so severely that he accused his white mother of adultery to explain why his birth certificate listed two white parents.
Apparently, paternity uncertainty is now an acceptable standard for “blackness.”
Criticizing systemic racism has proven to be a foolproof means of deflecting well-deserved scrutiny. Not surprisingly, he was an early influence on NFL activist Colin Kaepernick.
Activism has gone far beyond a mere cottage industry for the plethora of narcissistic celebrities, politicians, media shills, societal agitators and otherwise talentless rabble-rousers who have come to dominate that space.
I often refer to it as the “Grievance Industrial Complex.” An industry where the deaths of primarily black men and boys killed by white police officers are used to politically and economically reward people who only care for black men when our demise can advance their agenda.
There’s no other conclusion to draw when 262,000 black men were murdered in America between 1980 and 2013, more fatalities than every post-WWII war and conflict combined. Yet, there wasn’t a peep about black lives.
No other organization epitomizes the ideological duplicity highlighted thus far like Black Lives Matter.
Three black women are credited with forming the group, as well as falsely credited with developing the hashtag, after the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson. Exploiting black men is par for the course with this organization.
Two of the women are open lesbians which helps explain why a group founded to protest the extrajudicial killing of heterosexual black men and boys is so closely aligned with the mainstream LGBTQ movement.
This political sleight of hand is the only logical explanation for the exorbitant sums donated to the organization, as well as support among the white liberal elite.
Black Lives Matter is in fact a white LGBTQ organization in “black face.” One visit to their website will confirm this.
“We affirm the lives of Black queer and trans folks, disable folks, undocumented folks, folks with records, women, and all black lives along the gender spectrum,” their ‘About’ section reads.
What does any of that have to do with Michael Brown or Trayvon Martin?
This is not our movement. There has never been an organic movement for black people in this country with such widespread support.
Not even the vaunted Civil Rights Movement, which arguably did more for feminism than for the black people who swung from trees or faced dogs and water hoses to get the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ratified.
On July 3, 2020, none other than the New York Times ran a story titled, “Black Lives Matter May Be the Biggest Movement in U.S. History.” There’s a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you if you believe something of this magnitude is controlled by “hashtag activists.”
Black Lives Matter has raised hundreds of millions of dollars from donors like the Ford Foundation and Borealis Philanthropy, Michael Jordan, and George Soros through his Open Society Foundations.
The three women credited with transforming Black Lives Matter from a hashtag to a movement are Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors and Opal Tometi.
Recently, Cullors made headlines for reportedly spending roughly three million dollars on several homes; one home for $1.4 million in the pristine, white enclave of Topanga Canyons, California.
Not bad for a self-described Marxist and radical black combatant against white supremacy.
While $3 million may sound like a lot of money, it’s a mere pittance compared to the hundreds of millions raised with a reported $90 million donated in 2020 alone. Where is this money going?
Some speculate the money is finding its way to progressive Democrat candidates. Having been involved with two political campaigns in Michigan I can tell you raising money as a black candidate requires toeing the party line.
Campaigns cost and the required money does not come from the voters. That may explain why the Congressional Black Caucus unanimously supports the “Equality Act,” a bill designed to expand the protections and privileges of the Civil Rights Act meant for black people to the LGBTQ community.
The calculated placement of black LGBTQ people at the forefront of movements like Black Lives Matter has served to make black and gay issues interchangeable within the black community.
There’s something off about an organization formed to protest the killing of black men that appeals to online misandrists who routinely berate black, “cisgender” men.
These people have a love affair with words and new categories for everyone. Cisgender just means identifying as the gender assigned at birth, or simply put heterosexual, and in street parlance, “The Opps.”
One such woman, Brittany Ferrell, can be found by searching in Twitter, “black men are the upmost trash.” Never mind the erroneous usage of “upmost” rather than “utmost,” this woman is black and “verified” by Twitter.
Furthermore, she was featured in “Whose Streets,” the 2017 film about the aftermath of the Ferguson riots.
Although the film was about the death of Michael Brown and subsequent events, the filmmaker found the need to tell an unrelated lesbian couple’s story too, hence Ferrell’s appearance.
Needless to say, the film was critically acclaimed at that bastion of white liberalism, Sundance Film Festival. My film, “Black White & Blue,” was objective and focused on organic black issues instead of women or LGTBQ.
It never made it into any film festivals. I learned the importance of documentaries in shaping narratives. I simply had the wrong narrative.
The comparisons between the current crop of black activists and the civil rights activists of the 60’s once seemed inaccurate, but I’ve since accepted the similarity.
Instead of Deray McKesson, Dr. King had Bayard Rustin, his openly gay organizer of the March on Washington. Rustin has since been revealed to be a CIA asset even though he was also under surveillance by the FBI.
Also, like today’s movement, the Civil Rights Movement of the 60’s was rife with communist sympathizers and Marxists. Stanley Levison was a top King adviser who also served on the defense team of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, the couple who supplied American nuclear secrets to the Soviets. Levison also co-wrote a draft of King’s “I have a dream speech.”
Even Thurgood Marshall, the first black Supreme Court Justice, collaborated with the FBI to identify communists in the NAACP and civil rights movement prior to getting appointed to the court.
Ironically, the first Chairman of the NAACP was Joel Spingarn, a major in the Military Intelligence Division, the forerunner to the CIA. To this day, the highest honor bestowed by the NAACP is the Spingarn Medal.
A proper review of history will show America’s black community has repeatedly been infiltrated by what many presume are foreign forces, but are these forces truly foreign?
One of the basic tenets of COINTELPRO was to not only prevent the rise of a “black messiah,” but to create one instead. There are several people today who fit that description of being propped up to specifically mislead black people.
The emphasis on black people needing a “black leader” makes this strategy viable. I surmise that rationale not only applies to individuals but to movements as well. It should be clear that ideological subversion cannot receive such open support unless sanctioned at the very pinnacle of power.
When mainstream media, social media, politicians, and corporations all coalesce to promote and finance subversion then the subversives are simply agent provocateurs and controlled opposition.
No government tolerates treason, sedition, or subversion, much less allow the subversives to become fabulously wealthy, unless it serves a greater agenda.
Isn’t that exactly what we see happening before our very eyes? The bigger question is who is behind this, and why?