“Terror By White Supremacists”: BLM Denounces Coverage Of Co-Founder’s Real Estate Purchases While Facebook Censors Story

We recently discussed the move by Twitter to block the tweet of sports journalist Jason Whitlock criticizing the BLM co-founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors for purchasing a $1.4 million home in a secluded area of Los Angeles.  A self-professed Marxist, Cullors has reportedly purchased four homes worth more than $3 million and has looked at real estate investments in places like the Bahamas.  As with the censoring of a New York Post article on the Hunter Biden laptop story, Twitter was criticized for the censoring of the story and later said it was a mistake. Now, Facebook has reportedly blocked the underlying New York Post report about the controversy.  In the meantime, BLM itself insists that the controversy is little more than terrorism from white supremacists.

Various conservative sites reported this week that Facebook users could not share the link to a story that shed light on Cullors’ multi-million-dollar splurge on homes. Fox News reported that “an error message appears whenever users try sharing the article on their personal Facebook page or through the Messenger app.”

Cullors has not denied the purchase or the real estate investments, including in her statement below to the controversy. The story was widely circulated because Cullors has long insisted that she and her BLM co-founder “are trained Marxists. We are super versed on, sort of, ideological theories.”  She has denounced capitalism as worse than Covid-19.

Critics like Nick Arama of RedState pointed out: “[I]t’s interesting to note that the demographics of the area are only about 1.4% black people there. So not exactly living up to her creed there.”

Moreover, the head of New York City’s Black Lives Matter chapter called for an independent investigation into the organization’s finances in the wake of the controversy.

The New York Post and other publications reported that Cullors is eyeing expensive properties in other locations, including the Bahamas.  However, I noted earlier that there is no evidence that this money came from BLM, which has reportedly raised almost $100 million in donations from corporations and other sources. Indeed, Cullors seems to have ample sources of funds. She published a best selling memoir of her life and then a follow up book.  She also signed a lucrative deal with Warner Bros to develop and produce original programming across all platforms, including broadcast, cable and streaming. She has also been featured in various magazines like her recent collaboration with Jane Fonda.

Cullors responded to the controversy but did not deny the underlying facts:

“This movement began as, and will always remain a love letter to Black people. Three words – Black Lives Matter – serve as a reminder to Black people that we are human and deserve to live a vibrant and full life. I worked multiple jobs across many organizations my entire life. I’m also a published author, writer, producer, professor, public speaker, and performance artist.”

She later denounced the coverage of her alleged hypocrisy as an effort to “take[] away from where the focus should be – ending white supremacy”.

The main issue for me is not the house or the claimed hypocrisy. It is the censorship of Twitter and now Facebook. Cullors is a public figure who is subject to public scrutiny and commentary. Twitter is rife with a such criticism over the lifestyle choices of figures on the right ranging from Donald Trump Jr. to Rand Paul. That is an unfortunate aspect of being in a high visibility position. I would be equally concerned if criticism of Trump Jr.’s big game hunting exploits or Giuliani’s lavish tastes were censored.

As stated recently in testimony before the House, I remain an unabashed “Internet Originalist,” favoring the free forum for speech that once defined these Big Tech companies. The expanding censorship of the Internet continues to show bias and contractions as politicians push for “robust modification” to silence opposing views of everything from climate change to social justice. Twitter and Facebook now actively determine what people should know and discuss on matters of public interest.

BLM however is denouncing the coverage as raw racism.  In a statement, it insisted that Cullors has only made $120,000 from BLM.  Once again, I see no evidence that Cullors has taken any money inappropriately from BLM. To that end, I can see why BLM would issue a strong statement to knock down any suggestions of fraud or self-dealing with BLM funds. For any such organization, suggestions of fraud can have a serious impact on corporate and individual donations. As for Cullors herself, her own corporate deals would give her ample money for these real estate investments if the story is accurate.

Yet, BLM added that the reporting about her properties “continues a tradition of terror by white supremacists against Black activists.”  What is odd is that the head of NY BLM was that one of those calling for an investigation and presumably it is not part of that “tradition of terror by white supremacists.”

Most of the coverage concerned the irony of Cullors investing millions in real estate given her public persona as a dedicated Marxist. Indeed, some on the left have denounced her as a hypocrite after the disclosures of her investments and homes. Cullors has told followers that “While the COVID-19 illness is tragic, what’s more tragic is capitalism.” Nevertheless, BLM called the coverage of the Cullors investments as a familiar “tactic of terror time and again, but our movement will not be silenced.”

As noted earlier, the greatest irony may not be the home purchase but the corporate support. A professed Marxist, Cullors has not only been paid handsomely by corporations like Warner Brothers but is being actively protected by corporations like Twitter and now Facebook in blocking the underlying story.

196 thoughts on ““Terror By White Supremacists”: BLM Denounces Coverage Of Co-Founder’s Real Estate Purchases While Facebook Censors Story”

  1. The only supremacy running rampant in this country is Woke Supremacy. Can’t help but wonder if leftist extremists like Cullors are hypocrites with a bad case of narcissitic personality disorder, or playing their brainhumped followers for saps.

  2. “She later denounced the coverage of her alleged hypocrisy as an effort to “take[] away from where the focus should be – ending white supremacy”.
    Amazing anyone is willing to spout this obvious deflection and iconic case of stupid. But they are Marxists.

    BTW what is white supremacy anyhows? Majority rule? The right of people to create and enjoy their own culture? More Marxist claptrap to guilt people into letting them take control? To me, it’s a meaningless invective.

    Bring on the revolution, if only to purge the stupid Marxists once and for all.

    1. “what is white supremacy anyhows?”

      If you don’t know, look it up. Or read white supremacist comments HERE and elsewhere, like the ones from George day after day, where he argues that Black Americans should be depatriated. George is a white supremacist. Can you bring yourself to admit that?

      “To me, it’s a meaningless invective.”

      Which tells us a lot about you.

      1. Annny:

        “Which tells us a lot about you.”
        Even more about your self-loathing (though I can understand your position) and I prefer biography to moralizing philosophy any day.

      2. You are an idiot, and almost certainly white and liberal. Enjoy your own self-loathing all you like. The rest of us actually have things to do, and unfortunately our efforts empower potatoes like you. I wouldn’t expect you to be capable of gratitude.

        1. “The rest of us actually have things to do…”

          You better get going then…

          “our efforts empower potatoes like you.”

          How so?

      3. Do a lot of the people out there today that use the words white supremacy actually know what those words mean? I don’t think so. They appear to be following the leader and saying things that aren’t true.

    2. More Marxist claptrap to guilt people into letting them take control?

      That’s exactly what it is mespo. I’ve been slowing reading through this publication and it is a blueprint for the Marxist takeover of this country.

      Central to the Left’s assault on America is a classic dialectical strategy of negation driven by neo-Marxist narratives designed to deprive an American citizen of his or her personal, social and national identity.

      Not just America, but the very ideal of America is to be negated. Aufheben der Kultur. As a peer competitor, it targets Judeo-Christian culture for destruction.

      Opposing the Left does not make one conservative. When popular aspects of Americana are forced into polarizing dichotomies, it should serve as a warning that a negation activity may be in play. For example; when iconic Americana is relabeled as conservative, traditional, heritage, etc., it may be for the purpose of de-mainstreaming the value in anticipation of negation—being aufhebened. This is something President Trump intuitively recognizes and contests.

      Appropriating language that redefines an American ideal in conservative dress is calculated to make that rebranded aspect of America sound strange to the ears of average Americans, many of whom may not be conservative. The Left permits the conservative’s use of such appropriating language because this is the role assigned them in furtherance of establishing a false sense of ownership needed to sustain the dialectal contrast. The very act of appropriation conditions the object for negation precisely because that object has been rendered non-mainstream in the eyes of many Americans.

      The Left cannot make conservatives accept their role in the dialectical dance. The Left must outsource this role to conservatives, and conservatives must choose to take it up as their own and accept it. All of this is playing out before our eyes while the Republicans graze in the minefield talking in platitudes about “America” in ways that simply do not connect (except when running for office).

      The very way we have come to speak of these issues renders them incomprehensible because that is what these narratives are designed to do, especially when wrapped in the language of the political and behavioral sciences. These narratives are quite often positioned to serve as the antithesis to real science. Subjects are framed to implement and enforce a competing cultural metaphysic—pure Hegel.

      Narratives are used to set simple socially enforceable speech codes. “You can’t say this” until one day, you cannot even say you exist. This is neither latent nor theoretical. In a complete negation of a biological fact, you cannot declare yourself to be a man (if you are a man) or a woman (if you are a woman) because that is genderism.

      The fact of being born an American, living in America, you cannot say you are American because that is racism.

      You cannot defend the Constitution on college campuses because that is white privilege.

      You cannot enjoy your First Amendment rights because they violate Marcuse’s tolerance codes. These codes are deliberately antithetical to the First Amendment. The European Union has since defined, developed, codified, and enacted these codes into enforceable speech laws. Even worse, American social media are imposing them inside the United States.

      All of this, right before our eyes, with Republican leaders not even able to articulate the crisis for which they bear some responsibility. Pg. 95-96

    3. It used to be… “Separate but equal.” Was racist and what MLK fought to abolish.
      Now these ‘race baiters’ are fighting to set up ‘separate but equal’ except for whites. Meaning if you create a separate space for each race but none for whites its ok.

      Free clue… if you want ‘separate but equal’, then you’re being a racist.

  3. “BLM added that the reporting about her properties ‘continues a tradition of terror by white supremacists against Black activists.’”

    Four homes and counting, untold millions in corporate donations, a fawning media, endorsements from A-list celebrities, lucrative book and studio deals.

    Where do I sign up for such “oppression?”

  4. “Cullors has not only been paid handsomely by corporations like Warner Brothers but is being actively protected by corporations like Twitter and now Facebook in blocking the underlying story.”

    Capitalists supported Nazism in Germany. Now they’re supporting Marxism in America. Once again, we need to protect Capitalism from the capitalists.

  5. The issue isn’t this hypocrite buying expensive homes, the issue is her wanting to make it illegal for others to do so. If her desire to “rid us of capitalism” succeeds we will no longer have the right to property ownership and yet she talks about her desire to buy three homes to “provide for my family”?

    1. You find it hypocritical for her to do what’s currently legal while arguing that the law should be changed?

      1. Anonymous, I saw nothing in hullbully’s post about changing the law. Methinks that most posters who you’re arguing with have strong points that you wish to dismiss or demean. Easy to see through your fear.

        1. “I saw nothing in hullbully’s post about changing the law.”

          Work on your reading skills. He said “the issue is her wanting to make it illegal for others to do so.” How are things made illegal? By changing the law.

          “Easy to see through your fear.”

          Once again, Allan, you choose or are compelled to pretend that someone feels or believes something they don’t feel or believe.

          1. It might be Allan but it could be Sal Sar. Whoever it is, his reading skills appear excellent to me. You can’t win on this issue.

            1. I can tell the difference between Allan and Kurtz. That was Allan.

              “You can’t win on this issue.”

              What issue? I asked hullbobby a reasonable question about what he wrote: You find it hypocritical for her to do what’s currently legal while arguing that the law should be changed?

              1. Uh, yup … I don’t support abortion and would not participate in it even if legal. Those who enjoy the bounties of that which they oppose are by definition hypocrites. If she does not believe in owning property, then she should own none.

                Now, I’m sure you’ll want to argue: “but how will she live?” Form a commune. give away all property rights to said commune and live accordingly.

                “But in our capitalistic system, someone is FORCED to be the owner!” Yes, but not her…live by your principles if you have them. She is not a principled person, which is why no one should follow her lead. Those lacking principles are likely do harm to those who follow them.

                1. “I’m sure you’ll want to argue: “but how will she live?” ”

                  You shouldn’t be sure, as I have no desire to argue that.

                  1. First post … this was meant to be a reply concerning the above argument that she should be fine benefitting with laws she wants to change. This is an argument which lacks principle.

                    Compete your thought for me, though. What argument did you want to make? Or perhaps it was none.

                    1. “What argument did you want to make?”

                      My 10:54 AM comment to hullbobby was a question, not an argument, because I wanted an answer to my question, not to make an argument.

            2. Diogenes, take note below how Stupid Anonymous the Stupid is. I just started posting on this particular op-ed so you can be sure it wasn’t me. Anonymous the Stupid doesn’t realize how often he makes that mistake that remains uncorrected but since most of those comments he attributes to me are correct, why should I care if he gives me the credit?

              He is a fool where his entire life centers on acting as he does on the blog. I think he should stay in his room with his Cuomo doll holding an Emmy given for killing so many New Yorkers. LOL at Anonymous the Stupid’s expense.

          2. Anonymous the Stupid, that wasn’t me making the comment. Your comment was, however, Stupid. You have a problem thinking when a complex problem is facing you. In the end you can’t satisfy your desire to be significant by not thinking and making dumb comments.

            There are a lot of people that think you are Stupid but they are more polite than me so they don’t label you appropriately as Anonymous the Stupid. I think people whose rights are being violated should stand up strong even if they have to be insulting. You need to be labelled so you can’t hide like a rat in the underbrush.

            1. Allan, you have achieved that most-glorious status, you live rent-free in a left-winger’s head.

              Unfortunately, like all leftwing brains, it’s a one-room studio with no sewer except for what comes over the widescreen late at night. I beseech you, for the sake of yourself and your family, to move out before you get bedbugs or scrofula.

              1. Diogenes, Anonymous the Stupid lets me live rent-free in his head but that is part of his psychosis. I live far away and make sure I shower after any contact with him.

                1. Anonymous the Stupid, you are my rat that I put into various mazes waiting for you to find your way out. That is why what you suggest is impossible and the opposite true.

                  I will say that you make a mess of your cage.

                  1. Allan S(tupid) Meyer fantasizes about rats, cages, and mazes. It’s obviously his world.

                    I’m happily roaming free.

                    The only rat in this picture is S(tupid) Meyer.

                    1. You have gone down another maze and failed again, Anonymous the Stupid.

                  2. Those mazes only exist in your head, Allan, and you only underscore the extent to which you’ve got me living rent-free there.

                    1. Anonymous the Stupid’s pretend friend in doubling down on the Stupidity.

                    2. “Pretend friend” is a phrase that S(tupid) Meyer understands very well. He’s never had a real one.

                    3. Anonymous the Stupid, this shows that BS is what you produce. How would you know if I had friends or not? You don’t but you draw conclusions without facts.

                      What we do know is that you are Stupid and have pretend friends.

              1. Anonymous the Stupid, you are insignificant not bullied. You are constantly trying to get ahead by pulling others down.

                    1. “I respond, but not because of your wit, Anonymous the Stupid.” -S. Meyer

                      We know. It’s your OCD talkin’…., S. Meyer.

                    2. Actually Anonymous the Stupid, this might be the wittiest response you have yet provided. Not great or even good but at least not boring. or Stupid.

      2. You find it hypocritical for her to do what’s currently legal while arguing that the law should be changed?

        Why does she want the law changed? If Private Property is bad, it is bad before the law change. And you would want no part of it. If you want to change zoning to eliminate single family homes because they are a blight and a waste. It is hypocritical to make sure you have yours before the zoning is changed. If you are against legalizing pot, because its a gate way drug, but not you, your really don’t support your own position.

        1. hullbobby is the one who said “The issue isn’t this hypocrite buying expensive homes, the issue is her wanting to make it illegal for others to do so.” He’s the one claiming that she wants one or more laws changed. Ask HIM what law she wants changed and why.

  6. I see nothing here that’s incompatible with being a Marxist, as opposed to being incompatible with Marxism.

  7. BLM are moneygrubbing Marxists and urban terrorists who profess peaceful assembly. Facebook and Twitter are a speech platforms that hate free speech.

    Rush was right about the left. Full-on hypocrisy peddling lies.

      1. Anonymous, the story is about a person on the FAR LEFT, a MARXIST (supposedly), and yet you always need to obfuscate the issue???

        Question: Is an avowed Marxist a hypocrite for buying three houses, one in a posh white area of LA and one in the Bahamas? Easy questions always require hard answers.

        The folks on the left aren’t good at answering for two reasons, 1) they are usually on the wrong side of the issue and 2) they have no practice at replying to togh questioning because they never have to do so.

        1. Yes, she strikes me as a hypocrite. Plenty of people on the right also strike me as hypocrites.

          “The folks on the left aren’t good at answering ”

          I’m on the left and I had no problem answering, even if you don’t like my answer.

          Diogenes’ claim wasn’t about her alone. He made a claim about “the left.” It’s a ridiculous overgeneralization, and it’s no more true about the left than about the right.

          “they are usually on the wrong side of the issue”

          Your opinion. My opinion is that those on the right are on the wrong side of issues more often than those on the left. People have different opinions about that.

          “they have no practice at replying to togh questioning because they never have to do so.”


          “you always need to obfuscate the issue”

          More BS.

    1. I went to one BLM march. It was large and peaceful. I am neither a Marxist nor a terrorist. I’ve attended a number of peaceful protest marches over the years (against the Vietnam War, against the Iraq War, the March for Science, …).

      Some on the left are domestic terrorists. So are some on the right. Law enforcement tells us that right-wing domestic terrorism is more widespread. I object to terrorism on both sides. Will you join me in that?

      Some in BLM self-identity as Marxists. Some on the right also self-identity in ways I don’t agree with.

      1. We disavow and put rightwing terrorists in jail. You fund and set free leftwing terrorists. Don’t BS me.

        1. Name a leftwing terrorist who hasn’t been put on trial, and provide evidence of the terrorism.

          Don’t BS me.

        2. BTW, I asked “I object to terrorism on both sides. Will you join me in that?” and you chose not to answer. It’s sad that you can’t bring yourself to join me in objecting to terrorism on both sides.

          1. I object to terrorism on all sides.

            If you support BLM, you support terrorists and racists, whether you see that yourself or not.

            Same for Antifa.

            1. “I object to terrorism on all sides.”

              Great. Glad we can agree.

              “If you support BLM, you support terrorists and racists”

              Nope. I think Wik’s description of BLM is pretty accurate: “Black Lives Matter (BLM) is a decentralized political and social movement protesting against incidents of police brutality and all racially motivated violence against black people.” I support that. Some members of BLM may be terrorists and racists, but I don’t support them. I object to terrorism (and other violence not in self-defense) and racism, and I’ve said so more than once.

              Supporting a group or an effort does not imply supporting every single person associated with that group or effort. For example, some Republicans are criminals and bigots, but I certainly don’t claim that all are.

              1. “Supporting a group or an effort does not imply supporting every single person associated with that group or effort.”
                No supporting a group means you supports its leadership. So the shoe really does fit you.

                1. But I don’t support the group. I only support the effort, which has no leadership. In your endless quest to find reasons to personally criticize the people you disagree with, you project beliefs onto them that aren’t theirs. It’s one of the reasons I consider you a troll.

                  1. Aninny:
                    “But I don’t support the group. I only support the effort ….”
                    That’s like saying I support doing good. Okay, have at it since who doesn’t support saying any life matters — except the abortion-loving Dims, of course. It’s like being against drunk driving, there is no opposition. But at least be honest that BLM is a bunch of paintywaist Marxists hellbent on destroying the culture and pitting everyone against each other for power’s sake. Oh and did I mention they’re leaders are racists to boot — just in a way you find appealing.

                    1. You’re so fond of false overgeneralizations, mes. You won’t find me saying that Republicans are a bunch of corrupt crooks just because some of them are.

                  2. Anonymous the Stupid neither agrees or disagrees with anything. He has no principles or morality. His decisions of support are transient because they change with the direction of the wind.

                  3. I only support the effort, which has no leadership

                    Who decides the dispersal of $millions? They would be the leadership. Hack their accounts and make of with their plunder, leadership will file a police report.

                    1. “Who decides the dispersal of $millions?”

                      If you want to know, look it up.

                      I haven’t donated any money to BLM.

  8. Supposedly Twitter, CNN and maybe FB are facing lawsuits, that’s a start. Now someone should go after the “joke” companies and remind them make sugar water and stay out of politics.

  9. If you are going to be a paragon of virtue, then be a paragon of virtue. I do not personally care that Ms. Cullars is buying properties or where she is buying them. That is her business. However, when you are a self proclaimed Marxist and then do not live like one, you open yourself up to criticism of hypocrisy. When you are a public figure, then you open up to public scrutiny and public criticism. I have zero doubt that she and BLM do not like the light shining on them. Regardless that she earned the money on her own or from BLM, It puts them in a bad light. BLM also reacted like one expects by calling it racist. It is not, they are being treated like the others for the actions. Welcome to the club. Yet, I do find it very interesting to see censorship of the issue. These media giants keep making the seemingly same mistake. I hope they remember the old adage, Pride before the fall.

  10. “We recently discussed the move by Twitter to block the account sports journalist Jason Whitlock”

    His account was not blocked. A tweet was temporarily deleted by Twitter and then made viewable again. Will JT correct his error?

    1. Except he was blocked. He was reinstated, but he was blocked. Even Twitter acknowledged they blocked him. More importantly, it was the why he was blocked. Over a criticism of Ms. Cullars. If Twitter and the others showed the same consistency for all sides, then it would be much less controversial and defendable. It may be that it is coincidence this happened over this particular tweet. Yet, it does not appear to be It is this very inconsistency that causes the trouble.

          1. There is a difference between him being temporarily blocked from posting (he could still read his account just like everyone else) and the account being temporarily blocked (not viewable to anyone). JT’s claim was about the latter (“block the account”), not the former. JT is a professor, and he should get details right, and he should correct them when it’s pointed out that they’re wrong.

              1. Attention to small details is part of a lawyer’s job. JT should do better.

                I’m not obfuscating anything. In fact, I’ve added details that make the story clearer rather than less clear.

            1. OK, How many angels can dance on the tip of a needle? You are really grasping at straws to divert attention from the fact that twitter is censoring in one way or another opinions and facts that don’t fit their narrative. In common parlance that is called manipulation of the public and propaganda. You just seem to fall for it.

              1. Twitter absolutely censors some users. Users agree to the possibility of being censored when they agree to Twitter’s TOS. Twitter censors people on the political right and the left, and they also censor totally non-political accounts. It isn’t about the “narrative” you imagine them creating.

                1. He did not have access to his accounts due to Twitter preventing him from access to his account. That is blocking by any definition. The Tweet was not factually in error nor was it hate filled. Twitter for better or worse is taking sides. Maybe you think this is good that Twitter is taking sides. I do not, especially when it is fact correct. Twitter wants the protections of neutrality, then they need to be neutral. They are not. I find it odd that Ms. Cullars was not blocked for claiming she is one thing and then being another. That would fit fake news and it would show neutrality by claiming they are blocking fake news from all sides. Yet, it has not happened. For the record, I am not calling for her to be blocked either.

                2. Who was the last Left of Center Twitter user whose opinions and views got censored or banned from Twitter?

                  The censorship goes only in one direction.

  11. Some Marxist seem to be very good Capitalists don’t they……and certainly do not like to reminded about it.

    That is fair….but Big Tech covering it up by censoring those who speak about it is flat wrong.

    If Big Tech’s Community Standards were free of bias and prejudice….they would apply the exact same standard to criticism of those on the Right by Leftists….but we know they do not.

    Just like the Drive By Media….a propaganda arm of the Democrat Party….Big Tech is so full of Left Wing bias it is no longer credible.

    What human relationship can prosper without it being based upon the truth?

  12. Turley: “As will come as no surprise to those familiar with my prior writings, I maintain what was once a mainstream view of free speech. I believe that free speech is the greatest protection against bad speech. That view is admittedly under fire and indeed may be a minority view today, but history has shown that public or private censorship does not produce better speech. It is a self-replicating and self-perpetuating path that only produces more censorship and more controlled speech. Accordingly, I encourage Congress not to proceed down that slippery slope toward censorship.”

    In a slippery slope argument, a course of action is rejected because, with little or no evidence, one insists that it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end. I would have thought that an academic would know that the argument of the slippery slope is generally fallacious especially when it is used as a form of fearmongering in which the probable consequences of a given action are greatly exaggerated. What Turley does not seem to realize is that speech can vary by such a degree that it differs in kind. Were this not so, we would not be justified in censoring child pornography because it would lead to censoring adult pornography, for it is merely a difference in age by a matter of degree. Because the slippery slope argument involves an acceptance of a succession of events without evidence that this course of events will happen, it is intellectually lazy to simply argue a “slippery slope” without proving the strength of such an argument by demonstrating the likelihood of small justifiable steps invariably leading to unintended consequences.

  13. Since everything is now infrastructure, it naturally follows that everything is racist: the perfect end-all, be-all of self-victimization:
    Need eyeglasses — because racism.
    Have eyeglasses, but want contacts — because racism.
    Have to pay for your own housing — because racism.
    Have housing, but somebody else has a bigger place — because racism.
    Somebody has different ideas than you — because racism.
    Have to defend your ideas — because racism.
    Not having a job — because racism.
    Have a job, but somebody else has more responsibility and commensurate pay — because racism.
    Have a

  14. The issue is mendacity.

    BLM lied to its many (white) supporters about racism to get its money.

    The media lied about racism to support BLM (and lied and about the “mostly peaceful ” protests).

    The donors and media readers (collectively Lefties) lied to themselves about racism while reading that media and then donated.

    Then Cullors took money to buy personal real estate and lied about those purchases.

    Purchases were discovered, so now Twitter and FB are censoring the news (another form of lying) to hide the truth from donors and supporters.

    If people are honest, they will admit the mendacity of the whole enterprise.

    But easier to lie once again and claim racism rather than admit the truth.

    Foundation of Lefty movement is mendacity (look at the lies coming out about Russian bounties).

    1. “BLM lied to its many (white) supporters about racism”

      Please quote the lie you’re referring to.

      “Then Cullors took money to buy personal real estate and lied about those purchases.”

      Please quote the lie you’re referring to.

      “Foundation of Lefty movement is mendacity”

      I think you’re the one who is lying in that claim.

      1. A

        More obfuscation from you.

        Not here to educate the wilfully ignorant. Or the liars.

        Read the darn press and watch the BLM interviews.

        Either you are remarkably dumb or you are “disingenuous” (my guess).

        1. “Not here to educate the wilfully ignorant.”

          Your claim, your burden of proof. Your unwillingness to substantiate your own claims only reflects on you.

          “Or the liars.”

          I haven’t lied about anything.

          “Either you are remarkably dumb or you are “disingenuous””

          A false dichotomy. Here’s another possibility: you can’t prove your own claims, and you’re not willing to admit it. Here’s another: you can prove your claims, but you’re too lazy to do it. I bet we could come up with still more possibilities.

          1. A

            The real point is that you just aren’t important enough for me to take much time.

            I occasionally comment with the full awareness that I am casting pearls before the swine.

            I haven’t got the time to explain Lefty stupidity to the wilfully ignorant.

            Watching you comment is a reminder about wrestling with pigs; I get dirty and you have fun.

            So I don’t waste much time/energy on you.

  15. GREED – BLM GOT CAUGHT-$$$$$- Face Book/Twitter and MSM – Hide the Truth- They and the DEM’s and the Elite want POWER and Financial Power- the rest of us are suppose to go along with this Power Grab, Control, Greed. Just like all the Communist Corrupt Dictators -Socialism for everyone except for the top Leadership who get all the $$$$$. The Corp Elite are going along with it. This country is being ruined.

  16. We now have a new type of social -economic system that might be called Corporate Bolshevism. Maybe not entirely new, since it was Western capitalists (including Henry Ford) who built the Soviet industrial base in the 1920s and 1930s.

    1. I no longer personally or professionally use facebook or any social media (stopped 11 years ago. It has not hurt my financial life, that anyone ‘needs’ it is a lie, and no, the majority of us do not use it. Twitter for example, has less than 200 million users GLOBALLY, Facebook has a plethora of bots and fakes. Most others are also under 200 mil out of 7 billion of us) as that’s the best way to defund them, but that *would* be a fun experiment. I’m going to make a fake account for each viewpoint and literally just make stuff up. Let’s see which one gets censored.

        1. Does the comment by Anonymous the Stupid make him more significant? ATS was trying to climb the ladder by pulling James down. But he wasn’t really pulling James down because we all understood that James was talking about. This makes Anonymous the Stupid sound extremely petty and Stupid.

          This is what James actually said which sounds totally true and required no petty comments from Anonymous the Stupid.

          “I no longer personally or professionally use facebook or any social media … It has not hurt my financial life”

            1. Anonymous the Stupid, why do you have such dumb thoughts? Do you think that helps you become more significant. Do you think you can become more significant if you pull another off of the ladder? Do you think you have such abilities. Face it Anonymous the Stupid, you are at the apex of your life and you are meaningless.

              1. Judging by your comments — like the one @1913 — you’re not playing with a full deck.

Leave a Reply