Shortly after releasing our initial article broadly detailing the history of The Movement. the movement for insiders. Deray McKesson and Johnetta Elzie both renounced their affiliation with Black Lives Matter after being questioned about funding. Specifically, about how the donations were being used. Neither started The Movement, a separate brand, but they’ve solicited funds and spoken on behalf of both.
Talib Kweli, another activist who supported the Black Lives Matter brand, would not answer to whether money solicited for Black Lives Matter was being used against black businesses or organizations when questioned. Particularly those that started the movement. After being investigated by Hands Up Don’t Shoot and Taking Back the Radio, the organization ultimately claimed to be ‘leaderless.’ The question remains, where were funds going and how are they being used? Also, ‘why’ would these individuals claim to represent brands they have no affiliation to?
Prior to Ferguson, The Movement had mobilized over half a million people around related issues via its own media. Countless more were mobilized via the hashtag on Twitter. The Movement started the push in exposing police corruption among other issues important to Millennials. Music and media as the medium, users and followers got more than just activism. Deray Mckesson was still a school administrator in Minneapolis at the time, and did not have any part in starting The Movement. He didn’t arrive in Ferguson until a week after the protests began. The Movement began on 4/20 2014. The Ferguson uprising began on August 9th, 2014. Both movements have reported to not have worked with McKesson, and both accused McKesson, Black Lives Matter and others of stealing. Things escalated to the point in Ferguson, that Deray was smacked for stealing from the community.
The same activist was in the process of exposing the Black Lives Matter scam before his death. Since then, Deray has continued his misrepresentation and misappropriation. The father of Michael Brown Jr., called them, “thieves in the night.”
McKesson, who works with Twitter, claimed at the time to not be promoting any brands, or having any special interest. Which is a lie. He also went in under the ‘revolutionary’ tag, as all other activist, even yelling (digitally) at politicians on both sides of the aisle. Later it was discovered he was a Democratic surrogate. It wasn’t McKesson who revealed the information, but the DNC WikiLeaks. Until then he had been using his platform with Twitter, and other contacts, to either convince media he was leading the movement, or colluding with them. Even going so far as to calling other activist “jealous” and other slander when questioning the allegations of corruption.
Over the course of 2 years McKesson has made a habit of avoiding direct questions, and taking responsibility for everything when convenient, and nothing when not. When the hashtags were taking off, #TheMovement hashtag was blocked by Twitter and manipulated, putting them at conflict with the movement as a whole. Deray McKesson's affiliation with Black Lives Matter, and Twitter put him in direct conflict of interest to the movement. The hashtag was the mobilizing slogan used to mobilize and organize. Entire teams had worked hard, and taken risk to make the movement a reality, there were victims to the lies. Entire communities, companies, organizations, and individuals were affected who were coming together for a cause. A cause the company claimed to support, as well as those supporting the Black Lives Matter organization. After using the brand to build a career and solicit funds, he quickly dropped the affiliation when questioned about how the Black Lives Matter donations were being used.
Black Lives Matter didn’t emerge until weeks after the Ferguson protests began, when the verdict in the Darren Wilson case was disclosed. McKesson, Johnetta Elzie as well as Shaun King and a few other key activists helped prop the brand immediately after the verdict via social media. The residents of Ferguson did not know that there was a non-profit behind what they thought was just a slogan. Under the Black Lives Matter brand, the activists secured speaking engagements, appeared in major publications, and even attended a meeting with the president as Black Lives Matter activist. When the funds were flowing, the activist had no problem claiming the brand. When the questioning continued, and they could no longer justify their actions, they abandoned the brand, the brand used to solicit funds on behalf of the work of others. According to some estimates, over a hundred million dollars. Those same activists who fought with the movement to prop the Black Lives Matter brand, were the same ones to dismiss the brand and leave their followers in the dark.
The details of this revolution matter in that the funding behind Black Lives Matter is in some cases, in direct opposition to the interest of The Movement. Before Ferguson ever occurred, Black Lives Matter had received over $100,000, per some reports. The organization used that money to bus in protesters after the protests had been mobilized and organized in the city, and essentially brand Ferguson’s movement which was then used to solicit funds for the Black Lives Matter non-profit. Until then, it was an all lives matter movement focused on positivity. The focus shifted due to leadership in Ferguson, not the Black Lives Matter organization. Leaders from the movements agreed upon the additional focus. Taking Back the Radio LLC introduced Deray McKesson to the media and movement, as well as introduced Black Lives Matter to The Movement via Twitter.
For some activists, Black Lives Matter are ‘controlled opposition.’ Individuals or organizations paid to ‘oppose’ the establishment. They are essentially directly or indirectly on the payroll of people who have interest in what they’re protesting. To some activist and originals, they are thieves and con artists. Individuals or organizations misrepresenting themselves and misappropriating money. They are infiltrating grassroots movements and even soliciting on their behalf without authorization. The same was done with victims. Some call them frauds. Defrauding the public about their affiliation and commitment to causes. Their funding is being used against the best interest of The Movement, and their actions are hurting the cause. They are not victims, and are not qualified to address the mobilizing issue.
Still others call them COINTEL. A term not heard since the Civil Rights Movement. Counter-intelligence used to disrupt and stop grassroots revolutions. There is no question that they are intelligently maneuvering their way in the media in regards to the movement, and their funding comes directly from some of the opposition. Their leadership have been found to be fraudulent, to the point that they went leaderless when investigated. Then completely renouncing affiliation when further questioned. There is still no evidence that they ever had intentions of starting a movement, which takes time and planning. Which likely would have been presented after the initial allegations. People in Ferguson didn’t even know there was a brand behind the slogan per one activist who was protesting from the first day.
Here is what we do know. The activists have claimed affiliation to The Movement, and movement in general, without having any ties to the leadership of those actively seeking revolution. None of the activist started The Movement, or Black Lives Matter. There is adequate 1st hand documentation from Ferguson, about the issue. The three women who did start the org, were never leading things in Ferguson, just paying activists. Deray McKesson and Shaun King, who both work in media, have a direct conflict of interest, or motive, to try and infiltrate and co-opt, or stop a grassroots media based movement. Deray McKesson, Shaun King, nor Johnetta Elzie started The Movement. Black Lives Matter did not start what came to be known as Ferguson. The Ferguson movement.
How much has been collected on behalf of these movements? Where is the money going and how is it being used? We don’t have all the answers but we do know that the activists want nothing to do with the brand, just like they wanted nothing to do with the donation money once people saw how it was being used. Who are these activists and are they being used for the cause, or against? Modern day COINTELPRO against the private sector it seems. They have corruption leading all the way back to the Democratic party, and media collusion that could create public outrage if understood in detail. This all stemming from a push to protect Americans from government tyranny. A call to unite, and address the issues of our generation. In this specific case, the devil is in the details.