TheGreenHornet
Platinum Member
- Nov 21, 2017
- 6,241
- 4,107
- 940
- Banned
- #201
In a nutshell black activists are dredging up ancient history trying to find something they can use for monetary benefit....aka reparations and the media is doing their best to help them by prsenting fake news that distorts the truth for the benefit of the Africans in America.The recent obsession of the Tulsa Massacre by the media is an indication of something, in fact, it is an indication of many, many things. Why, after 100 years, is the media finally getting round to talking about it? But a more disturbing question is, why were they afraid to tell the citizens of the US about it when it happened as they buried the story and refused to tell America that an entire town had been murdered and wiped off the face of the earth?
To break this down, we must first understand why they are telling us about this now. One reason is that the event happened around Memorial day in 1921, and it is about that time once again. But more to the point, the event has been hyperinflated recently because the press has an agenda, and that agenda is to make Americans think ill of themselves having come from such a racist country. It is an attempt to transform America into a nation that hates itself, and feels as though they must destroy themselves and start over, or forever be guilty and culpable of all of the sins done to Black people. Then political figures will enter the scene to radically transform everything to "atone" for the sins of the past. At least, that is the message they are selling.
But why tell us now and not back then? Was the media afraid to tell the US public because they thought that they would disapprove? This would indicate that the general public was not as racist as the media would have us believe and government that covered up the event. Of course, you could argue that the media was afraid of arousing black anger and violence by revealing the incident, but then, how is that any different now? If so, why are they not afraid to reveal this now because it could triggo\er the same reaction today?
Naturally, the media had no intention of this story being used to focus on the themselves. For example, just how much control over the press does the government have? Or just how more sinister and racist has the media of the past been compared to the average public to be complicit in this evil act? You can't get me to believe that the media and government leaders were not afraid of the white condemnation about the event, especially since the nation had fought a bloody Civil war over slavery some 100 years prior to the massacre as white fought against white to free Black slaves.
The media would have you believe that they are no longer the same, they are no longer the racist thugs they once used to be, but the average white person is. But this event would say otherwise. This event shows us just how dark and sinister the media has been, and probably still is. If not, what changed them that did not change the society at large like they would have us all believe?
More than ever, I believe the media to be the enemy of the people.
I know hardly anything about the Tulsa incident.
I do now remember reading years ago that it started after a Caucasian lady accused an African American gentleman of improper behavior inside an elevator.
I do not know whether the American media completely ignored the destruction of that neighborhood.
IF it did, then the media were wrong.
It was news.
But we have to remember that it was in 1921.
At that time, Americans had a different attitude toward non-Caucasians.
So I could understand why the media (reportedly) decided not to stir up things by reporting it.
Today, of course, it's the total reverse.
If a Caucasian even looks at an African American in an unfriendly manner, it will be front page news.