CNN Insists Blacks Will Protect You, Helpless Whitey

At first glance the video above might seem like a harmless public-service announcement, until you realize the info the pilot is telling you is so obvious that it is utterly useless (don't overpack for your flight, etc.)

There is obviously some intentional point being made here about the race of the pilot, because CNN would have had to do some digging to find a black one. (Blacks only make up about 2 percent of all commercial pilots.) So what's the real reason this non-story has been produced? This image of a black pilot underscores the main "public service" and "social engineering" message being conveyed here: Attention whitey, blacks are beneficent and good and giving and powerful. Your life is in their hands. Blacks protect you, helpless whitey.

Think I am exaggerating? Making something out of nothing? Observe the torturous blackworship spin that CNN manages to promulgate around this week's now-famous "situation room" photo.


See CNN's article HERE.

To most, Obama looks like he'd rather be anywhere but there in that room. More specifically, it looks like he's itching to get back out on the links. But the message-controllers at CNN use this image to herald giddily their new utopian age where blacks are at the helm, where "a black man becomes 'protector in chief'."

Of course, we have no problem with a rehabilitated image of black males per se, especially if that image fit a rehabilitated reality (which it currently fails to do). As it now stands, however, CNN projects a fantasy world and cannot admit that by and large blacks are a serious burden on white America, its civility, its economy.

When is CNN going to admit this burden. When will CNN do THAT story?

Oh, of course they never would. CNN is Anti-White.

MSNBC's "The Black Agenda" Blames Whitey for Black Failures

At MSNBC, more kowtowing blackworship at the expense of whites.

It is embarrassing the degree to which Ed Schultz must ride his high-and-mighty horse of self-righteous "Anti-Racism."

He is so bothered by Trump's use of the term "The Blacks" and implicitly accuses him of racism. But do Trump's words really warrant Schultz's hair-pulling lamentations? Or is Schultz just grandstanding in order to curry favor among blacks?

Why must whites always walk on eggshells when referring to blacks, so as not to offend them with an ill-chosen word? This eggshell dance is especially difficult when blacks themselves and their jewish victim-pimps constantly change which terms are acceptable. At one time, the word "negro" was acceptable, so much so that it gave its name to the "United Negro College Fund." Then, they decided negro was offensive and demanded to be called "colored" or "people of color." Then it was "black." Then it was "African-American." Now it is "black" again.

Can we really get so riled at Trump when blacks themselves can't seem to decide what they want to be called?

And can you really get so riled-up, Schultz, when you host the show "The Black Agenda?"

Just don't put an evil letter "s" in there, Ed! "The Black's Agenda"--That would be so racist.

But of course no one puts on a show called "The White Agenda." That would be even more racist.

Typical Anti-White Media double standard.

The show "The Black Agenda" is nothing more than a platform for blacks to blame whitey for black failures. Schultz himself gets in on the act. After his guest cites figures showing blacks underperforming in schools and universities, he cries: "...[when] you look at the statistics that Mara was just throwing out there, it looks like Black people in America are being left behind."

Of course it is whitey's fault for "leaving blacks behind." Schultz wouldn't dare point out that black students actually receive MORE funding per capita than white students:

"Nationally, per-pupil public education spending on whites is $10,816. On blacks, it is $11,387. Hispanics also get more money per capita than whites on a national level: $10,951. Asians get the most money at $11,535. In short, contrary to popular myth, white students get the short end of the stick when it comes to per capita spending across the country."

- From Dr. Jason Richwine of the Heritage Foundation.

Royal Wedding Controversy: Where Da Black People?

It is a sad state of affairs when the UK's royal family can't even have a wedding without the mainstream media asking if they are kowtowing sufficiently to black people.

The View's Sherri Shepherd asks of the Windsor wedding: "Where da black people?"

One might think she was being mildly facetious, but her question was picked up and seriously considered by other media outlets.

Why is such a question Anti-White? Because it implies that whites owe blacks inclusion in any event whatsoever.

No one is asking wedding planners in Honduras: "Where da white people?"

No one is asking wedding planners in Nigeria: "Where da white people?"

No one is asking wedding planners in China: "Where da white people?"

Only in white countries are you implicitly racist if you don't fill your quota of black representation.

This question of "Where da black people?" would not be so insidious if it were only asked in the context of royal weddings. But it is only being asked here because our culture is addicted to asking itself this question. Lawyers and blacktivists in white countries are constantly looking at fire departments and university student bodies and asking: "Where da black people?" and "How can we get more minorities in here?" and "How can we make this college/office/classroom/choir/police force/army/neighbourhood more diverse?" Such questions are only being asked in white countries.

Ultimately, such a mindset would even compel us to look at our own progeny and ask: "Where da black people?"

In other words, it fosters genocide.

More MSNBC Anti-White Attacks: Apologise, Whitey, for Calling Our Black King Racist, You Racist!

Yet more proof of the Anti-White ridiculousness of MSNBC. Ed Schultz here gives Lawrence O'Donnell a run for his money as the Anti-White pugilist par excellence and resident Jewtool.

Schultz regularly and explicitly accuses half of America, the white half, of being racist. But if one private white citizen expresses a similar opinion about Obama, (even if that private citizen is a deluded "black founding fathers" promoter like Glenn Beck) Schultz goes absolutely ballistic.

Schultz here says, in a self-righteous "Mommy Professor" tone (at 2:03-2:06): "So...Where's the I'm sorry?" I could ask the same of him regarding the millions of Americans he continues to insult daily with the same "racist" aspersion.

I have two questions: Mr. Schultz, why are you an Anti-White? And MSNBC, why do you continue to have such a raging Anti-White on your payroll?

Obama is an "Adult" Among Uneducated Throngs of White Midget-Serfs

As an addendum to yesterday's Anti-White comment by Lawrence O'Donnell, we present you with this fine work of Anti-White Media from the Miami Herald.

Attention White Voters: this is how O'Donnell and all the Liberal Media Elites see you.

This is yet more evidence that they think you are, en masse, ignorant hicks.

Here the president, the black man, is the towering figure of reason and responsibilideh [sic]. He is surrounded by shallow, semi-human, ill-educated, self-absorbed, mindless and violent whites.

Crowd shots in the media these days will ALWAYS show a sea of multifarious multi-ethnics, unless of course the crowd is supposed to represent a sea of ignorance. Then they're white.

What are you going to do about this? There's always more voting. And then again there's always practical politics.

Smug MSNBC Anti-White Attacks Voters for VWW (Voting While White)

"What makes those voters so ignorant [that they would vote for Michelle Bachmann]?" asks MSNBC Anti-White Arch-Deacon Lawrence O'Donnell.

Are they ignorant because Michelle Bachmann is one of these kinds of people?

No. For O'Donnell, all it takes for a voter to be ignorant, apparently, is for him or her to be white.

Would O'Donnell heap that same smug condescending scorn on the 90+ percent of blacks who voted for Obama? Of course he wouldn't. Black support for Obama is seen as normal, even praiseworthy, by the MSM. But when white people support a white candidate, even at a much lower percentage (52), O'Donnell grins his cocky grin (at :05), thinking he has these whites pegged as raayyyyciss.

(O'Donnell lives in the big city - but how can he be so provincial? Doesn't he know that Anti-Racist is just a code word for Anti-White?)

What is wrong with this picture? Why would O'Donnell say that ignorant people are white? Why is he so Anti-White? Why does he make millions spreading Anti-White religiosity? Why is he a tool for the Pink Rabbits?

Hermit "Nazis" In South America Get Mocked By Suburban Mulatto

This video builds up to the 6:10 mark, where the cocky mulatto Derrick Beckles shows his stripes. "This is what you've wreaked" he says with mocking condescension, gesturing to his white hosts

The men who have invited him into their humble abode are the Schweikhart brothers, whom Mr. Beckles connects rather unconvincingly and tenuously in a montage to Hitler and the Nazis.

Beckles mocks them for living as solitary, anti-social hermits. Yet I am sure if he looked hard enough in the jungles and mountains of South America, he would find lots of people living in even more primitive circumstances. But he wouldn't go out of his way and charter a multi-thousand mile flight in order to mock just any old person for living in poverty and seclusion. The person has to be white. And if they're German--even better!

With his repulsive "Way. To. Go." at 6:18, Mr. Beckles condescendingly suggests that the evil Nazi's standing behind him have gotten their just deserts. Look what happens, he implies, when you try to form a racial utopia. He thinks he is being anti-racist.

But what he is really being is Anti-White: for Mr. Beckles doesn't take a flight to Sierra Leone or Liberia and mock the blacks there for their much more massive and significant failed racial utopia.

As early as the 1790s, British and North American white abolitionist evangelicals such as Thomas Clarkson tried to set up a utopian society of freed black slaves in Sierra Leone. The recent history of that country, however, has been anything but utopian. A military coup in 1992 and another in 1997 have led to total chaos. Deployment of ECOWAS forces in 1998, UN peacekeepers in 1999, and British troops in 2000, all failed to stop a civil war that over the last decade has led to 100,000 deaths in the tiny nation.

The story of Liberia is equally depressing. Started by a group of white abolitionists and evangelicals in Washington DC in 1816, it was supposed to be a paradisal haven for freed black slaves. The Charles Taylor wars of the past decade have led to 250,000 deaths, disease, and misery. But why do a story on that when you can have Mr. Beckles go to Paraguay to mock two white "Nazi" brothers for having no laundary facilities?

Why doesn't Mr. Beckles do a cover story mocking the victims of THIS failed utopia?

He never would because he is only motivated by a strict Anti-White agenda.

Green Mile: "Magic Negro" on Steroids

I recently saw this horribly Anti-White film called Green Mile.

The black guy in this film, John Coffee, is the so-called "magic negro" on steroids.

Coffee is godlike in both appearance and effect. He towers above the frail looking white men throughout the film. But do not call this black man a supermasculine menial. No. He is a sensitive, childlike man. He is innocent. He is saintly.

And he is contrasted time and again with the evil, sniveling, corrupt, feminized whites.

Of course, when two little white girls are raped, Coffee gets the blame, because whitey is racist and evil. But Coffee is innocent. Coffee is perfect. How dare you blame Coffee, you evil white man? It turns out it was an evil, shifty-eyed, skinny, sniveling whitey who raped those girls, not the towering, hulking, herculean, wonderful, in-touch, cosmic, mystical, perfect black man. No. That will teach you never to blame blacks for crimes ever again. Blacks don't do crimes.

I have to wonder why whites don't protest movies like this when they are released. Instead whites pay good hard-earned money to bring their wives and girlfriends, to sit through this Anti-White propaganda-fest, to get "entertained" (i.e. indoctrinated) for the evening.

The makers of this film thought they were being Anti-Racist. What they are is Anti-White.

Anti-Racist is a code word for Anti-White.

BBC: Feed The World, Not Yourself

For an Oxford don, Toby Ord's worldview sure seems infantile.

He justifies his "feed Africa; starve myself" motif by claiming it was the result of studying "philosophy and ethics"--as if anyone who studies such things will just naturally arrive at this conclusion.

Well, obviously there were some philosophers that he ignored in his studies. Nietzsche, for one, would have pointed out that Mr. Ord has been seduced into his charity by the feeling of moral superiority it lends: he is motivated to give his money away because it allows him to rise in the esteem of his Oxbridge friends and elicits the attentive gaze of BBC audiences.

Look at the intolerably smug way in which he urges all whites to join him in his crusade in "one of the most serious moral problems of our time."

Such self-righteousness! But the cause is fake: there has always been poverty and there will always be poverty. Poverty is nature's status quo.

I would argue that it is actually immoral to artificially increase the population of Africa by giving them TB drugs and other benefits. The continent is already having a hard time feeding the population it now has. If anything, Africa needs a decrease in population; it needs a population that it can sustain comfortably.

Immoral were the liberal whites who assumed they could come into Africa as little Jesus saviors and bring the population European-style progress overnight. So presumptuous it was; so smug and proselytizing and self-righteous. So immoral. So murderous.

Mr. Ord--this micro-Geldof--is here promoted by the BBC for the same reason that CNN promotes it's "Heroes." Globalists need to drill into the white psyche the idea that it is our mission in life to help blacks--not to look out for our own ethnic interests.

And while educated, resourceful whites are busy with the endless and insurmountable task of helping blacks, they will be too distracted to notice that their homelands are being overrun with third world populations who, through democratic channels, will dispossess them.

Speaking of Geldof: I refer you to a wonderful essay on precisely this topic, on the absurdity of "Fighting Global (i.e. African) Poverty."

BONUS VIDEO: More Anti-White blackworship cultism from CNN "Heroes."



This guy Harmon Parker is from Kentucky. I have been to Kentucky. Plenty of poor people there. Maybe he should work a bit closer to home. But of course CNN wouldn't promote him and call him a hero if he was actually helping whites, heaven forbid.

CNN Heroes: Promoting Off-The-Charts Levels of White Guilt Penance and NFS (Negro Fixation Syndrome)

CNN Heroes provides a hagiography of a new saintly class of white blacktivist benefactors. Oh, if only we could all be like these women and go to Africa and virtually or actually adopt a little black accessory to complete our liberal worldview.

To the black AIDS orphans, this project essentially says: "Hey, you know what you really need? You need to talk to a white person. Forget about all the black people you could talk to face-to-face. Only white people and the internet mentoring programs they provide will give you a future. Your future has absolutely nothing to do with your own effort, your own decisions, your own abilities. Your future will solely be determined by whether or not you have online access to middle aged white women. They are your salvation. So sit you here in your little internet confessional booth and talk to your "mentor." She will redeem your blackness. She will give you a chance. And if she finds you worthy, she might even adopt you and set you among the holy owners of three car garages in Florida or Kansas or Oregon. And she might provide you with an iPad or an iPhone. All you must do is grovel before her in your pathetic vulnerable way and be black, very black, and you will satisfy her NFS (Negro Fixation Syndrome)."

To white women, it says: "You must pay more attention to some distant black kids because they're black. And if you help blacks and talk to blacks and pay attention to blacks and chat online with blacks and adopt blacks and feed blacks and serve blacks and clothe blacks and house blacks and care for blacks and love blacks and save blacks and honor blacks and wonder about blacks and yearn for blacks and worship blacks, then and only then will you be numbered among the elect Thrones of CNN Heroes."

So why is this video Anti-White? Because as much as it shows how blacks, with their incessant and insatiable "Gibbs Me Dat," are dangerously dependant upon white charity, it also implies that whites' lives are empty unless they are religiously committed to the service of blacks, the betterment of blacks, the survival of black children.

It promotes racial suicide. It promotes genocide.