Whites Have To Vote For Blacks TWICE, Or They Be Rayycisss

During the 2008 US presidential election, accusations of "racism" were often made against anyone who didn't support Obama. At the time, I knew that this tactic would succeed: Americans like to think of themselves as "moral" and "fair" and "righteous;" they're deathly afraid of not living up to "egalitarian principles."

Of course thinking individuals knew that imbedded in this media push for "fairness," for letting the black guy be president for once, was an insidious unfairness: Obama was treated with unfair deference by the Big Media who wouldn't vet him as they normally would for fear of being labelled "raaayyyycisss." They rarely asked him tough questions in interviews; they always showed him in the most positive light.

But most importantly, they corroborated with team Obama in spreading the whisper-campaign that "all who don't vote for Obama be rayyycisss."

The tactic worked so well I just knew we would see it dredged up again for the 2012 race. It's like a hit movie's bad sequel. In the video above, we see the trailer for the new blockbuster to come: in Obama II The Wrath Of Barack we find that one has to vote for the black guy TWICE in order to PROVE beyond a shadow of a DOUBT that they aren't rayyyycisss.

This clip from Matthews is beyond hilarious. Look how he is sure to call these black commentators "professors" from whom he is eager to get "analysis." But he only asks these "professors" for their "analysis" on how we can all more effectively blame whitey.

Matthews has the audacity to suggest that whites hold their black elected officials to a higher or more "rigorous standard." No Chris, it's the other way around. If Bush had done Solyndra, Lightsquared, Rezko, Attackwatch, the failed 2016 Olympic bid, the expansion of wars in the Middle East, the expansion of rendition, and at the same time presided over perpetual 9+% unemployment, the Big Media would have annihilated him.

In contrast, they are perpetual spinmeisters on Obama's behalf. "Obama is not to blame that he has failed so badly that nobody wants to vote for him next year. It's only ever whitey's fault. They be rayyyyycisss."

CNN engages in the same tactic below.



Look how Piers Morgan sets up Morgan Freeman's Anti-White rant by asking him if the election of Obama has made rayyyycism worse. Of course Freeman takes the idea and runs with it. (I am surprised how unintelligent he seems, here without a script to emote from...Reminds me of a particular "articulate" president).

Whitey got guilted into voting for an open-borders communist Soros-stooge in 2008. But as far as Freeman is concerned that still isn't sufficient to expunge the evil sin that flows through whitey's veins. It never will be.

Don't think that this is an appeal for people to vote "Republican." It isn't necessarily that. It is just to show how, in the 21st century's Anti-White Media, whites who dare reject the new religion of Blackworship (or Soros' Open Borders, or Multiculturalism, or Holocaustianity) are immediately inscribed into a sinister new demonology.

CNN Is Anti Tea Party Because They Are Anti White

Politics aside, CNN's hostile interview of Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) reeks of pure, unfiltered Anti-White fervor.

Is it because the anchor Don Lemon must emphasize the fact that Rand Paul is a "freshman" senator? A bit of a jab, but no. Is it because he speaks to him condescendingly throughout the interview? Not necessarily. Is it because he disrespectfully interrupts him in order to accuse him of being disrespectful? Is it because he uses talking points to chastise him for using talking points?

No and no. CNN is NOT Anti-White simply because it features this black guy putting the rhetorical screws to a white guy (ineffectively, I might add). Those are the optics on the surface level, but CNN's Anti-White streak goes far deeper.

To understand the relentless Anti-White stance of CNN, you have to go back at least a year, back before the Tea Party rose to gain significant power in the US Congress.


Last July, a different cast of black CNN talking heads could only disparage the movement for being "raayciss." But where was this racism?

They could only point to a bunch of (what to them were) "mean-spirited" signs at Tea Party rallies. But of course the US has a long history of venomous name-calling on all sides of any given political debate.

Don't fool yourself. The only reason CNN condemned the Tea Party last year and the reason they condemn the Tea Party today is because for them the movement represents white people, white self-interest.

For fifty years the CNNs of the world have made white advocacy a big no-no. You are not supposed to explicitly stand up for white interests or "speak on behalf of white people."

Whether or not you agree with its politics, and indeed whether or not you believe it advances white interests, the Tea Party is a movement composed almost entirely of white people. And on an Anti-White station like CNN, a movement of white people will inevitably be compared with naziswhowanttokillsixmillionjews (second video, 4:37).

They claim they are anti-racist. What they are is Anti-White. Anti-racism is just a code word for Anti-White.

Thursday Afternoon Compare and Contrast

So much of how we perceive our world in the modern age is through visceral comprehension of everything around us, particularly the linking between images and words. An individual, if presented with images of a common thread, each associated with negative descriptions, will internalize these things; this is almost certainly a determinable effect on some people when exposed to propaganda of similar ilk over, and over, and over. That is why it is called propaganda. These are all from CNN, same day, related articles through parallel linkage. Tell me this is a coincidence now, you slimy, evil anti-White racist apologists.

Your White boyfriend is a loser, and annoying. Unhappy relationships ensue with White men.

Babies, babies, babies!

Irony! The dark hair is subtle; it seems to purvey the image of multiracialism and diversity more so than would an image of four White women, each equipped with with the array of hair colors available to Whites - i.e., blonde, redheaded, brunette, black, auburn, etc., etc., - since the many "diverse" races of the world all... share... the... same... hair... color.

Oh well, diversity, pendejos!

Anyways, what's the message here? It's okay for brown women to be reproducing exclusively in Western cultures? That the brown women that are reproducing look nothing like the denizens of those inner-city spawning pools and welfare nests? That White men should get brown women knocked up because they're more fertile, or more attractive, or... Help me out here, guys. I only threw this up because it must be a slow day at Corporate Jew Headquarters.

Here's Why We're Losing

Get the picture, White Man?