Office Depot: Honest Black Guy Outsmarts McWhitey

Oh, sing a dirge for the generation raised on Morgan Freeman films! For them the indoctrination has been slathered on so thickly they hardly stand a chance.

They are so desensitized they might watch a commercial such as this again and again without ever recognizing it for what it is: psychic poison.

Speaking of Morgan Freeman: observe our hero, the black barber, at :09. Here the lighting on his face and his expression is tantamount to the director telling us: "What you have here, folks, is an irreproachable, morally perfect black guy."

Indeed, the same lighting and looking-sagaciously-into-the-future gaze was used on countless magazine covers in 2008 to imbue an unknown quantity, Mr. Obama, with the millenarian holiness that ultimately got him elected.

Of course his rivals must be not only both "white" and "guys" but also humiliated (i.e. the guy dressed as scissors) and evil (i.e. the other man's devious expression).

Who is going to win in this test of wills, the one black guy or the two white guys? Do we even have to ask? Though outnumbered two to one, though outspent by a mega-corporation's vast resources, the morally pure black guy bests the white embodiments of evil because he is, well, black, and therefore "smarter" (in addition to having a more perfect soul).

Amen.

[p.s. Note too how in the last second the viewer is directed to a website called thesurvivalofthesmartest.com. So after showing this black guy outsmart these two white guys, we are enjoined to think on how he will survive and thrive while his vanquished, humiliated, evil, dim-witted, Indo-European opponents will rightly get genocided out of existence.]

College Kids: Learn Your Anti-White History!

Tim Wise gets paid the big bucks to insist that whites are evil (and don't exist).

His delivery, practiced, almost thespian. His uppity, hyperventilating vocal inflections, indicative of too many late nights alone, in his underwear, watching Malcolm X speeches. Who is this man who propounds such virulent Anti-White propaganda from hundreds of university podiums and panels across America?

He begins, rattling off repeated phrases like an auctioneer: "If you know the history of the whole concept of whiteness, if you know the history..." This form of quick-draw refrain fills the air and gives no time for mental rebuttal. "If you know the history" also implies that he, Mr. Wise, DOES know the history of the concept of the white race. From what he says, though, he only seems to know history from an Anti-White perspective.

He seems fixated on the importance of the fact that whites didn't often refer to themselves as such before they came to North America, before they ran into non-whites in large numbers. Yet this seems perfectly understandable and accords with how people come to categorize things, not just races, but anything at all.

You see, if I lived in a world where all dogs were dachshunds, I would call all dachshunds by the name of "dog." Just like if I lived in a Europe of all whites, I wouldn't need to distinguish between whites and the non-existent non-whites. I would just call all white people, "people."

Humans categorize differentially, you see Mr. Wise, so if my dachshund and I then moved to a world where there were dachshunds and dobermans, I would then have to make the distinction between the two. Dachshunds would no longer be just dogs. They would now be dogs and dachshunds. Similarly all white people are both "white" and "people" post-Age of Exploration.

So no, Mr. Wise, it is no "trick" (:12) that has "worked brilliantly" (cue Dr. Evil music).

And no, Mr. Wise, we didn't spend "most of our time killing each other" in the old countries of Europe. If that were so, we wouldn't have had the growing population that needed so desperately to expand. As far as I can tell, my ancestors in Scotland and England and Germany loved each other very much. I think Mr. Wise reads history books about wars and strife and thinks that is all that the human experience consists of. He can't conceive of the fact that a history book might be skewed and biased towards focusing on discord and strife simply because that is what many historians choose to focus on.

Look at the look he gives at :40 when he says "Highlanders and Lowlanders just fought the hell out of each other." Such an actor. Such a sock puppet. Would he sneer so indignantly and complain so scoffingly about the inter-tribal conflicts between the Hutus and Tutsis?

And why doesn't he focus more on his father's side of his family? There's a peace-loving people for ya!

Three Cartoons. One Message.

Evil Whitey.

Innocent, pure non-white.

Teach those kiddies the new religion while they're too young to resist.

Whites Be Raaayciss When We Rape Dem

In this mini-documentary on Forsyth County, Georgia, we get a typical Anti-White Media position: black guys can rape and murder a white girl. No problem.

But then some inbred hick local white yokels get all mad and try to respond to this brutal gang rape/murder. That's when the moral indignation can appropriately start.

Whites getting mad when blacks gang rape a white girl is so wrong. It's so evil, so raaayyciss. Poor, poor, misunderstood, mistreated, pure, innocent, neglected, oppressed, victimized blacks.

Don't these white-tards know the proper, enlightened response when blacks gang rape and kill your sister or daughter is understanding and forgiveness? Sheesh. These hicks are so backwards.

It's not like it is a perfectly natural human response to want to kick a certain group out of your community when you feel that you have been wronged by them. No. That's so backwards. (Except of course when blacks do it or when whites are being driven out. Then the cause is noble and pure and good and "justice." Cases like this. Or this.)

So saith the Anti-White Media.

[P.s. I love how the pseudo-intellectual "Mommy Prof" Lawyer here manages to use some form of the word precipitated FOUR TIMES in about 30 seconds worth of interview. Hilarious!]

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.

USA TODAY: Whites Are Psychokillers, Blacks And Hispanics Are Heroic

USA Today has used the tragedy in Tucson, Arizona as an opportunity to issue some Anti-White propaganda:

http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/mind-soul/doing-good/2011-01-14-heroes14_ST_N.htm

Images of the deranged white assassin Jared Loughner (who according to some sources might actually be jewish) have saturated the media landscape. But have you seen USA Today's story on Daniel Hernandez (below), a congressional intern who valiantly attended to Loughner's wounded and dying victims?


Such a juxtaposition of a "white" criminal and a minority hero might be considered a normal, occasional occurrence. It is bound to happen from time to time in a nation of 300 million, despite the fact that whites are far more likely to be the victims of minority crime than vice versa.

But then Anti-White Media moguls at the USA Today decided to pick at this fresh wound and, in the context of the Arizona tragedy, make the absurd, subjective, and totally unverifiable claim that "blacks and Hispanics [are] twice as likely as whites to perform heroic deeds[!]"

This claim is apparently based on a study by Stanford Prof Philip Zimbardo, who says he seeks to probe deeper into why there are such striking differences between races with regard to heroism. He speculates that non-whites, "being discriminated against, have more compassion to others in need."

After doing some research on Zimbardo, I find nothing to dissuade me of the opinion that he is yet another academic of middling intelligence who nonetheless has made a "brilliant career" for himself by saying exactly what certain powerful groups want to hear.

What Has Someone Been Smokin'?

WTF?

You know someone has been smoking some serious Bizarro bud when they show a world populated by misguided white crack addicts shifting around like lost souls in Dante's Inferno, kids whose only hope is to be saved by the most self-righteous know-it-all bug-eyed black lady since Oprah herself.

She and she alone can save these vacant souls, their skin so white, their morals so threadbare.

Brought to you by the Talmudvision, aka joo fantasyland.

Anti-White Media Targets Babies

Two Newsweek Covers. Two ideas, starkly contrasting, about two different babies, one black and one white.

The editors ask if the white baby is racist, subliminally putting forth the idea that the poor child is in fact racist. In today's society, branding someone as racist is like calling them a heretic or a witch or a devil or pure evil. In other words, there is something inherently evil about this baby. Why? Because it's white.

And then you have the black child. Streaming tears fall down its cheek eliciting sympathy. The editors do not subtly condemn it like they did the white child. No. Black children are pure, innocent, and righteous. On the cover with the black baby, it is still whites who are condemned. The headlines talk about "Poverty" and "Race" and "National Shame," implying that black poverty is white people's fault, and we should all be ashamed.

Blacks lauded in a sacred victimology. Whites tainted in a neo-demonology.

Looks like whites can't cut a break in today's media environment, even in infancy. On the one hand we're racist, and on the other hand...we're racist. Methinks someone at Newsweek is engaged in some serious Anti-White media.

Boycott: Newsweek and Time (they're all the same, really. Instant brain-rot)