There’s a radio host based out of Austin, Texas, named Alex Jones. Like the mainstream media, he sensationalizes things and jumps to far-reaching conclusions to raise his ratings. And while much of what he talks about has some truth in it, he’s over-dramatized it to the point that it’s hard to tell if he is parodying himself or if he’s actually being serious. For example, in one his documentary films, he showed footage of some important political figures on the news being interviewed or giving a speech, and while they were talking, they were moving their hands, which most people do while talking. But Jones claimed that these people were actually using their hand gestures to flash secret Masonic signals to the camera. Pretty funny, huh?
We’re supposed to laugh and ridicule people like Alex Jones, and maybe we should. But the media do the same thing that he does. It’s just that when they do it, we’re supposed to accept it as gospel. They claim to know the real reason that any white person would ever attack a black person. It’s because whites inherently hate blacks, and that’s why those actions are called “hate crimes.” It’s never self-defense, and the mere suggestion that it might have been self-defense is racist.
Black on white violence is just “slave reparations.”
The media love playing the race card so much that the term “race card” itself has become hackneyed beyond all recognition. I don’t even know what it means anymore. Romney made the mistake of being critical toward Obama in a recent campaign event. He addressed Obama, telling him to take his “campaign of division and anger and hate back to Chicago.” It sounds like typical campaign rhetoric to me. He’s only responding to Obama’s ridiculous accusations about Romney being a felon, a tax cheat and a murderer. If anything, Romney’s words were too kind. But, what we’re missing is that there’s some hidden meaning behind Romney’s seemingly benign words.
There’s no way the average person could decipher his encrypted language, so we leave it to the expert on MSNBC, Touré Neblett. Here’s his analysis on Romney’s “hate speech:”
“That really bothered me. You notice he said anger twice. He’s really trying to use racial coding and access some really deep stereotypes about the ‘angry black man.’ This is part of the playbook against Obama, the ‘otherization,’ he’s not like us. I know it’s a heavy thing, I don’t say it lightly, but this is ‘n-ggerization.’ You are not one of us, you are like the scary black man who we’ve been trained to fear.”
Is he parodying himself and people like him, or is he actually being serious? What in the world could Romney have said that would not have elicited the usual racism rant from the left? Even if Romney had been cordial toward Obama, our racial coding expert would tell us that Romney’s obviously trying to mask his inner racism. We can’t say anything, either critical or not, about President Obama without getting the racist backlash from the media. Who cares about how much melanin is in his skin? Why can’t we just disagree with him on principle?
And what about our white Vice President Joe “foot-in-mouth” Biden? He can make flippant comments about Romney wanting to “put ya’ll back in chains” or about how you can’t go into a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts without having a slight Indian accent, and the media pretend like it didn’t happen. You can only imagine what the media would have done if some white conservative had said those things. But Biden’s on their team, so he can say pretty much whatever he wants. Romney uses the word “anger” in the same context as “Obama,” and he’s a racist.
We can’t criticize Obama at all because he is America’s first half-white president. (That was so racist, wasn’t it?)