Shareanoia Runs Deep…

Is MSNBC….Many Shows w/ No Black Channel..?

msnbc.msn.com

Did MSNBC cancel Carlos Watson’s show because he was not giving the “authentic black perspective”? If I accept no black man in America is more talented than Ed Shultz, isn’t that racist? When Chris Matthews got a tingle up his leg, was it because he had assumed black guys were “inarticulate”? Everyone knows MSNBC is against black vs. white, but does this rule apply when shooting hoops in their “African-American” bathrooms?

MSNBC may see color, but I think all Americans shit equally brown.

So in their courageous conquest for social justice, the ‘network of change’ finds their greatest shell of success in the overlooking of one important fact: THE TOWN HALL PROTESTERS ARE MORE DIVERSE THAN THE HOSTS OF MSNBC SHOWS!

And it’s not to say that the proudest proponents of our first black president haven’t had the opportunity to embrace the same progressive ideals they demand all others live by – this year MSNBC debuted 5 new shows, 4 which were given to white hosts:

• The Ed Shultz Show – debuted 4/6/09
• Morning Meeting with Dylan Ratigan – launched on 6/29/09
• Dr. Nancy – launched 6/29/09
• Way Too Early with Willie Geist – premiered on 7/27/09
• Carlos Watson Show – 6/22/09 CANCELLED  <==  (Obviously Racism)

Which only lends a greater understanding to the actual reason MSNBC soiled themselves with glee in the election our nation’s first black president – it exempted them from having to ‘change’ their hiring policies. But if these progressive pioneers are the True North for racial equality, why do they operate to the deep south of their self-righteous standards?

And why doesn’t grave-guardian Keith Olbermann turn over his hourly block of funeral emotions to someone that actually “represents the block”? Hell ,they all should, it could be the most perfect 3-word mantra ever exalted on the front page of Huffpo: “Pundits for Progress.”

I think NYT boob Paul Krugman almost put it best.. paranoia shareanoia runs deep.

So whether it was to compensate for their blatant hypocrisy or to allow more megabytes for Olbermann’s brown bumpkins, MSNBC launched the theGrio.com, a site “devoted to providing African Americans with stories and perspectives that appeal to them but are underrepresented in existing national news outlets.”

Which is only so brave!

…that a conglomerate media empire owning a cable news channel, national news network, and news website, would take the remedial first step in the curing of a disease spread by…the media! (no liberals there). One can only wonder why the opinion nobody receives wouldn’t be a match made in heaven for the network nobody watches. After all,  it’s not like Chris Matthews is the holy grail of cable news queens.

You see, the ‘African American’ website is basically only a dab of chocolate-glaze on the face of MSNBC, an attempt to cover the white powder donuts they smear all over their mouth, chin, or in Olbermann’s case, asscrack. But why is the “black opinion” not good enough for MSNBC.com?

And since the insuation is that the “non-black opinion” is MSNBC.com, then why don’t the “African-American ideas” get a TV network also? Maybe a show, or at least a host for that matter. But hey, I guess separate..still isn’t equal. It’s almost as if MSNBC believes that the best way for blacks to move forward is to “move back.”

But believe it or not, MSNBC is actually good for America. After all, how else could anyone confirm the continual existence of the faulty democratic assumption that the only wrong part of “whites only” is the word “only”?  And at least we know how we know what evidence drives the common liberal belief that our society is anything but ‘post-racial’…because they’re the closet racists!

Even better, MSNBC demonstrates to America how liberal justification for segregation is one in the same with its disguise: Culture. One headline reported about how a GOP senator joked about killing Obama, which was proceeded by the even more predictable “MLK would of Dreamt of Healthcare Too,”  giving us a clear example of how the progressive left uses race-identity to achieve their nanny-state agenda. After all, any reminder that MLK was both a Southern Baptist minister and registered republican might complicate the idea that government-funded abortion is synonymous with the proclamation that “all men are created equal.”

Liberal desire for segregation is nothing new, it’s actually old, and really only logical – if America ever  satisfied the progressive gap of inequality, then why would our society need these pompous racial opportunists? But I’m sure with exception to George Soros, it’s probably safe to assume that the ability create change is not in the hands of the other 279 people tuning in to the network of Hopenblame every night. If this insignificance is not an issue, then why will MSNBC not put on a black host?

Here’s your answer:

What MSNBC fears is the collective illumination that  the unpopular p.c. view is one in the same with the so called “black opinion.” This could trigger a large exodus of an important minority voter block. Liberals know that there are enough Malcolm X youtube clips to provide a crystalized perception of the racist history of the white liberal democrat, so they know it’s important to keep a healthy distance from blacks in order to give them the illusion of independence.

And even though most black Americans generally lean right on most issues, they continue supporting the most liberal administration of all time. Using race-identity to challenge the conservative collective assumption would not only completely unnecessary, but also dangerous. There’s no doubt in my mind that black americans would feel 100% misrepresented by a “black Keith Olbermann” – blabbering out liberal talking points nested in the illogical assumptions of a trustful government.

What drives the media’s underlying fear is the understanding that people generally embrace the confrontation of reality. America embraces those that shoot straight, keep it real, and get to the bottom line. It’s why both Fox News and hip-hop music have had such wide success in America (and in my tape deck).

MSNBC must repel the black viewers in order to maintain the minority voting block that shares almost none of the same assumptions of the progressive left. Even though liberals portray black conservatives as terrorists to society, the true “man-caused disaster” would be blacks conjointly recognizing that progressivism is the antithesis of “keeping it real” – or in other words, that the most popular liberal pundit is the  Vanilla Ice of cable news hosts.

Then again, I have trouble believing that MSNBC is worried about viewers of any race. After all, distressed drunkard Ed Shultz keeps insisting that it only takes “one crazy person,” as if he has a stuffed panda waiting for the next winner of Lee Harvey Idol.

But in the end, the core of the irony is that it’s the white democrat/moral relativist that benefits most from a society willing to give others the benefit of the doubt. If someone buys into an ideology that rejects the idea of universal truths, how can anyone believe that they speak on the principle of truth?

History has proven that there is no reason to give progressive assumptions the benefit of the doubt. From slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow, to public housing projects, welfare, and white labor unions, the truth about liberal socialist policies is that they have been the achilles heel of racial progress. The question America should ask is how any plan built on the same faulty assumptions of these failed policies is not itself inherently racist.

predictablehipster@gmail.com