A recent American Renaissance article points out that peace and quiet is most appreciated by white people. I had a personal experience with this yesterday.
I visited my favorite river spot to escape the heat, and it was so beautiful, clean and quiet:
… at first.
And then a man and his three boys showed up. I looked at them, and said to myself, “they’re going to start throwing rocks into the river.” Sure enough, they did, and my thoughts continued, “these junior Sapiens are of the Mongoloid variety, but still they’re like insects, predictable as they are.”
A while later, a swarm of Africanized Mexicans arrived, and I thought to myself, “these Africanized Mexicans are going to start playing rap,” and they did. It was non-stop “nigga this” and “nigga that,” and I glanced at their offspring, noticing that they were all of about the same age. “They must be from the same batch, hatched at the same time,” I thought.
I picked up my belongings and left for a better spot, one that was not yet infested.
Finding a nice shady spot on a flat rock, I sat next to a nice white woman, and we chatted as we watching people jump from the bridge, occasionally enjoying the cool water ourselves…
Then I spied a mongrel of some sort, either an Ay-rab or a Paki; sometimes it’s hard to tell them apart. He had a flabby belly, and held a Be-Less-White drink in one hand, and a cancer-stick in the other. I thought to myself, “if he flicks the butt into the river, then may he be afflicted with cancer.”
Yes, I’m hyper-critical of people, because so many of them are not as perfect as I am, and because I’m on the Asperger’s spectrum…
But this trip to the river had turned out to be a freak show featuring inferior specimens of the lower races, malformed mongrels and overall degeneracy.
Oddly enough, I wasn’t bitter, and the cool water on my flesh left me invigorated. I smiled and waved good bye to the lady I was chatting with.
Enjoy life while you can, and don’t let human refuse get you down.
*Note: I used crude language in this post just to get a rise out of my enemies, for the fun of it. Don’t read too much into it.
I’m reproducing this article from Quora, with Mr. Gorski’s permission
The post above is fine for what it is but I would suggest that it omits some relevant and helpful historical background. I will summarize and include some helpful links. I encourage folks to read up so you can effectively respond to disguised Critical Race Theory (CRT) proponents.
First, a technical point to address CRT defenders’ objection that “CRT is not being taught in schools.” As a technical matter, they are telling the truth while intentionally veiling a damnable lie. And yes, this is a calling card of the Democrat left. They will deny what they are clearly doing by holding you to a literal definition of terms to distract from what they are actually doing. If you read Herbert Marcuse’s essay (link below), Repressive Tolerance, and Saul Alinsky’s, Rules for Radicals, you will understand that this is a typical tactic they employ. They will play fast-and-loose with terms while straight-jacketing you into a highly-technical rhetorical obstacle course, the end of which is a non-sequitur. To be precise, CRT is taught in formal training seminars to CRT trainers as well as in colleges to those who will be spreading this anti-intellectual poison. Consequently, actual CRT is considered to be one- or two-steps removed from your children. But it’s the same pack of lies.
So, CRT advocates will play word salad games in public to claim that you don’t really understand what CRT is and what it’s all about. In fact, your opposition to CRT is confirmation that you don’t understand it, much as your denial of your white privilege is confirmation that you are a racist. Again, like Pelosi-styled Democrats, they engage in heads-I-win-tails-you-lose rhetorical tautologies that keep their drooling media lapdogs nodding in rabid agreement, as they in turn filibuster every conservative with presumed self-evident racism/sexism/LGBTQ+-hater-ism and so forth. Among the many ironies is that the left then decries the “lack of civility” or “willingness to engage in a conversation” on these topics. Sheesh, who’d imagine not wanting to slam back a few beers with these joyless hucksters?
As I’ve shared in a previous post, CRT is a 1970s illegitimate child of the 1960s Critical Theory (CT) dreamed up by the neo-Marxists of the Frankfurt School. To be sure, neither of these ideologies remotely qualifies to be granted the legitimacy of the title, Theory, a term with well-specified qualifications and pre-conditions. Like most usurpers, the intolerant left has never held much respect for convention or standards. What the Frankfurt School engaged in was Critical Opinion, not theory. Same goes for CRT(O). In a sane world, both would be held with well-earned ridicule among serious people. That they are not says far more about us as a people, no?
To be precise, a theory is a documented hypothesis that has been repeatedly subjected to tests whose purpose is to falsify the hypothesis. That is, those who propose the idea invite skeptics to perform well-documented tests with the goal being to undermine its claims in ways big and/or small. CT/CRT, ahem, CO/CRO, have never requested formal criticism though, to be sure, robust critiques and rebuttals abound. Consequently, like Communism, these aren’t theories but manifestos.
They impose a very specific — and religiously zealous Secular Humanist worldview. To the dear reader who regards yourself as non-religious, irreligious, areligious, or some other title to dismiss yourself from the worldview debate, this is one realm where, in the words of Geddy Lee and Eric Lifeson’s song, Free Will, if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice. We all embrace a worldview; there exists no one without one. The supposed rejection of so-called “organized religion” itself becomes an organized religion. Therefore, when the Bible and Judeo-Christian worldview were dis-placed from our education system in the 1950s-1970s, they were re-placed by a different religion, whose proponents wrongfully/deceitfully claimed was not a religion. This sleight-of-hand has resulted in the Establishment of Secular Humanism as our national Religion.
But I would direct your attention to Article 3 of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the founding document for our system of public schools which has withstood every Constitutional challenge:
Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and, in their property, rights, and liberty, they shall never be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded in justice and humanity, shall from time to time be made for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them. [emphasis added]
I can’t help but highlight that the framers held the Native American population in high regard and respected their autonomy, as is documented here. If you survey the history of our failure to live up to our commitments, you will find racist Democrats behind every betrayal. Alas, I digress…
The writers understood, Religion, to refer to some Christian-based non-sectarian expression or, if a state Religion was codified as it was in Connecticut at the time (Congregationalism), then schools could follow its catechism. Indeed, the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment prohibited Congress’ establishing any Christian denomination as a national Religion, while retaining free expressions and public appeals to the same. Progressives of the latter-19th century began to erode that historical framing, beginning with the likes of Christopher Columbus Langdell, Woodrow Wilson, and Oliver Wendell Holmes.
All this to say that today’s allegedly novel CT/CRT has a long and notorious history, and not all of it emerges directly from the likes of Marx, Engels, or Sanger. Even their ideas emerge from historically Humanist philosophers, including Petrarch, Rousseau, de Sade, Robespierre, and Robert Owen, the first person to attempt establishing a socialist commune in New Harmony, Indiana.
In summary, Critical Race Theory adopts the Oppressor/Oppressed model of the Frankfurt School’s progressive speech/economics modeling and rigorously applies it to race and, as befits its progression, gender identity, and other innovations. But the key is that it assumes there exists a power disparity between the Oppressors and the Oppressed groups that exists prima facie. This has multiple expressions, be they wealth, language, thought processes, dress, food, and so on. To be sure, to CRT advocates there exists nothing that doesn’t exhibit some element of racism (primarily), or the various other intersectional traits. They are all symbolic of either the oppressor or the oppressed. If you are a member of an immutable oppressor group, to adopt traits or expressions they determine to “belong” to the oppressed group, you have committed the crime of appropriation. Consequently, the Oppressors can only acknowledge their classification as oppressors, and the Oppressed can only engage in behaviors consistent with what the authorities claim to be consistent with the oppressed group. No reconciliation is possible, only retribution disguised as reparations.
What I’ve presented represents a high-level primer on this uniquely toxic worldview. And it must be understood as a worldview to properly appreciate why those who reject it are viewed as one of the root causes of the problem(s) their system claims to address. As a conservative, Biblical Christian, I embrace a worldview asserted by the Bible. I might just as well assert that those who reject the Biblical Gospel either don’t properly understand it or have made themselves enemies of God. However, the Bible imposes on adherents a tolerance toward so-called “outsiders”, admonishing me to engage them with a gentleness and respect that the CT/CRT worldview does not impose on its followers. See how that works?
The Corporate Media has a knack for publishing innocent-looking stories that turn out to be particularly evil and sinister upon further inspection. A recent People article fits this description:
‘This Is Everybody’s Children’: Family of White Teen Killed by Police Joins Calls for Reform
Hunter Brittain dreamed of a career in professional racing. Growing up in McRae, Ark., a couple of hours south of the Ozark Mountains, Hunter loved riding and working on motorcycles, four-wheelers and cars.
“Anything that had wheels on it, he was pushing it to the limits,” says his uncle Jesse Brittain, 40. “He wanted to be a NASCAR driver.”
But first, Hunter, 17, was diligent about understanding how machines worked, doing odd jobs as a mechanic and fixing up anything that moved. “There wasn’t anything that Hunter couldn’t do,” Jesse recalled.
It wasn’t unusual, then, when Hunter and two friends worked through the night to fix a truck transmission that was giving him trouble.
At about 3 a.m. on June 23, he and one of his friends (also a minor who remains unidentified) were test-driving a car they’d worked on when a Lonoke County Sheriff deputy pulled them over. What unfolded next was an all-too-familiar headline: an unarmed young man was shot and killed by police…
“The truck was going to roll when Hunter put it in park, so he [got] out of the truck to throw a jug of antifreeze under the tire to keep it from rolling into the cop car,” Jesse said. “He was never announced to stop, to drop the jug, anything. He was just immediately shot three times.”
Hunter was not a criminal, nor was he engaged in any sort of criminal activity; he was shot in cold blood by a cop – and how was this cop punished?
The officer who shot Brittain, Sgt. Michael Davis, was fired for not having his body cam on during the shooting.
Contrast this with the fate of Darin Wilson, who shot black career criminal Michael Brown. Wilson was practically lynched by the media, and the subject of a Federal investigation.
Contrast this with the fate of Derek Chauvin, who was found Guilty by the mob and the Corporate Media long before he was sentenced to 22.5 years in a monkey trial – all this for what was, at worst, a case of negligent manslaughter against a non-compliant career criminal.
Contrast this with the fate of Geronimo Yanez, who shot Philando Castile. Officer Yanes was immediately fired, and faces serous charges, of which he was acquitted. The city of Saint Anthony was hit with lawsuits as well.
Miss Taylor was not an innocent victim; she was heavily involved in her boyfriend’s drug trade.
Unlike the black criminals listed above, Hunter didn’t have a powerful organization, flush with cash, to demand justice. There is no White Lives Matter group extorting money from corporations and enjoying government support to promote its cause, and there are no rampaging mobs threatening massive destruction if their version of justice is not served.
For People to use Hunter’s death to imply that today’s America values white lives over black ones is an insult to reality – which is the exact opposite.
The People article goes on to say:
After the killing, the Brittains felt connection to the Black family members of high-profile victims of police shootings that grieved before them — from Philando Castile to Breonna Taylor to George Floyd. Frustrated by the sheriff’s lack of answers, the family turned to civil-rights attorneys Devon Jacob and Ben Crump, who represented the Floyd family among other cases of people of color killed by police.
It’s a pity that the Brittains feel a connection to the family members of CRIMINALS who were killed by the police. Their own son was not a criminal – and here we have People, and the family of Hunter Brittain, both equating the lives of black criminals to law-abiding whites.
This sickens me, because the lives of those black criminals have a negative net value; the world is a better place without them. But the world is a worse place without people like Hunter.
There are a few types of crime that cry out “blacks did it!” even before you read the story. Viciously attacking elderly people is one of those crimes. Not to say that whites don’t sometimes stoop to that level, but if you see a story about a helpless elderly person being beaten senseless in America, you’ll find that nine times out of ten, the culprit will be black.
There’s no way the casual observer could miss this pattern: In the majority of cases where an old person is viciously beaten in public, or in front of a camera, the culprit turns out to be black. Is there an “Elder Abuse Gene” that’s found primarily in the Tropics? Probably not, but if there was, Scientific American would be in no hurry to tell us about it.
My theory is that the abuse of elderly people goes hand in hand with a more R-Type reproduction, where people have more babies, but invest less in each one. Babies and the elderly are similar enough that a higher frequency of abuse toward one might correspond with the same toward the other. I’m not saying that it’s normal for black people to beat the elderly, just that there’s a higher incidence of such abuse. At least it seems that way; when a white person commits such an atrocity, the corporate media will display his mug every chance they get.
Once again, Laowhy86 has produced a hard-hitting expose’ on China. This video is well worth watching, even though it’s 40 minutes long. I feel that it’s relevant, because this could be our future as well, if we’re not careful:
At a Tarrant, Alabama city council meeting on Monday, a white councilman used a racial slur about Black people, causing noticeable shock among meeting attendees and upsetting one councilwoman so much that she had to step away from the meeting.
According to a report Tuesday in the state-focused website Bama Politics, councilman Tommy Bryant, 76, stood up and loudly asked: “Do we have a house n***** in here?” He says this about 1 hour and 41 minute mark of the Facebook video above. You can also watch it here:
GOP city council member in Alabama says "do we have a house n****r in here?" to a Black woman on the council. This racist scum Tommy Bryant needs to resign and Veronica Freeman deserves an apology.pic.twitter.com/V3NEaZIUks
— Fifty Shades of Whey (@davenewworld_2) July 21, 2021
The clip above only shows Mr. Bryant’s offending words, with absolutely no context. For the full episode, I recommend visiting the article here, and viewing the video at the top of the page, from about 1:40 in. That will give some context.
Mr Bryant was out of line saying what he said. However, the mayor had no business bringing up his wife’s Facebook postings in a public meeting. That was very unprofessional, and what probably happened is that the councilman got so upset about it that he lost his composure.
On top of that, his wife’s Facebook postings seem to have been complaints about ongoing, and pervasive, racism against whites. This should be a legitimate topic to address, if it was actually going on. Instead, the mayor used it as a personal attack on the councilman. The mayor doesn’t have a problem with racism (against whites), but complaining about it is inexcusable.
The councilman seemed like he was at wits end with political correctness, after all these attacks on his wife – and then, when they used the term “N-word,” he lost control.
What he should have done, is got up and left. Instead, he let them push him over the edge. I think everybody on that panel was out of line, and they’re all a disgrace. But Mr. Bryant is 76 years old, and he’s probably dealing with a lot of issues, as we’d expect at that age. It looks like he, and his wife, had been struggling with anti-white discrimination for a long time, and he just snapped at this point.
Here’s what the Chicago Tribune had to say about blacks rioting last year:
Impossible to justify, yes. Impossible to understand? Not at all. Police have participated in a quiet riot against black people for generations.
The African American residents of Minneapolis had seen graphic video of a gruesome event. The most obvious interpretation of the footage is that a black man was being calmly, slowly killed by a cop who knelt for minutes on his neck, as other officers stood by.
The images provided a searing display of police cruelty. There was no reason for Floyd to die. But he did.
It would certainly be more constructive for the city’s African Americans to respond to this outrage in a civil manner, as befits citizens of a democratic society. But when peaceful requests consistently fail to elicit changes that are a matter of life and death, we shouldn’t expect endless forbearance from the victims.
Black rage is mainly fed by biased media, whose “news” coverage is specifically orchestrated to inflame the black and Woke population. But the Tribune’s point is, nevertheless, a valid one; everybody has his breaking point, and we shouldn’t be too quick to judge. Mr. Bryant had clearly passed his breaking point, and he deserves at least as much understanding as the Chicago rioters – a lot more in fact, especially considering the fact that Mr. Bryant didn’t hurt anyone, he didn’t destroy any property and he didn’t break any laws.
I feel bad for Mr Bryant, and I hope that he’s got his retirement arranged, and another place to move to – because his life will be a living hell if he stays where he is.
Somehow, when we were experiences BLM’s “peaceful protests” last year, the corporate media neglected to mention how Jewish businesses in Fairfax, California were damaged and vandalized. From the Times of Israel:
Graffiti on the walls of a synagogue read “Free Palestine” and “f*** Israel.” A statue of Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish diplomat who saved thousands of Hungarian Jews from the Nazis, was smeared with anti-Semitic slogans.
Along with the synagogues, Jewish-owned buildings and stores were defaced, in several cases also with anti-Semitic graffiti. The businesses were looted, too.
This city’s Fairfax district, a heavily Jewish area that has been continuously represented by a Jewish city councilman since 1953, was hit particularly hard by the kind of vandalism that has struck major cities following the killing of George Floyd in police custody.
“The attack on our community last night was vicious and criminal,” Paul Koretz, the district’s current city councilman, said in a statement Sunday. “As we watched the fires and looting, what we didn’t get covered were the anti-Semitic hate crimes and incidents. Under the guise of protests, some advanced their anti-Semitic agenda.”
But one Jewish business managed to escape unscathed: Canter’s deli, which I actually patronized once. The article continues:
Untouched in the mayhem was Canter’s deli, a hardy cultural landmark that has survived since 1931. The 24-hour eatery, famed for its prize-winning waffles and Jewish deli sandwiches, was spared any damage thanks to a strategy honed by owner Marc Canter and his staff during the 1992 Rodney King riots. Advertisement
In an interview with the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles, Canter explained that he and his employees posted a sign expressing solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement. Perhaps even more persuasive, the deli offered free bottles of water to both protesters and police, to the tune of 25 cases. In addition, the deli allowed the protesters to use its restrooms and order food.
“We support free speech and anything that’s peaceful,” Canter said. “There are people coming out of the woodwork that are trying to blend in with the real protesters that are just troublemakers looking to take advantage of the situation and not very interested in what is being protested.”
“Nice business you have there… it would be a shame if anything happened to it. Show your support for BLM, and we can arrange protection.”
I suppose one could describe caving to the demands of hoodlums, and giving lip-service to their perverse cause as a “strategy.” I think a better strategy would be to defend their businesses the way Rooftop Koreans did in 1992.
I saw this videos on the Mad Jewess blog. She included two videos, but I’ll embed just one here:
https://youtu.be/w63gMRdsTc8
No, Biden hasn’t yet approved food aid to South Africa; that was shameless clickbait on my part. But he most definitely will, and he’ll blame the South African crisis on “white-supremacy” or the “legacy of apartheid.”
Meanwhile, send your favorite cannibal recipes to South Africa; they could use them about now.
There’s an old friend of mine from high school who is completely unrecognisable now. She’s changed beyond belief, and when I say changed, I mean for the worse.
When we met, she was just my friend’s shy and awkward girlfriend. He was like two years older than her, and she would hang out with us all day, every day because she followed him around like a lost puppy. She even had an edgy, wry sense of humour at the time, and it was great. She was the subject of several of my 2018 answers, and I painted her in a completely positive light.
Flash forward two years, and she’s a completely different person. It eventually got to the point that she once convinced me to beat a guy up in retaliation to him beating up my other friend. When I beat him bloody, she turned on me, said it was “too far” and completely shafted me.
Another time, she was at a party I was hosting at my house, and she cheated on her boyfriend with a friend of mine. Instead of owning up to what she did, she told the boyfriend that my friend had sexually assaulted her.
My buddy’s life is still irreparably ruined from that shit, and I know for a fact it was false. Both my biological dad and I were in the same room during the time of her allegation. They never went off alone anywhere.
It might sound like she was always a bad egg. But it wasn’t like that. It was a slow decay.
Back in the day, she was kinder, did less drugs and loved everybody. Her hair was long and black and she was quite pretty. Now she’s completely addicted to smoking weed, she’s gained weight, dyed her hair to the point of killing it, and wears nothing but baggy tracksuits and hoodies.
She’s also an oafish bully, who disguises her bullying in progressive politics, pretending it’s anything like the compassion she used to have. Every day her social media is filled with hateful statements, and she constantly tries to mobilise her followers to dox people in the name of progress.
All this performative wokeness made me think about how edgy she used to be, and I started looking back at old photos and memories. That’s when I found a very hypocritical Snapchat screenshot from what was now supposedly a woke queen.
I can’t post the actual photo itself, but use your imagination.
Imagine this blackface photo, but with a teenage girl in the blackface. Even if I gave her the benefit of the doubt and excused the blackface as a “skincare face mask”, that doesn’t excuse what she captioned the photo with
“yo yo nigger”
All while she calls for the heads of strangers online and flaunts her ‘morality’. Morality is determined only by the standards of the mainstream at any given time. And she’s widely considered to be morally upstanding by her peers. This says a lot about our society. Now you see…
But seriously, that’s a skeleton if I ever saw it. If she keeps trying to dox people I care about I’m releasing the blackface pic. Can’t wait to see the crocodile tears in her public apology.
For several years now, America has been busy renaming streets, schools, parks, prizes and sports teams. Here’s a list of name-changes that have taken place since the George Floyd riots. Scientists are even changing the names of insects, because some of them have been deemed insensitive to non-white ethnic groups. In Science Mag, we’re told that:
“Noosing” is a long-standing term used by herpetologists for catching lizards. But for McGee, a Black scientist, the term is unnerving, calling to mind horrific lynchings of Black people by white people in the United States in the 19th and 20th centuries. “Being the only Black person out in the middle of nowhere with a bunch of white people talking about noosing things is unsettling,” she says. McGee has urged her colleagues to change the parlance to “lassoing,” which she says also more accurately describes how herpetologists catch lizards with lengths of thread.
Hence, even when no offense was originally intended, if it’s possible that somebody MIGHT take offense at a name, it’s justification to change it.
Many of the people behind the original names were not evil; they were men, and women, of their times. Some of them were heroes – but this carries little weight to those who judge historical figures by today’s woke standards.
And then we have a man like Martin Luther, the founder of the Reformation Movement in Europe. A Christianity Today article describes him thusly:
“Set fire to their synagogues or schools,” Martin Luther recommended in On the Jews and Their Lies. Jewish houses should “be razed and destroyed,” and Jewish “prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, [should] be taken from them.” In addition, “their rabbis [should] be forbidden to teach on pain of loss of life and limb.” Still, this wasn’t enough.
Luther also urged that “safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews,” and that “all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them.” What Jews could do was to have “a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade” put into their hands so “young, strong Jews and Jewesses” could “earn their bread in the sweat of their brow.”
These fierce comments have puzzled and embarrassed Christians who otherwise admire the Reformer. And they have led to charges that Luther was “one of the ‘church fathers’ of anti-Semitism.” More seriously, Luther’s attacks have been seen as paving the way for Hitler.
It’s true that Luther was more tolerant at one point – but that was before he realized that the Jews were not going to flock to his new Christianity. He became MORE anti-Semitic later in life. If we are to judge Luther at all, then it makes sense to judge him based upon his later writings, to quote an Illinois Wesleyan University paper:
Unknown to popular knowledge, Luther wrote a treatise in 1543 titled On the Jews and Their Lies. In this 65,000-word document, he repeatedly attacks the Jews. The consequences of this treatise were far reaching, even extending into the present day, as his writings continue to be reproduced in pamphlets by neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic groups. More devastating, his writings were circulated during the most horrifying event of the 20th century: the Holocaust. Hitler himself named Luther as one of history’s greatest reformers in his novel, Mein Kampf…
Luther’s attitude toward the Jews appeared to change over his life. His earlier attitudes seemed were sympathetic towards the Jews.
Perhaps Martin Luther King’s father, Michael King, should have considered this before changing his name, and he was a minister, so he surely would have been aware of this. If he wasn’t, then ignorance is no excuse; one does not simply change his name after a historical figure, and not bother to learn about the figure beforehand. To call this “negligence” is too charitable.
When he was born Jan. 15, 1929, Martin Luther King Jr.’s name was Michael. It’s the name originally on his birth certificate.
He was named after his father, the Rev. Michael King, who was senior pastor at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta.
In 1934, Ebenezer sent “Daddy King” to Europe for a Baptist World Alliance meeting…
King toured much of Germany, the country that is the birthplace of Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation, which led to a split with the Catholic Church.
Martin Luther King was 28 years old when his name was legally changed. He was 39 years old when he was assassinated. He had 11 years to reconsider his father’s poor judgment.
While this reflects poorly on the man himself, the fact that his (tainted) name is shoved in our faces practically every day reflects poorly on our ruling class. As the only American with a holiday in his honor, 500 years of violent anti-Semitism is practically celebrated every January 17th. Additionally, practically every city in the United States has a Martin Luther King Blvd., and a Martin Luther King School. There are countless monuments and statues in his memory, each one bearing the name of a notorious anti-Semite.
There is nothing we can do about the past, but we can make things right by posthumously changing MLK’s name back to Michael King, or perhaps to Michael Leib King, so that the initials remain the same, “Leib” being a nod to Jewish support in the Civil Rights movement.
