‘Missing’ refugee?

Gateway Pundit reports that at least one Syrian ‘refugee’ who was placed in Louisiana went missing. An update to the post says that the missing individual was found ‘in another state’ and placed with Catholic Family Services, the resettlement agency through which he was placed originally.

I suspect this is just one case of many. And though most of the states in the Union are now on record as opposing the seeding of Syrian ‘refugees’ within their borders,  I was saying in a conversation with someone in the ‘real world’ today: suppose their states do refuse to allow this seeding. What’s to stop the ‘refugees’  from simply removing themselves from one state to another? We still have free movement within this country. I don’t see how ‘refugees’ can be kept from relocating to whatever state they choose, particularly if they have relatives or other contacts in other states.

And what if they are ‘sleeper’ agents, who will join up with others in cells here and there? It has been known to happen. Only the blind and the willfully naive or dishonest can say it hasn’t happened, much less that it can happen.

The fact that these ‘refugees’ are NOT being vetted (the government has said they can’t do so) is also a problem. But I remind everybody that for decades we have let in many Latin Americans and assorted others who enter illegally and whose true identity is not known; some carry multiple IDs. They are not vetted, either. Our government is blithely cavalier about this fact, and is happy to welcome millions of unknown people of unknown background, with unknown intentions. This should trouble us. Even legal immigrants from Third World countries have no ‘paper trail’ or perhaps carry forged IDs, as with many of the refugees in Europe carrying forged Syrian papers. Our government does. not. care. Yet we citizens have to jump through hoops to prove our identity, and are increasingly surveilled and watched, every aspect of our lives documented. We even have to show picture ID at the doctor’s office — for our own protection, they say. Immigrants, refugees are exempted from all the scrutiny in many instances.  Just their say-so is enough.

And do the governors of the several states, or other elected officials, have the right, in the eyes of the federal government, to defy the policy of the D.C. government? Many Northerners in these United States claim that the issue of ‘State’s rights’ was settled once and for all by the War Between the States, in which those who asserted ‘state’s rights’ were crushed, to the approval of most in the North. So now that we’ve given so much power to a centralized government in that alien place called D.C., will these states refusing Syrian ‘refugees’ have a legal leg to stand on?

How can we prevent free movement of these ‘refugees’? I say we can’t. The powers-that-be seem to be able with their vast surveillance system to track all of us American citizens, including phone calls, e-mails, snail mail (so I’ve read), our contacts on social media, our location and movements, via our cell phones and computer use. But when it comes to tracking people who do represent a real threat they plead impotence. They ignored warnings about Nidal Malik Hassan, the Tsarnaevs, and who knows how many others. Funny how selective they are in tracking people and acting on any suspicion.

Disturbing details

The massacre at the Bataclan concert hall in Paris is the subject of posts on several blogs. Several blogs have blurred-out photos of the massacre aftermath, showing bodies sprawled in pools of blood. I have seen the original, non-blurred photos.

Thinking Housewife expresses skepticism: was this a ‘staged’ scene? She questions certain details:

Why is no one attending to these victims? Where are the emergency responders? It’s very unusual even when only police have arrived for no one to help those who have been shot. Usually even victims who are believed to be dead are rushed to hospitals just in case they may be revived. That is standard practice. And yet these victims are left in piles. Is this the moment before any police and medics arrived? Does that mean no one stayed behind to help these poor people, some of whom may have survived if they were treated?”

Reading a much more extensive and detailed report, with more photos, from the UK Daily Mail yields much more information. Reading it,seeing more pictures of the scene,  I am satisfied that this was not a hoax or a staged scenario. The concertgoers were apparently packed tightly as with many such concerts, and in close quarters, being held at gunpoint by the attackers, they could not easily start taking photos with their cell phones. The article contains the witness reports of concertgoers who survived.

The Daily Mail headline says the attackers “even butchered fans in wheelchairs”, who were in a special area to view the concert. I can’t say I am shocked because I remember one of the early terror acts in the modern era, the hijacking of the ship, the Achille Lauro. A wheelchair-bound passenger was thrown overboard to his death, so this is standard behavior for these cold-blooded ‘people.’ Perhaps the younger generations haven’t heard of these events from the 1970s-1980s.

But the more disturbing reports come from the French site Fdesouche saying that the terrorists, armed with knives, slit the abdomens of those who were wounded and helpless, and that the torture carried on for some time.

After having heard and read of so many examples of such inhumanity from these people, I find this all credible. And it’s disturbing, because I honestly cannot begin to fathom what would bring a human being to be able to do such things. I can’t conceive of hating anyone, especially a total stranger, so much that I would cold-bloodedly do such horrific things. I can’t begin to understand the white-hot hatred that leads to such icy cruelty. I can’t imagine what could motivate anyone to be willing to blow themselves up just to be able to simultaneously kill or maim ”infidels.” Anybody who could or would do such things should not be breathing free air or walking amongst normal humanity.

And yet the leftists accuse people like me, in other words anybody to the right of Stalin, of being ”hateful haters who hate”. They had better start noticing who the world champion haters are: the people who have been carrying out attacks on random strangers for the last 40 or so years, in this current wave of terror. And it isn’t the ”right wing”, and it certainly is not White Christians or even White non-Christians. If the dangerously deluded left would just get out of the way and let realistic adults run things, we would never be under attack in our own countries — or what, at least, used to be our own countries.

‘Hate crime’ in Canada

A mosque was set afire in Peterborough, Canada. A local Moslem spokesman says it is clearly a ‘hate crime.’

The way the media treat incidents like this stands in sharp contrast to the way they treat incidents targeting the native populations of Western countries. If Moslems do something violent, it is downplayed as being unrepresentative of ‘true Islam’, only the act of a few ‘radical extremists’ or ‘fringe groups’. Then we are told that we must not judge Islam or Moslems by the violent acts (which are ever more frequent it seems) but by the supposed ‘peaceful majority’ of Moslems — who seem rather elusive, to be honest.

Judging by the way the media treat incidents like this mosque fire — in which no people were harmed, by the way — one would be led to think that damaging a building is more shocking and heinous than what happened in Paris on Friday, an attack in which hundreds of human beings were killed or injured. I guess it all depends on who is doing what to whom, not on the actual nature of the ‘crime’ itself. And of course the term ‘hate crime’ is only ever applicable to acts carried out by White people. When the actors are not White and especially if they are members of other protected groups (Moslems, non-heterosexuals, etc.) then the media warn against judging the group by the actions of certain individuals; the group as a whole is never indicted as with White people.

And when, as so often happens, the ”hate crime” proves to have been carried out by the ‘victims’ the media bury that story on the back pages of the papers, or do not report it on the evening newscast. Hoax ‘hate crimes’ are far more common than most people realize, and if you stop and think who benefits the most from the hoaxes, obviously the ‘victim’ wins sympathy and the propaganda value for the leftist narrative is valuable. So there’s every motive to stage these ‘hate crimes.‘ So I’ll take this one with a grain of salt, and to the media, I say, let’s show some perspective here.


Leftism/liberalism/political correctness diminishes the I.Q. It makes its adherents impervious to logic, bereft of common sense, and blind to the realities of human nature and to the real world of experience.

Case in point: this meme that has been spread around the Net by said cult adherents:

“To people blaming refugees for attacks in Paris tonight. Do you not realise these are the people the refugees are trying to run away from..?”

The person who tweeted this here says, more or less, that ‘we know refugees didn’t do these attacks.’ Why and how do we “know” this? Because the writer of these words says because they are refugees. Refugees aren’t terrorists. How’s that for circular logic, or is it merely a non sequitur? Whatever it may be it’s staggeringly childish, but then lefties and PC cultists are nothing if not cases of arrested development, perpetual adolescents, ”feeling” their way through life. Common sense? Never heard of it. No savvy.

The fact that Syrian IDs were found on one or more of the attackers who were killed, and that at least one has claimed to be a Syrian who came in as a ‘refugee’ does not in the least discourage the writer from his belief. Reality? Facts? Irrelevant. We ”know” that refugees aren’t terrorists because they are refugees. They are running away from the terrorists, you see.  So they could not possibly be terrorists. QED.

Anyone remember the Tsarnaev brothers, who were behind the Boston Marathon bombings? Their mother was a ”refugee”, and as such she was in our country legally. And remember Sulejman Talović,  who killed five people in 2007 in a mall in Salt Lake City? Reports were that he shouted the usual ‘Allahu akbar”. He was a Bosnian ‘refugee’, and here legally. More Bosnian ‘refugee’ terror plotting here.

More evidence? What about this case?  Or this? Or this Uzbek refugee in Idaho? Or these Iraqi ‘refugees‘ in Bowling Green, Kentucky, of all places? And this, from last year, warning of a ‘Trojan Horse’ plot against Europe?

This follow-up story on the Bowling Green ‘refugees’-cum-terrorists says that the incident might prompt better screenings of refugees, but we’ve lately been told that it is not possible to vet these millions of ‘refugees’ traversing the globe, so the Western ‘leadership’ throws up their collective hands and says we can only let them in; to do otherwise would be inhumane — and it’s so much more humane, according to them, if a few hundred or a few thousand Frenchmen or Americans or Swedes or Spaniards or Englishmen die, than to bar the gates against millions of unknown people from known hostile countries.

Too many people who have not even a nodding acquaintance with reality are voting in these treasonous ‘leaders’ who seem to be waging biowarfare on their citizenry by means of immigrants and ‘refugees’ who may be at worst, wolves in sheep’s clothing and at the very best, “only” a means of replacing native-born citizens, and undermining social cohesion and the West’s way of life.

Some timely words from Oriana Fallaci

The quotes below date back several years; I used them in a blog post back in 2006 or so. Oriana Fallaci was an outspoken woman who faced prosecution for some of her politically incorrect statements. She was an inspiration to me. She was courageous, having a great integrity and regard for truth that made her unable to bow down to political correctness. Her words hold even more relevance today than when she originally said or wrote them.

”For four years I’ve been talking about Islamic Nazism; about the war against the West; about the death cult; about European suicide. About a Europe that is no longer Europe, but Eurabia, and that with its feebleness, its inertia, its blindness, its servitude to the enemy is digging its own grave. For four years, like another Cassandra, I’ve been shouting until I’m hoarse “Troy is burning! Troy is burning!” and I despair of the Danaids for whom, like Virgil in the Aeneid I weep for a city entombed in its torpor. [A city] that, through its wide-open doors receives fresh troops and joins complicit parties [inside]. For four years I’ve been repeating to the wind the truth about the Monster and its accomplices; that is, the accomplices of the Monster who, in good or bad faith, open wide the doors–who, like [those] in the Apocalypse of John the Evangelist, throw themselves at his feet and allow themselves to be stamped with the mark of shame.”


”The real enemy is Islam and the most catastrophic threat is immigration not terror. It is immigration. And they do not integrate in Europe. Maybe in the USA but not in Europe. Those riots in France are a result of that very thing”.

“Servility to the invaders has poisoned democracy, with obvious consequences for the freedom of thought, and for the concept itself of liberty. “

”We are an age without leaders. We stopped having leaders at the end of the 20th century. ”

J.R. Nyquist, in a piece from 2007 called Europe’s White Flag of Cowardice, he writes of Fallaci:

According to Fallaci, “Everything can be expressed, everything can be spread, except the freedom of revealing the truth. Because the truth leaves no way out, and inspires fear.”
Fear is the determining factor in the decline of democracy, Fallaci claims. And therefore courage is the antidote. Tried in Paris for writing that Muslims “breed like rats” (“Ils se multiplient comme les rats”), Fallaci denounces Europe’s intellectuals as “the oblivious ones.” Her analysis is precise. She identifies a mortal threat to Western Civilization. It is the mortal threat of our own cowardice before the truth.”
How does one trust a Europe that ”sells itself like a whore, a Europe which is no longer capable of reasoning?” By refusing to admit that Islam is a pond inside which ”we are all drowning,” Fallaci says that we fail to defend ”our territory, our homes, our children, our dignity, our essence…”
She says the West is in a war. But the West isn’t fighting because the West has lost its passion. Instead, Europe cowardly waves “the white flag of servitude and resignation which is suicide itself.”
Fallaci died in 2006, the year I began blogging. Where is her successor? Who in the West speaks out today with the kind of passion and urgency with which she spoke and wrote? We need not only political leaders, but people to inspire us, to speak out with the kind of passionate force and eloquence which she wrote. And her passion was the manifestation of love for her country and people as well as for the West in general, old Christendom, the world she grew up in. She was accused of ”hating”, as are most of us who hold to the traditional, time-honored standards and beliefs. Did she hate?
”Yes, I do hate the bin Ladens and the Zarqawis. I do hate the bastards who burn churches in Europe. I hate the Chomskys and Moores and Farrakhans who sell us to the enemy. I hate them as I used to hate Mussolini and Hitler. For the cause of freedom, this is my sacrosanct right.” 
When you really love something or someone, you will hate that which threatens or harms that which you love. Hate is a normal, natural emotion, and Fallaci was not the only one who asserted that we have a ‘right’ to hate that which is hateful or hurtful. Liberals give themselves license to hate, with a passion, people like Oriana Fallaci or anyone who questions their belief system, but they invent laws to punish or imprison those who hate appropriately, hate with a righteous hatred. And yes, there is such a hate; the book of Ecclesiastes says there is a ”time to love, a time to hate.” If we can’t hate what is a mortal threat to us and our kin and our way of life, then we may as well surrender and lie down. I think that was the burden of Fallaci’s song. She hated because she loved so passionately. Where is that kind of love among our side today? I see a lot of cynicism and bitterness towards our own, towards our forefathers and towards our heritage. This may be born of disappointment and disillusionment, but whatever its excuse, it has to be replaced with some kind of solidarity and fraternal love amongst our folk, or we won’t have a chance.

Paris terror

France’s President Hollande, in a speech about Friday’s terror attacks in Paris, promises that France will be ”pitiless” in responding to the murders.

“To all those who have seen these awful things, I want to say we are going to lead a war which will be pitiless,” French president Francois Hollande said early Saturday morning after surveying a French theatre in which dozens of concertgoers were murdered by terrorists.”

I hope to be proven wrong, but I have serious doubts as to whether he means what he says. Or maybe he does mean that the response will be ”pitiless” — that they won’t be moved by pity for the dead who were killed in these attacks, or their grieving survivors. Or maybe he means that they will be pitiless towards the French people, the real French people. European governments and our ”own” government have not shown much pity for their native, indigenous citizens, while they instead lean over backwards not to alienate or otherwise offend Moslems or whichever minority group is creating havoc amongst us. Remember what happened at Fort Hood, Texas a while back, in which a Moslem military psychiatrist (!) started shooting unarmed soldiers, killing 13? A General Casey had the temerity and the gall to stand up and say

“Our diversity not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”

And this sums up the beliefs of those who are running things all over what was once Christendom. Diversity must be preserved at all costs, even if innocent people, specifically White Christian people, must die at the hands of ”diversity.”

After 9/11, when George Bush addressed the nation, I expected him to close the borders. Silly me. He did nothing of the kind. Ever afterward he took every opportunity to tell us the whopping lie that ”Islam is a religion of peace.” How anybody can say that in public without being laughed to scorn and jeered is beyond me. And I remember that after every terror attack since, we were warned by our ”leaders” that we must not blame innocent Moslems; after all they can’t be blamed for the deeds of a fanatical few. And then in the Iraq war we were told that we were not at war with Iraq or any country, just against ”terror”. No nation or religion or group or individual was to blame, or at least nobody was to be held accountable, really, except a shadowy group called ‘Al Qaeda’ or ‘Islamists’ or ‘radical Islam’. How can we make war against shadowy, anonymous people? How can we blame a religion of peace for extremist acts carried out by a few rogue fanatics who misinterpret their ‘peaceful’ religion?

So, at all costs, borders had to be kept wide open, and in fact Moslem immigration increased greatly after 9/11. Insane. And it’s even more insane in 2015, after so many other attacks in the intervening years.

I hope I can be forgiven for being cynical about Hollande’s tough words, in light of the history of Western ‘leaders’ talking tough and doing nothing, in fact, doing worse than nothing. Not only have they closed no borders (except for the Eastern Europeans) but they are even now, as I write this, furiously importing more ‘refugees’ into various European countries. Britain (including England and Scotland) are now being ”enriched” with tens of thousands of these innocent seekers of a ‘better life.’ And in Louisiana, where 10,000 or so have arrived, and I’ve heard that some smaller towns in that state are now being seeded with Syrians. And of course we all know they are not dangerous because, well, we just know.

Now, supposedly Hollande has ‘closed the borders’ but reports from various sources say the borders are not closed, except for exiting the country.

There are also reports, disputed by some, that the refugee camp at Calais, the jumping-off point for the ‘refugees’ targeting Britain, is afire, and that the fires were supposedly set by irate French men. Some doubt the reports because they believe the French to be cowardly and supine.

But are they? It remains to be seen. Some say the French have a martial spirit that may yet awaken. I continue to hope that is true for all of Europe. Unlike some cynical ‘conservatives’ I don’t take any perverse pleasure in seeing Europe burn, or turn Islamic. I want all of Europe to stand up and preserve the European people, the indigenous, rightful Europeans — not those who come to feast off the remains of a once-great continent. I believe their fate is intertwined with ours by blood kinship, and the fact is, we all face the same kind of existential threat. We can’t gloat over what is happening, considering that we are not any better off than they are. Some think that we tough Americans with our Second Amendment are in a much stronger position, but are we? We’d better not be too self-congratulatory. We have still to prove that we are our fathers’ children, too.

Praise for the Poles — and a question

The New Observer reports that 50,000 Poles rallied to demonstrate against the EU and its policy of engineering the ongoing invasion by ‘refugees.’ I’m encouraged to see that many of the Eastern Europeans can see this EU-sponsored replacement of Europeans for the great wrong that it is. I applaud the Poles for having the spirit to make their voices heard in a peaceful march and demonstration. That’s how free speech is meant to be used, especially when other avenues of expression are closed — as in our Western countries, where the media are hostile to the majority populace.

The massive demonstration—the largest such event yet in Poland—comes only two weeks after the populist Law and Justice party, described by the controlled media as “right wing”—convincingly won elections in that country, forcing out the previous administration which had not taken a firm enough line against the invasion of Europe.”

And at least the Eastern Europeans seem to have some political parties that actually represents their interests and their will, unlike our system. It was a mistake, in my opinion, to have joined the EU, which has long shown itself to be a totalitarian body.

Adam Andruszkiewicz, leader of the All-Polish Youth, spoke of the EU, saying that his group’s mission was to

“…rescue the Republic from the hands of the people who brought about the fact that we have to say goodbye to our people who have gone to London to wash dishes . . .’

And here is where my question comes in: Andruszkiewicz refers to his people who have gone to London to wash dishes — he means the great numbers of Poles who have gone as economic migrants, especially to the UK and apparently to Ireland as well as other countries. The implication is that they have been forced to migrate to other countries in order to earn a living. Whether they are truly forced by circumstances or whether they go simply to go where they can earn much better wages, so as to have more material things is a matter for debate. But is there not just a touch of irony in the demonstrators chanting ‘Poland for the Polish” when they obviously don’t believe that Ireland is for the Irish, or England for the English, Wales for the Welsh, and so on? One rule for me, another for thee?

From my experience I know that many British people resent the great numbers of Poles in their countries, as in some cases they have come to dominate certain smaller towns or neighborhoods. And they do take jobs away from the natives of the UK, just as much as the nonwhite economic immigrants do. Is it any more desirable to have one’s job taken by a White Eastern European than by a nonwhite? Or is it less vexing hear Polish spoken in certain areas in place of English, as opposed to hearing Urdu or some other language? Either way, one’s country is less true to itself, and is irrevocably changed by immigrants in large numbers. We see how well it’s worked in America. Do we wish more of it on Western Europe, regardless of who the immigrants are?

This is not about ‘hating’ Poles or Eastern Europeans generally. I am all in favor of Polish nationalism and if it helps to repel this invasion and to restore Europe to its rightful self, then I cheer it. I would think that Polish nationalism, though, should lead Poles to want to stay at home amongst their own kinsmen and help to better conditions there, so that emigration would not be ”necessary” if it indeed it is necessary.

Each European people has a right to be who they are, truly at home and at peace amongst their own people, preserving their own heritage, language, history, and traditions. All this nomadic going to and fro, up and down in the world in search of  a ”better life” should stop; it’s creating chaos and turmoil, doing violence not merely in a physical sense, but to their collective spirit. The mistaken idea of ‘pan-European nationalism’ should be forgotten; just because Europeans are all White does not mean that they are interchangeable, and that Europe should become one big experiment in White multiculturalism.

I’m somehow back on the map

One of the advantages of blogging in obscurity (which I am especially since my recent long hiatus; I hear crickets out there most of the time) is that the trolls and the assorted lefty/multicultists haven’t noticed me. But I’ve just gotten my first insulting troll post since returning to blogging. So I’m on their radar somehow. They apparently live to find someone to attack or insult. And they condemn those they call ”judgmental.”

I suppose I’ll have to put up a ‘comments policy’ statement on the sidebar in hopes of deterring the venomous ‘antis’. Not that it will probably deter the occasional stray pest, and I suppose childish name-calling from the cultists is proof that I’m doing something right.

Turnabout is fair play

Playwright Katori Hall, who wrote a play about MLK, is indignant about the casting of a Kent State production of her play, and talks about it with the left-wing propaganda outlet known as The Guardian.

“Hall told the Guardian that director Michael Oatman’s decision to double-cast the six-show production with a black actor and a white actor as King went “deeper than just casting a white man in the role of MLK”.

‘I just really feel as though it echoes this pervasive erasure of the black body and the silencing of a black community […]
Oatman, who like Hall is black, said in a statement in August promoting the play that he chose a white actor for the production “to explore the issue of racial ownership and authenticity”.

Perhaps now she has a chance to know how it feels when black actors are gratuitously and absurdly inserted into stories when the character is clearly White, and when the context and the setting don’t support the unlikely presence of a black actor.

Is this not ‘erasure’ of the White body? It’s increasingly common.

Case in point: the British series Merlin ago which inexplicably had a “black British” Guinevere, and  a Nigerian playing Sir Elyan. Right; King Arthur’s circle was diverse and inclusive, and ”Britain has always been multicultural”, so we’re told.

Even more absurd was a black actor playing the Norse god Thor. Do the morons who create these productions and cast them know what “Norse” means?

We’ve seen everything since then including a black Sherlock Holmes and a black Dr. Doolittle. We’re asked to suspend disbelief so as to accept the idea of blacks in Arthurian-era Britain and Moslems roaming Sherwood Forest in Robin Hood’s time.

What about White racial ownership and authenticity in cases like that? Authenticity demands that European actors be cast in stories from European history and legend.  “Racial ownership” should mean that European people should ‘own’ the right to depict their own history, authentically, sans political correctness and out-of-place ”diversity”.

Iconic figures from our folklore and cultural heritage as well as from our actual history are fair game for ‘race replacement’ ; we are required to accept our heroes and legends as blacks, but if the shoe is on the other foot — it’s an outrage.

But this is the logical (!) outcome of a belief system preaching that ”race doesn’t exist” yet for blacks and just about everyone else, race is everything; it’s of primary importance, and we mustn’t forget the White race transgressions against the black race.

One of the oddest race-themed movies ever was a piece of pretentious nonsense called ‘Suture.’ The IMDB reviews display the ”Emperor’s New Clothes” mentality: most readers praise the movie, calling it a real work of art, etc. No one wants to be the oddball who says ”I don’t get it” or ”this is nonsense” because to say so might be to point out the taboo fact that race exists. The plot of the movie is basically this: a rich old White man, who inexplicably has a black brother, trades identities with him, thinking to stage his own death via an accident. One of the rare negative comments:

“The black guy survives, but has amnesia. But somehow everyone mistakes the black guy for the white guy… Apparently, being in an explosion gives you black skin, African facial features, a full head of hair, and a different voice and personality.”

The movie’s characters insist that an old White man and a young-ish black man are mirror images of each other, and everyone behaves as if it’s true. This is what the world we are in is becoming. For example during the 2008 presidential campaign, so many Whites online commented that a certain presidential candidate looked just like his White mother and grandfather — though he was black. This is how many people have come to look at the world in the 21st century. We’ve been taught to deny the evidence of our eyes.

Was the message of ‘Suture’ that race is nonexistent, that Whites and blacks are each other’s mirror image? If so, this is strains credulity, even in fiction.  Though Whites are conditioned to be ”colorblind” one of the most obvious things about people is race. Whether we pretend, deceiving ourselves that it doesn’t exist, the fact is, our brains register it, just as they register instantly whether someone is male or female, young or old.  We categorize instinctively.

Remember the ‘Time’ magazine propaganda piece, with the cover of a baby (White, of course) captioned, ”Is your baby racist?” Yes, babies do notice race and color. It is apparently innate, being present in pre-verbal babies.

Race is real. But White people are expected to take part in a charade, this big lie, that it isn’t real, that seeing it is itself proof of ‘racism’. But blacks see race and ‘racism’ everywhere, and their perceptions are validated by society. Our noticing race is condemned and denied.

The concept of ‘racism’ implies the existence of race. If race does not exist, if it’s a social construct, then so is ‘racism.’ I’ll say it again: racism is a social construct. So much so that a word had to be invented for it back in the 1930s or so. It’s hard to believe we lived so long without having the word ‘racism.’ It’s proven a handy weapon against Whites.

If the goal is to remove racial inequities, then fair is fair. Stop putting nonwhites into roles and contexts where their presence is absurd and far-fetched. Stop misrepresenting our history by putting non-Europeans into the parts of European characters.  If that kind of foolishness must go on, then why not have Whites in black roles? After all, what was MLK’s phrase — judge ”by the content of character, not the color of the skin’?