“Conservatism” keeps getting stupider

So, I’ve taken to periodically visiting this site calling itself “chicks on the right”.

From what I can gather, it is what happens when Right-wingers attempt to be “relevant”.  I’ve never been able to take the whole “generation gap” thing seriously: bigoted, racist, sexist, would-be-theocrat trash have existed in every “generation” – as have their cognitive and moral betters (those who at least attempt to be less sexist/racist/theocratic, etc.)

so, strictly speaking, it’s not a “generational” thing: there may be a (slightly) different distribution-curve among various “generations”, but ignorance/bigotry itself is entirely possible – even to “millenials”.

Here’s what I find so laughably infuriating about when self-described “Conservatives” try to disguise the fact that they are reactionary idiots:

“Conservatism” isn’t a coherent ideological position.  It is merely an attempt to ‘defend” whatever social/political/economic structures happen to have become “traditional” in a given area, at a given point in time.

As such, “Conservatism” can pretend to be about “individualism”, or “personal responsibility” or suchlike buzz-words, but so long as it insists on attempting to defend “traditional” roles/structures, the “individualist” pose will continue to be that – a pose.

It will also always ring hollow to anyone capable of even minimal honesty.

For example: you can’t claim to be for “individualism”, if you attempt to enforce (for example) “gender”-roles on any segment of the population.

I’m going to be blunt here: it might be (comparatively) rare, but it is entirely possible for (say) females to enjoy/be good at stuff outside their “traditional” gender-role.  For example: STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics).



So, “Conservative” (read: reactionary/sexist) twaddle attempting to “enforce” women’s traditional role (domestic drudge/breeding machine) is utterly indefensible.

Exceptions CANNOT “prove” a rule – they can merely DISPROVE it.

(Yes, I am fully aware that the “prove a rule” phrase is widely misused.  The “original meaning” – where “prove” is essentially synonymous with “to test”, has essentially been lost over time, to the point where in daily parlance, the expressions “means” something exactly opposite to its original “true” meaning.)


At any rate, when bigoted filth resort to psychological pressure (or physical force) to get others to “keep their place” – their antics are utterly indefensible.

Which brings me to “Conservative hipster” bullshit like “chicks on the right”.

Any attempt by “Conservative” women to be anything other than mere domestic drudges/breeding machines, is a tacit repudiation – and DISPROOF – of the “traditional” gender-role Conservatives want to enforce on women.



At any rate, it is amusing when Right-wing women (who self-describe as “chicks”, no less) – are permitted by their husbands/fathers, to deviate from the Kinder, Küche, Kirche”  “gender”-ghetto, to engage in “social” commentary.


In among the typical Right-wing whining about how “Western Civilization” is (purportedly) “collapsing”, you very occasionally find instances which conclusively demonstrate the fact that the vast majority of “Conservatives” are both ignorant and bigoted.

Here are two of the most obvious examples:


(TL;DR: one of the “Chicks” is whining about the fact that police officers somewhere in Flyover country have been ordered to remove decals containing a bible verse from their police vehicles.  As per usual, the precious little JesusFlake gets all petulant about this – although she does manage to actually avoid claiming that this is an instance of “persecution” of Christians – which has basically become the “go-to” whine for special little JesusFlakes, since the Supreme Court decision on marriage equality):


Now, the beautiful part is: this whiny little article (and all such “Conservative” whimpering) was neatly “chick”-slapped by the first commenter, as follows:

I know this will bring flack but they are completely correct in having them removed… at least the verse reference. Law enforcement works for the state. Having a bible quote on an official vehicle used by officers of the state implies that the state endorses a religion which in turn implies establishment. The only two remedies are either to remove it or include quotes from every religion which is impractical.
I know Christians don’t like or accept this but what would you say if instead they used “God defends those who are true – The Quran 22:38 (Surah al-Haj)” on their cars? Be careful how you answer.

Now, here’s the beautiful thing about the above:

“Conservatives” are stuck in an insoluble bind with the above-quote — if they’re honest.


  1. They admit that they would find the Quranic verse offensive – simultaneously conceding BOTH the virtue of “separation of church and state” AND tacitly coming out as would-be theocrats (Because some “sacred” texts are “more sacred than others”, doncha know)

Oh wait, there’s really no other alternative to the above course, my mistake. 🙂

See, this is the blatant double-standard: They want to be able to SHOVE their religion – and its associated texts – down everyone else’s throats.  At the same time, they would SHIT THEMSELVES EN MASSE, if (say) a Muslim group engaged in EXACTLY their tactics.

(“Whaaat?   An Imam came to the school, had an explicitly religious assembly which the students were FORCED to attend -and then handed out free copies of the Qu’ran?  How DARE they?”)


(Repeat after me: “Four legs good! Two legs BAAAAD!”)


So anyway, Hags on the right fail, on that count. 🙂


Another abysmally stupid “article” concerns some guy in England who is currently cohabiting with two women.  They consider themselves  a “throuple” (three-couple).

Now, predictably, Ignorant hags on the right is utterly apoplectic, because “The Bible” (or was it Leave it to Beaver) tells us that “traditional” marriage involves “one man” and “one woman”.

Anyway, someone in the comments section (correctly) pointed out that polygamy (one man, several wives) is infinitely more “traditional” than the (purportedly) “traditional” marriage the “Chicks” where whining about – even being mentioned repeatedly in what is (supposedly) Right-wingers’ total-fave book, “The” Bible.

predictably, this didn’t go well – because “Conservatives” are genuinely too stupid to actually think through the implications of whatever they happen to be culture-warring about at any given millisecond.


The “Chick”-slap in the Reason article is THIS gem:

America has always been trailblazer of the future, not custodian of the past. So opposing same-sex marriage on grounds of tradition is a chancy proposition.

But this approach has another major flaw: What conservatives regard as traditional marriage is not very traditional at all. It’s radically different from what prevailed a century or two centuries ago. And if you want to talk about “thousands of years,” you’ll find that almost everything about marriage has changed.

The biblical King Solomon, after all, was a dedicated polygamist, with 700 wives. Monogamy has always been the norm in Christianity, but not as part of a marriage of equals.

The 18th-century English jurist William Blackstone explained, “By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in the law; that is, the very being or legal existence of a woman is suspended, or at least incorporated or consolidated into that of the husband, under whose wing, protection, or cover she performs everything.”

Women generally couldn’t enter into contracts without permission from their husbands. In legal status, they were a notch above sheep and goats. In America, it was not until well into the 19th century that states began to grant married women something resembling full property rights.

Even then, marriage had attributes that traditionalists would like to forget. Husbands who forced themselves on their wives were not guilty of rape, since they were legally entitled to sexual access. Contraception was forbidden in many states. Only in 1965 did the Supreme Court decide that such laws “violate the right of marital privacy.”

The ideal of marriage enshrined in the 1950s reflects a myopic nostalgia for a phase that didn’t last. The 1960s brought no-fault divorce, which allowed wives as well as husbands to dissolve their bonds without proving some terrible transgression by the spouse.

This was an earthquake, causing unprecedented numbers of unions to collapse. A writer for the conservative Family Research Council said that under no-fault divorce laws, marriage became “nothing more than notarized dating.” Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage said their effect was nothing less than “the abolition of marriage.”

In a sense, she’s right. But you don’t see many conservatives trying to repeal no-fault laws in the name of “traditional marriage.” Gallagher misses the more fundamental point: This institution is not something passed down unaltered from generation to generation, like the family silver. It is continually in flux, taking forms that would surprise our forebears.

So, no: “Conservatives” don’t give two liquidy shit about “tradition” OR “Individualism”.

Polygamy is way more “traditional” than either monogamy-in-general or the Leave it To Beaver caricature of monogamy that gets Right-wingers all misty-eyed.


So, no.  whatever passes for “Conservatism” at any given point in time is nothing but the (futile) attempt to cobble together an “ideology”, to cover up a mix of distorted “nostalgia” and total ignorance.

The above observation goes a long way toward explaining why the (modern) “Conservative movement” began with folks like William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater, and is ending with barely-verbal wreckage like Sarah Palin, Jan Brewer, Michelle Bachman, Dan Quayle, Rush Limbaugh, Donald Trump, etc.


So, yeah: Chicks on the right is definitely giving Conservatism “a makeover” – making it look even more ignorant and panic-stricken than it already does.


My “mother” manages to combine stupidity and narcissism. The results are predictable:

Back when I used to pretend to “respect” my “mother”, she tended to say blatantly stupid things, and then get offended when we didn’t all just nod and smile, and pretend to “respect” her views.

A perfect example of this was when she talked about having visited a World War II museum, where she encountered some of the anti-“Jap” propaganda from that era.

Her comments on this demonstrate just exactly how lacking in self-awareness she has always been:

  1. She remembered the propaganda from her childhood.
  2. She (grudgingly) admitted that the racist caricatures etc.  were “exaggerated”.
  3. She also talked about some relative who had married a guy who happens to have “oriental” ancestry of some kind.  Mom pretends to be courteous to the guy – to his face.  (Part of her “keeping up appearances” schtick.)
  4. She not only talked shit about the aforementioned “oriental” behind his back (and about his wife), but chastised herself for doing so – on the grounds that “God” was probably “confronting” her with her own bigotry toward “orientals”, by having that relative marry an individual of that ancestry.

In other words, the (unnamed) relative and her “oriental” husband were both reduced to mere means whereby “God” could (unsuccessfully) attempt to “teach” my mother some sort of “lesson”.

You think I’m reading too much into this?  I don’t think so — not given the fact that my idiot, heroin-addict half-brother has always espoused virulently racist and vicious bullshit.  My “mother” is the proximate cause of his racism.

Of course, she fails to comprehend this fact – because she is unwilling to admit that there is any similarity to her bigoted opinion of “orientals” and the (equally bigoted) rantings of my idiot, heroin-addict half-brother with regard to ‘niggers” and “kikes”.

The only real “difference” between my idiot, heron-addict half-brother and my “mother” is:

  1. He is either too honest (or too stupid) to be able to CONCEAL his racism
  2. He happens to be bigoted against different demographic collectives.

That’s it: SHE (and my other relatives), systematically trained him to become the racist pig he became

Yet another reason why I am incapable of “respecting” her: she systematically trained her Special Little junkie psychopath to become racist trash – and is incapable of acknowledging that fact.




Another reason I find racism incomprehensible:

Here’s the thing about racism (specifically, the uniquely “American” variant, involving Blacks being “owned” by Whites):

The fundamental conceit “justifying” the enslavement of Blacks was the notion that they were basically sub-human.  Basically, all “Racialist” rhetoric tends to treat Blacks as a sort of near-human ape, which just happens to be more trainable than, say, chimps.

Hence all the fucked-up pseudo-science about brow-ridges, and “racialist” humor where Black women are called “She-boons”, and other ass-hattery of that same kind.

So anyway, Blacks were systematically dehumanized, and explicitly viewed as a non-human animal.

Now, here’s the truly idiotic part: by the “logic” of their own socioeconomic system, whenever a “White” owner raped a female piece of “property”, he was doing the equivalent of FUCKING A SHEEP.

This is what has always boggled my mind about racist trash: their entire ideology revolves around implicitly – or explicitly – viewing Non-Whites as essentially subhuman — but a significant amount of them somehow can’t hamage to refrain from committing the equivalent of bestiality.

Hence, the “need” for bullshit like the “one-drop” rule, and the “brown bag” test, and suchlike.

I don’t get it: slave “owners” were (at least by their own “logic”), basically fucking a beast of burden.

And yet, modern-day “White Power” pukes pretend to be morally upstanding?

I could maybe take modern-day racist trash more seriously, if they’re (ideological and/or physical) ancestors had been able to keep it zipped.

Quite frankly, I hope this post is “offensive” (to racists).  I am incapable of anything other than contempt for them.   I guess a fairly significant amount of it derives from my idiot, heroin-addict half-brother, but you know what they say: if you’ve seen one, you’ve seen ’em all.

Right, Goober?

Karl’s *true* motivation behind the “computer museum”:

Karl has been fantasizing about a “computer museum” as long as I’ve known him.

At first I thought that this was merely a particularly flimsy rationalization for compulsive hoarding.   Now, I’m beginning to think his motivations are both more complex, and infinitely uglier:

The story and metaphor of The Dog in the Manger derives from an old Greek fable which has been transmitted in several different versions. Interpreted variously over the centuries, the metaphor is now used to speak of those who spitefully prevent others from having something that they themselves have no use for. Although the story was ascribed to Aesop’s Fables in the 15th century, there is no ancient source that does so.


The short form of the fable as cited by Laura Gibbs is: “There was a dog lying in a manger who did not eat the grain but who nevertheless prevented the horse from being able to eat anything either.”[1]


Where does Karl fit into this?

Well, for starters, he knows that the “computer museum” will never happen (barring a string of outright miraculous events).  His rickety shit-bucket of a jeep is barely drivable, so he cannot even get over to the storage units to sift through the “collection” – even if he wanted to do so.

Karl is stupid, but even he can’t help but recognize the fact that he will never be in a position to do anything with the “collection”.

A sane person would use the (few) good items from the “collection” to generate seed-funding to get him the hell out of that area.  Purportedly, Karl can “just walk into” pretty much any tech-related job – if he could manage to escape Pennsylvania.

Therefore, a sane person would have come to regard the storage-units as a stone around his neck, in that he can neither organize or transport the contents.

At this point, Karl’s motivation amounts to “I can’t do anything with the stuff – but at least I *have* it!!!“.

IN other words, he continues to hoard the stuff NOT because he actually believes that the “computer museum” will ever happen – but merely to prevent anyone else from getting access to the hoard.

If he really gave a shit about “educating people about the history of microcomputers” or suchlike, he could donate the collection to one of several computer museums which actually exist. (Assuming, of course, that any of the stuff is actually good – which is exceedingly unlikely, given Karl’s tendency toward negligence and anti-effort.  (e.g. the rusty tube-tester, the Yaesu Vx-7 which ended up damaged because he “accidentally” forgot to remove the batteries, the boxes of water-damaged textbooks, etc.)

Karl is a half-wit who has most likely managed to damage or destroy the contents of his “collection”.  The worst part is: he would rather do so, than have LEGITIMATE collectors/museums gain access to the hoard.

In principle, Karl’s antics are no different from the following video:

The only real “difference” between Karl’s antics and the above video is: at least the guys in the video had FUN destroying the machine.

Karl’s destruction is by way of mere negligence.


Goober the bigot thinks I’m “anti-family” because I refuse to continue being victimized

I’ll put this out here:  My problem isn’t (primarily) with the SOCIAL CONSTRUCT known as “family”.  My main problem is with CONSANGUINITY.

(Sorry, Goober: I just can’t help using polysyllabic  – er, I mean “Big” – words.)  Sadly, there’s just no way to “dumb it down” enough for you to understand it.

Let me make it easier for any bigoted trash who might be reading this blog:

Your “blood”-fetish is ridiculous.  I have more respect for  people who pretend to be “vampires” IRL, and drink each other’s blood – because at least they are openly idiotic.

Your particular brand of idiocy is common enough (albeit in an attenuated form), to be – at least somewhat – socially acceptable.

Quite frankly, If I took your “blood”-related superstition seriously, I would have no choice but to experience both acute and chronic embarrassment because of my “blood” relatives back in PA:

My (drunken, woman-chasing) “father”

My (enabling/emotionally-abusive, manipulative) “mother”

My idiot, heroin-addict half-brother

The gaggle of “half-siblings” in Virginia)…..

You get the idea.

IF I took your idiotic superstition seriously, I would have no choice about whether or not to continue to allow the aforementioned individuals’ antics to impact me, negatively.

Guess what?  Among many other reasons, I live several States away from them, so as to keep DISTANCE from their idiotic bullshit.

Now, I can understand why people would buy  into your idiotic little “blood”-fetish; it allows – hell, ACTIVELY ENCOURAGES – vicious semi-human filth to fuck up their OWN lives, and never face the consequences, because they can rest secure in the fact that they’ll be able to manipulate/badger/cajole/guilt-trip their “blood-kin” into suffering the consequences.

(This is also the gimmick at the base of so-called “unconditional” love)

At any rate, were I to take your “blood”-fetish seriously, that would necessarily involve reducing myself to the status of perpetual victim/prey   – to the most negligent and predatory of my “blood-kin”.   (Specifically, my idiot, heroin-addict half-brother, and his primary Enabler/apologist, my ‘mother’).

But guess what?  THEY DON’T DESERVE it.

My ‘mother’ was particularly brazen in her double-standards.  She was always obsessed (to the point of absurdity) with what they “neighbors” might think – so she went to ridiculous lengths to put up a good “front”.

The thing that i can’t wrap my mind around is: if you’re going to put up a good “front”, why not just DO SOMETHING TO ACTUALLY SOLVE THE PROBLEM?

If she had simply kicked the junkie psychopath to the curb, the constant stream of tantrums, theft, lying, physical/emotional abuse, threats etc. would have ceased.  He would have actually had to confront the fact that he was a morbidly-obese, chainsmoking heroin-addict, who could just barely manage to read at a 4th grade level.

But, no.  That wasn’t what happened.  Instead, the worthless anthropoid continued to guilt us all into continuing to be victimized by him, by means of exactly the line of “reasoning” you tried (ineptly) to invoke in the comment(s) I deleted.

The thing is: if “but, we’re ‘blood-kin'” is your only ‘argument’ – you have none.”

“But, we’re family!” is nothing more, less or other than the desperate shriek – the tantrum – of an individual who is (otherwise) irremediably fucked (typically, because their own stupidity has finally “come home to roost”), is unwilling to actually get his or her shit together, knows that none of their “friends” would actually tolerate their antics – and is counting on the (regrettable) fact that it is still possible to “cash in” on the fact that most people are still too stupid as to privilege “kin” other others – no matter their antics.

So, no.  to paraphrase a well-worn truism, “family” is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

I refuse to play that game.

I am also resolved never the stop foot within 100 miles of a certain section of PA – specifically for that reason.

That particular shit-stain can find other victims.




A sure-fire (albeit comparatively slow) cure for racism:


Specifically: The descendants of racists – cohabiting with/fucking/”interbreeding” with individuals originating from a different “race” – ON PRINCIPLE.

don’t get me wrong: at least some of the resultant “impure” individuals will probably continue to be able to “pass” as “White” – but in and of itself, that fact is irrelevant – because even those “passing” as “White” will continue spreading their “non-white” DNA through the populace at large.

The most probable result?  Something along these lines:



My point is: “race” is essentially a mass(turbatory) self-delusion – and I love the fact that “identity” pukes (on all “sides”) just can’t seem to prevent their delusive “identities” from being shattered.

Guess what?  Do you like Carol Channing?

In her autobiography, Just Lucky I Guess, the 81-year-old performer told the story of the day she learned that she is biracial.

She recalled that she was 16 years old and heading to college when her mother told her that she was “part Negro.”

“I’m only telling you this,” Channing recalls her mother, Peggy, saying, “because the Darwinian law shows that you could easily have a Black baby.”

Her mother continued by explaining Carol’s unique look. She told the doe-eyed performer that because of her heritage that was “why my eyes were bigger than hers (I wasn’t aware of this) and why I danced with such elasticity and why I had so many of the qualities that made me me.”

The revelation didn’t bother Channing, who said, “I thought I had the greatest genes in showbiz.”

George Channing, Carol’s father, was the son of a German American father and a Black mother. While still very young, his mother, who worked as a domestic, moved him and his sister from his birthplace of Augusta, GA, to Providence, RI, where she thought people would never recognize his “full features.”

Channing’s paternal grandmother didn’t raise her father and his sister because she “didn’t want anyone to see her around her children” because she was “colored,” the performer surmised.

carol channing

Now, the thing that has to be truly galling on a bone-deep level is: slave ‘owners” just couldn’t manage to “keep it in their pants”, some of the resultant “mulattoes” etc. managed to “pass” as “White” – and any pretense of “racial purity” is utterly impossible as a result.

IF (openly) racist sub-animals were either consistent or scientifically literate (yeah – I know), then KKK chapters and racist “skinhead” groups would require some sort of DNA test (ancestry.com/23andMe, etc.) for membership.

Of course, that would have precluded something like Craig Cobb from continuing to be above ground, polluting the world with his racist idiocy (as opposed to having been snuffed by his own cadre).

New rule for those trying to “defend” racism in the comments section:

REAL NAMES, physical addresses, and DNA test results – or fuck off.

Think of it as the racist version of “pics or it didn’t happen”.


Hell, maybe it should be a “meme”.  Maybe it can turn into some kind of “Internet challenge” for (purportedly) “White” trash:  “How ‘white’ are you?”

I mean think about it: if people are going to call “bullshit” on Rachel Dolezal  for self-identifying as Black, and Elizabeth Warren’s stuff about cherokee ancestry, then why in hell would anyone in their right mind (pun very much intended) permit someone – let alone some anonymous/pseudonymous shit-poster – make completely unsubstantiated claims either about their own “racial” purity?

For all I know, the virulently racist jackhole could be a Craig Cobb-type who just “self-identifies as ‘white’ because he/she can manage to pass the “brown bag” test:


Beyond that, all I can say – as kindly and gently as possible – is: fuck off, poseur.

Or, (to borrow a particularly inane ‘meme’ from the Alt-right):




Racist sub-animals can’t have it both ways: EITHER “kinship” or “race” – but not both


Y’know, history itself has to be a total pain in the ass for racists:

During the time period of slavery in America the white slave owners would have sex with their black female slaves, and the result often was children being born. Many slave owners did not help their mixed blooded mulatto children; they labeled these children black and let their black mothers raise them. These white looking children were considered slaves just like their mothers. The one drop blood rule that Southern whites followed said, that if you have one drop of black blood in you then you are black, no matter how much white blood and genetics you have in you.


In 1911, Arkansas passed Act 320 (House Bill 79), also known as the “one-drop rule.” This law had two goals: it made interracial “cohabitation” a felony, and it defined as “Negro” anyone “who has…any negro blood whatever,” thus relegating to second-class citizenship anyone accused of having any African ancestry. Although the law had features unique to Arkansas, it largely reflected nationwide trends.

Laws against interracial sex were not new. Virginia declared extramarital sex a crime during Oliver Cromwell’s era and increased the penalty for sex across the color line in 1662. In 1691, Virginia criminalized matrimony when celebrated by an interracial couple. Maryland did so the following year, and others followed. By 1776, twelve of the thirteen colonies that declared independence forbade intermarriage.

Though the intermarriage ban widened, extramarital interracial sex—at least between white men and black women—was tolerated. By 1910, twenty-nine of the forty-six states, including Arkansas, prosecuted intermarriage but not such instances of interracial sex. Public rhetoric justified such laws as preserving “racial purity.” Nevertheless, tolerance of white male/black female liaisons versus punishment of black male/white female relationships showed this to be a rationalization. Scholars suggest that marriage was punished because it implied social equality—an alliance between families that was not tolerated across the color line. Mere sex lacked such implication.

Until Reconstruction, states found ways to accommodate interracial families. However, tolerance faded during the Jim Crow era. House Bill 79 outlawed interracial families altogether, declaring the mere existence of a biracial child evidence of parental crime.

The law also defined “Negro” as having “any negro blood whatever.” Dichotomous “racial” classification was also invented in colonial times, with blood-fraction laws defining a “Negro” as having more than a given fraction of African ancestry. North America’s first blood-fraction law, in 1705, used a one-eighth rule (a person was black if one great-grandparent was entirely of African ancestry). By 1910, twenty states classified citizens by blood-fraction, most using one-fourth or one-eighth. However, appearance also played a role in racial definition in pre-1911 Arkansas, as exemplified by the case of the 1861 freedom case of Guy v. Daniel, in which slave Abby Guy was awarded her freedom largely because of her appearance and behavior. Before 1911, Arkansas’s railroad segregation law defined “Negro” as “one in whom there is a visible and distinct admixture of African blood.” However, the emergence of scientific racism gave rise to the notion that a person could look and self-identify as white but still somehow be black.

A neighboring state outlawed interracial sex three years earlier. Louisiana’s Act 87 of 1908 declared “concubinage between a person of the Caucasian or white race and a person of the negro or black race” a felony. The law was tested in 1910 when the Louisiana Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Octave Treadaway of New Orleans and his mistress. Chief Justice Provosty ruled that the woman was neither “Negro” nor “Black”; rather, she was “Coloured,” an intermediate caste based upon dual ancestry, as defined in Louisiana caselaw. Within a month of Provosty’s ruling, lawmakers reconvened, amending the statute to define “Negro” via a one-thirty-second blood fraction—in effect, a one-drop rule.

When Arkansas’s legislature met the following year, it left no wiggle-room for a recalcitrant judge. They adopted the wording of Louisiana’s statute while adding the one-drop clause. The felony for interracial sex was “punishable by one month to one year in penitentiary at hard labor.”


Now, please note the double-standard:

  1. Slave “owners” fucking/impregnating what amounted to human livestock (their “property”) – was “tolerated”.
  2. Any sort of relationship which involved treating Non-Whites as fellow human beings was criminalized.
  3. A “racial” caste-system relegated individuals to victim-status merely on such amazingly “scientific” grounds as possessing “one thirty-second blood fraction”.

See, here’s the thing: racist fuck-stains typically love them some double-standards.   My idiot, heroin-addict half-brother was so brazenly “textbook” in this regard as to be outright comical:

True story:

Some years back (when I was still stupid enough to willingly associate with the Junkie psychopath) my wife and I happened to run into him at the local Wal-mart.  The weird thing was: at the time, he happened to be accompanied by a “black” woman my wife and I had previously never met.

When I motioned him aside and (discreetly) inquired as to the identity of his non-white companion, his response was rather telling:

“Oh, don’t mind her.  She’s just somebody I fuck sometimes.”

Now, the amusing thing about this whole fiasco was: I had spent years listening to this idiotic sub-animal bloviate about the (purported) virtues of “racial purity”, and how much “niggers” disgusted him — and here he was, brazenly cavorting with one of them, at the local wal-mart.

Because he “needed something to fuck“.

The truly amusing thing about this was; the woman in question happened to have a young son who (at least according to my ‘mother’) – bore an uncanny resemblance to how my idiot, heroin-addict half-brother had looked as a child (albeit somewhat darker complected).

So, no.  Even my idiot, heroin-addict half-brother “resorted” to fucking non-white women “as needed” – and then (most likely) managed to breed an “impure” spawn as a result.

And racist sub-animals wonder why I am unable to take them – or their babbing – seriously.

Go figure.