Better watch out, Goober – that “Aryan” goddess you’re banging might have a “dark’ secret in her past:

A lightskinned woman has won her battle to be designated black, even though her parents listed her as white on her birth certificate in an attempt to help her overcome racial bias.

A judge on Wednesday directed Kansas officials to issue a new birth certificate for 39-year-old Mary Christine Walker, who was born in Great Bend, Kan.”I’m glad it’s over,” said the former Denver public school teacher, who always called herself black. “I’m very thrilled.”

Her attorney, Penfield Tate II, said Kansas’ current birth certificates do not designate race, so her new one will have no race on it at all. “But that is fine with us,” he said.

The order came from U.S. District Judge John Brooks of Denver, who heard Walker’s plea to stop the illusion that she was white, a well-intentioned deception she said her parents started.

Her father, who’s black, and her mother, who had a white mother and a black father, endowed their daughter with a fair complexion, green eyes and light brown hair that would allow perpetuation of the secret.

“My parents wanted their kids to make it, and they picked the easiest way possible,” Walker said. “They knew what it was to be black. They knew the problems.”

At that time, passing for white was risky but financially rewarding for blacks who had the physical and emotional ability, she said.

“Mom really stressed the white world on the kids–education, manners–and she was very paranoid about the secret getting out,” Walker said.

But she said she couldn’t blame her parents.

Comment on this story “I resent that this society is set up in such a way that someone would have to pass (for another race). It’s a disgrace that this country is so screwed up racially. Because it really is,” she said.

Walker said that, living as a black, she never was bothered by the heritage of deception except when applying for work. Prospective employers would point out the discrepancy between the “white” on her birth certificate and the “black” she had filled in as race on an application, accusing her of lying to take advantage of policies that encourage minority hiring.

Her claim of civil rights discrimination following the incident was rejected, too.

The above (and many, many, many more such incidents) is a vanishingly small part of why I find “race”-blather (from both the “left” and “Right”), to be abysmally stupid.

GTFO my “comments” section, Goober, seriously.

Just don’t even bother to try.  Your “comment” won’t get posted. All that will happen is that it will inspire me to rummage up even more of this sort of thing, so as to further discredit “racist” jackholes in general.

Aww….did I hurt your feewings?  Time to go back to your safe-space (stormfront, etc.) and pretend that you actually know what the fuck you’re babbling about.

The truly amusing thing is: all that “88 words” shit about a future for “white children?”

Given the phenomenon of “passing” — how the fuck do you even begin to determine who is “really” “pure” racial stock?   Answer me that, Goober.

Oh wait, that’s right: you can’t – because that would actually require you to be “literate” in multiple senses of the term:

“Literate” in the most basic sense of “I kan haz readin’ books”.

More fundamentally, “literate” in terms of the biological UNREALITY of “race”.

More fundamentally still: historically literate in regard to the fact that “Ol’ Massa” couldn’t keep it zipped, etc. etc.



Things will only get harder for “White” trash as time goes on:

Again: (genomic) “dox” – or it didn’t happen.


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 (, 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.


There is only ONE reason to fetishize consanguinity:

….in order to GET AWAY WITH something.

That’s it.  That is literally the only “reason” anyone could possibly give for privileging so-called “blood kin”  – regardless of the antics of such individuals.

In regard to the Junkie psychopath (just as an example): “But…..he’s your brother!

No, he’s not.  He is (regrettably) one of several half-siblings (most of whom I have – fortunately – either never met at all, or only in passing.

From a factual standpoint he is nothing more, less or other than a barely-literate, racist, chain-smoking HEROIN ADDICT, who has done nothing but engage in emotional/psychological/physical abuse towards his own “kin” -and then manipulate his primary victims into “FORGIVING” him for having done so – ONLY to do it all, again.

If you call him out on his bullshit, he will either throw a petulant little tantrum over it (complete with foot-stamping, lip-quivering etc.), threaten to engage in physical violence (only to stalk off like a cowardly little bitch when stared down) – or outright lie about his antics to his primary Enabler (my so-called “mother”).

And yet somehow, my failure to mindlessly acquiesce to what amounts to Pavlovian conditioning in regard to the junkie psychopath/his enabler was enough to prompt some posturing nonentity to “comment” on one of my posts, in an attempt to “defend” both “kinship”-based victimization and racism.

See, this is why I blog about things:  rational people need to begin calling “bullshit” on pathological social/political/economic structures – as opposed to passively acquiescing to those structures (and becoming complicit, by having done so.)

And quite frankly, the institution of “kinship” becomes pathological to the extent that the individual conduct of the members of such “kin”-groups is exploitive or victimizing.

It is high time for the victims to resist such gimmicks.

Bottom line: if you wouldn’t permit such conduct from a TOTAL STRANGER, why the fuck do you permit it from your “relatives?” (“blood”-kin, or otherwise.).

The “answer” would-be apologists for the (supposed) virtues of “kinship”-based victimization give typically amounts to some variant of the following tautology:  One “should” permit oneself to be victimized by “kin” – out of MERE DUTY.

I don’t buy it.  It is utterly inane as a line of “thought” – and quite frankly, strikes me as the root pathology underlying so much of what is euphemistically described as “family dysfunction”.

The most laughable aspect of the (attempted) comment was the claim that my failure to uncritically support “kin”-based victimization/racist ass-hattery, somehow implies that I am a “bearded, Trotskyite Hipster”.

Really?  I would be genuinely interested to discover that Leon Trotsky had urged individuals NOT to uncritically excuse/forgive/become complicit in the antics of drug-addled psychopaths who just happen to be “related” to them by “blood”.

Of course, such information won’t be forthcoming anytime soon, because that would actually require the would-be troll to invest some effort into presenting an argument which didn’t reduce to “You should – because you should!”.

Anyone who has actually bothered to read the blog is most likely aware of the fact that I do not suffer fools gladly.  I am utterly disinterested in whether or not any given individual might be “offended”, or not.

The fact is: my “mother” has spent decades enabling and mollycoddling my idiot, heroin-addict half-brother, and covering up his antics in every way possible.  As things stand, it is overwhelmingly unlikely (to the point of absurdity) that there will be any physical/financial assets left to “inherit” in the event of either of my “parents'” deaths.

If mister “I don’t like condoms” had actually bothered to be any sort of “father” to any of his various offspring, things might very well have turned out differently.

In the same vein (pun very much intended), if my so-called “mother” had ever attempted to reign in her precious little Junkie first-born”, I might be able to permit myself a bit more of that maudlin sentimentality which is so often substituted for thought, among the general populace.

Alas, neither of the above things happened.  My “kin” made their choices and priorities abundantly clear over the course of decades – and no (failed) attempt at pro-racist trolling of my comment section is going to change that.




Again, let me reiterate some facts:

  1. If you are too stupid to refrain from breeding “inadvertently”, you deserve no respect.

This goes for both of my “parents”.  My “mother” (in particular) used to make a huge deal both about the fact that she “forgot” to take her birth-control pills and about the fact that shedidn’t have access to legal abortion when she found out about the pregnancy.  I know that she didn’t explicitly “want” me (until she figured out that she could use the fact that I was visually-impaired (most likely because of having been born prematurely, because she smoked during the pregnancy) – to score “sympathy” from others.

I realize that.

I am also aware that my (burnt-out drunk of a) “father” only impregnated my mother because he “doesn’t like condoms”.  Moreover, he was off fucking other women/blowing money which should probably have gone stuff like mortgage payments and food and suchlike.

Again: mere consanguinity is no “reason” for me to ignore those facts.

Quite frankly, I am also aware that (as with most other “parents” of that generation), they attempted to “parent” as little as possible – electing instead to hand my schooling off to supposed “professionals”, instead of actually attempting to (for example) home-school/un-school me.

Yet again: parental “buck-passing” on a massive scale.

so I ask again: why should mere consanguinity (“blood” kinship) even enter into it?

It is a well-known fact that the ones most likely to inflict physical/sexual/psychological abuse on any given individual — especially during childhood – are those “closest” to hand: typically a “close” relative.

So again: would-be apologists for “kinship” would need to actually answer the above questions — but they can’t.

Perhaps if my “parents” were even slightly apologetic, thinks might be different.

Perhaps if they had even attempted to rein in the junkie psychopath – but again, they didn’t.

Having said that: even among the sort of savages who typically buy into the “kinship”/tribalism bullshit, infanticide via abandonment and exposure is exceedingly common:

So again: it is up to the tribalist/”kin”-fetishist/neo-savages to explain exactly why my failure to acquiesce to the Pavlovian Conditioning with regard to “kinship” is problematic:

The notion that “kin”-type relationships should be held to a different standard than what you would apply to any random stranger amounts to the tacit (or explicit) claim that some “kin” exist merely for the purpose of being victimized by other such “kin”.

Again, I don’t buy it.

I discontinued all contact with by burnt-out drunkard of a “father” for over twenty years.  Oddly enough, at the time, both my “mother” and my idiot, heroin-addict half-brother explicitly supported my decision to do so.

But somehow, the mere fact that I refuse to further enable THEIR antics rubs some random nonentity the wrong way?

Again: why would you actually think I gave two liquidy shits about your (idiotic) prattle?

Because you attempted (ineptly) to defend “race”-based chauvinism?

Or was it because you explicitly believe that individual conduct should take a back-seat to the incidental fact of mere consanguinity?  (“Kin”-fetishism).

Moreover, even if I was somehow convinced that your “kin”-blather had merit, that still doesn’t answer the question of which of my “kin” are entitled to such favoritism?

My (burnt out drunkard of a) “father”?

My enabling shrew of a “mother” (the woman who straight out told me to my face that she would have had me aborted, if Roe V. Wade had been decided a few moths earlier/such a clinic had been readily-accessible in that area of PA?)

Or maybe you’re thinking about my idiot, heroin-addict half-brother?

Or the miscellaneous half-siblings (most of whom I’ve barely even met) in Virginia?

Now, if you had “parents” who actually parented, or siblings who weren’t dangerously violent, drug-addled trash – then your respect/love/value of them is deserved – and has nothing to do with the (incidental) fact that you happen to be “blood relatives”.

Exactly how hard is this to understand?

(Oh wait – never mind.)