Dangers of ‘good intentions’

Where I live, it’s become not at all uncommon to see White parents, often with two or three obviously ‘natural’ children of their own, with one or two nonwhite children in tow. Sometimes I’ve seen well-to-do White women with a White child or two, plus a Central American or Asian child, plus a black child, a la Angelina Jolie.

Another common sight are the signs advertising yard sales/garage sales ‘to fund a trip to Africa to adopt’ or to go to Guatemala for the same reason.

I wonder how much money is spent on this quest?

The people involved in this are most often Churchian types, often those who are members of one of the ’emergent’ churches, which tend to be very liberal and to follow the world’s fads and trends, including rampant xenophilia in all its forms.

Odd, considering that once this town was known for being conservative socially and religiously. This area did go big for Trump, by the way, if that means anything.

No doubt these people have been convinced (by their liberal ‘ministers’? By the media? By pop culture?) that they are doing a deed which will earn them extra rewards in heaven. Or maybe just winning the praise of ‘the world’ is all they’re after, but they think they are doing good, saving the Third World, modeling ‘colorblind’ behavior to shame the ‘racists’. Or something.

We’ve all heard the proverb about ‘good intentions’ paving the road to a certain place. Good intentions often have unintended consequences.

Is it all happy-ever-after with these ‘rainbow’ families, these ‘all-sorts’ families? Nobody thinks about what it may be like when these cute toddlers grow to adolescence and experience identity crises. The media predictably avoid stories about unhappy adoption outcomes, especially trans-racial adoptions. But an occasional story is published that highlights the problems. I’ve certainly heard of adolescent or adult adoptees from the Third World rejecting their White adoptive families and choosing to leave their ‘White’ upbringing in favor of their genetic kin group.

Then there’s the Rachel Dolezal story. Over at the middle-of-the road Republican forum Free Republic, they are ridiculing Dolezal, or as she now styles herself, “Nkechi Amare Diallo”. She is mentally ill, they say, and she herself has written a book detailing her alleged abuse at the hands of her ‘Jesus Freak’ parents (her term for them) and her biological brother. But few people seem to be aware that these parents of hers adopted four black children. Mind you, they did so decades ago, when she was a child, in a time when it was not so common or so ‘hip’ and au courant as it seems to be now. They must have been in a rather odd sect of Christianity in those days; back then, Jim Jones and his cult were among the few who pioneered the ”rainbow family”.  Jones himself called his ‘diverse’ family his ‘rainbow brite’ family.

“Did You Know? Jim Jones and his wife Marceline were the first white couple to adopt a black child in Indiana in 1961.”

Now that fact is not proof that adopting outside one’s race is evidence of insanity. But it does illustrate that the idea was once, not that long ago really, considered a ‘fringe’ idea, not something that was to be casually done, and not something one did as a way of ‘virtue-signalling.’

And what is the cost to the White siblings of the adoptees? Rachel Dolezal, or Diallo, or whatever, may be a sad example. Maybe her black adopted siblings absorbed the lion’s share of the attention of the parents and extended family and ‘church’ family. Maybe they posed domestic problems, by the fact of their exotic birth and origins, that created a more troubled home. Considering the ‘colorblind’ White tendency to fawn on other races, which is exhibited by our society in general, no doubt Dolezal and her natural sibling did not get the attention or possibly the affection children need, hence her ‘identifying as black’ since childhood.

In a sense our society, at least the media-influenced side of our society, has the ‘Rachel Dolezal’ syndrome, with so many White young people, in particular, copying black culture and even the black phenotype to some extent, with the ‘lip enhancement’ fad of celebrity women, and with intermarriage by women who then can proudly display black children of their own.

As for Christians, or more accurately, Churchians being seduced by this melanomania, I could cite Scriptural reasons why interracial adoption is not Biblically sound, nor sanctioned. But then the Churchians are not big on following Scripture, only in cherry-picking some passage — or just going by society’s whims and preening about their do-goodery.

The vanishing White vocal tradition

There’s been discussion about “cultural appropriation” on the part of White people, with the implication being that Whites “steal” from the culture of the vibrant enrichers — why? The insinuation, sometimes expressed openly, is that White people have no culture of their own, at least, not any worth mentioning. Whites, then, are compelled to steal from the ‘rich’ cultures and ways of the nonwhite peoples, or else they do so maliciously in order to take credit for it. This is just a variation of the Farrakhan-style Afrocentrism which says that Whites ‘stole’ all the African knowledge and learning, thus leaving them with none.

However, Whites are in fact ‘appropriating’ many aspects of black culture, such as the ongoing adoption of black slang (most of our new slang words and phrases seem to have black origins, going back some decades), via White youth culture, which is especially fond of adopting black fads and fashions.

Besides slang there is the example of the black singing style, which seems to have become near-universal amongst younger White pop singers. Examples are legion; I am sure some of you know of more examples than I do, given that I don’t watch TV or listen to radio except for a few stations. However we don’t have to be au courant with the latest pop music (rap, hip-hop, etc.) to look for illustrations. We could go back some decades, to people like Michael Bolton — yes, I know, it’s (((Michael Bolton))), or Taylor Dayne. Or let’s go back to the 1960s, with the Rolling Stones. I remember sort of cringing when listening to Mick Jagger’s ‘vocals’, on songs like ”You Can Make it If You Try‘, where he spoke some of the lyrics, emulating Gene Allison, the black singer who first had a hit with that song. Back then I was far from racially conscious, but Jagger’s style made me want to give him a news flash: that he was White, not black.

Recently a family member and I were talking about how all of today’s White pop singers seem to emulate the black ‘soul’ vocal style, which seems to center around ‘trilling’, bending the notes beyond all recognition, and veering far from the real melody of the song to ‘improvise.’ The emphasis is on exaggerated shows of emotion, with much groaning and moaning, and straining, as if in pain. Yes, I realize that’s part of the intention; it’s been known as ‘soul’ music at least since the 60s, and the claim was that only black people had this vaguely-defined quality called ‘soul’, because of their unique heritage of ‘slavery, Jim Crow’ and the rest, whereas White people are soulless as well as, well, colorless.

Unfortunately White people think they can acquire “soul” via their adulation for black people, it seems. Salvation, for White liberals, is not via grace (through faith in Jesus Christ), but via blacks. Cambria Will Not Yield uses the term worship in this context and it seems he’s not far off.

As it stands, it’s getting harder and harder to find a White singer, especially young White popular singer who does not mimic the black style. Julian Lee, via Counter Currents, wrote a very thorough piece about this trend, and being more versed in music than I am, he expressed it very well. If you are interested in music and White musical traditions it’s well worth reading.

Incidentally, in the piece by Julian Lee, check out the photo of Beyonce; it will take you back to the days when she was still black. It seems the cultural appropriation goes both ways, what with nonwhites ‘appropriating’ the White phenotype, with blonde hair weaves or dye jobs, and skin-bleaching, plus colored contacts.

One black tradition that’s been attempted by Whites is the strange practice of ‘scat-singing’ or more accurately, just ‘scatting.’ Ever since I was a child I found ‘scatting’ to be rather embarrassing when a White tries it. I recently learned I’m not the only one. On the quirky British comedy series, The Mighty Boosh, one of the characters has a strong reaction to ‘scatting’

Oh, scat! Out of all the aspects of jazz, scat has got to be the worst, the main offender.
– You don’t know what it is, do you?

– Not really, but when it comes on, I go red.

Let me demonstrate to you a little bit of the power of jazz scat singing.
Jooby-do-bop, voo-voo-voo-voo, va Bow-voo-doo-boo-boo, bap-a-doo-ju-ju, jooby-do-boo Do-do-do-do, ba! Ba-ba-bow, ju-ba-ba-bow

Oh, I’ve got to get away from you. You’re a freak.
I can feel myself going red.”

It also makes mego red‘. It’s just unseemly somehow. It’s the vocal equivalent of a White person in blackface. It sounds as silly as blackface looks.

Even country music, for a long time the lone bastion of White musicians and musical styles, is succumbing to the influence of blacks, and this is very much intentional on the part of the music moguls, I’m sure. Going back some years now, country musicians have performed songs promoting multiculturalism and universalism, and Brad Paisley, with such a song, unintentionally drew accusations of racism. Sorry, but I have to laugh. But even White country singers are adopting black styles of singing, including using black back-up singers. Can’t have a White style of music, now, can we? That would be racist.

Meanwhile, even ‘folk music’, which at times has been more artificial than grassroots in style, is succumbing, and no surprise, as many ‘folk’ or traditional musicians from Europe and this country are dedicated multiculturalists. This baffles me. Musicians like the Breton icon, Alan Stivell, apparently love the traditions of their folk — yet they incorporate ‘world music’, that is, Third world music, into their work. I just don’t see how loving something, supposedly preserving tradition, allows for adulterating it and blending it with utterly alien influences. We’ve all heard the cliche that ‘music is the universal language’, and it sounds good, but is it really true? I’ve listened to many styles of music from varied cultures, and they may all be interesting in their way. However many sound discordant and unpleasant to my ear, and the music which is from our Western European traditions resonates the best with me, and really speaks to my spirit. I think this is true of most people, if they were honest.

East or West, home is best. I believe the statement that music expresses the soul of a  people, and each people has a unique musical expression, not reproducible by outsiders. Outsiders may ape and mimic something that is not theirs, but the spirit is not there; others’ music is a foreign language and we can’t speak it without a telling ‘accent’ though we try.

Is there any hope of us recovering our own musical and especially vocal styles? I wonder. Not without some reclamation of our self-respect as a people.

 

Popular music and race

In a recent post I linked to Steve Sailer’s piece about the race card being played at the Grammy awards. The question was raised whether Whites should apologies for winning awards, with the implicit assumption being that the awards are ‘stolen’ from blacks, who are of course the rightful winners, or would be in a ‘colorblind’ society.

I’ve often pondered how it is that our popular music (and popular culture in general) is so dominated by blacks. Most people — even those who are somewhat racially aware — would defer to blacks by saying that blacks are just more talented at music, as they are supposedly in athletics. But the black ascendancy has black people accusing Whites of “cultural appropriation” when they emulate, even unconsciously, black styles.

Could we not say rightly that blacks have a kind of cultural hegemony in our society, in all Western societies, given their disproportionate numbers in entertainment and their pervasive influence on White performers and composers of music?

This is not a new thing. I came across an article in an old (dated 1927) article in an Argentine magazine, Cine-Mundial. The article was titled ‘Melanomania‘, a term that the writer, R. De Zayas Enriquez, apparently coined himself to describe the craze among White people for black entertainment. Maybe we should use that word; the ‘-mania’ suffix is apt, and it has become a more pronounced trend since the time that the article was written.

As we are in black history month, wherein many claims are made about blacks having invented just about everything, we are bound to hear that blacks invented, among other things, rock ‘n roll, a claim which is usually conceded by most Whites. Yet it could just as convincingly be argued that rock ‘n roll derives more from country music in the form of old-time string-band music, via what was called ‘rockabilly.’ Chuck Berry’s music shows more influence from White country/rockabilly than vice-versa. Does it matter who invented it? Rock ‘n roll is something I grew up with, as did most of us today, and I enjoy a lot of it, but it isn’t exactly our crowning cultural achievement. Still, the truth matters, and it does serve the cultural Marxist, anti-White agenda to claim that blacks are the source of all our popular musical genres, as does the writer of this following excerpt. The writer is Isaac Goldberg (are triple parentheses even necessary there?) in a book called Tin Pan Alley, from 1930. [NB: the language in the following is the author’s;  everyone was politically incorrect in 1930].

“Before the various types of jazz was the modern coon song; before the coon song was the minstrel show; before the minstrel show was the plantation melody and the spiritual. It is safe to say that without the Negro we should have had no Tin Pan Alley; or, if this sounds like exaggeration, certainly Tin Pan alley would have been a far less picturesque Melody Land than it is to-day.

Why has the coon song become so representative of our popular music? Why is it impossible to think of our street songs for long without encountering the influence — whether pseudo or real — of the black? Why, whether in the early days of the southland, or in the contemporary life of Gotham, is the rhythm, the lingo, the accent of the Negro so persistent?

The Negro is the symbol of our uninhibited expression, of our uninhibited action. He is our catharsis. He is the disguise behind which we may, for a releasing moment, rejoin that part of ourselves which we have sacrificed to civilization. He helps us to a double deliverance. What we dare not say, often we freely sing. Music, too, is an absolution. And what we would not dare to sing in our own plain speech we freely sing in the Negro dialect, or in terms of the black. The popular son, like an unseen Cyrano, provides love phrases for that speechless Christian, the Public. And the Negro, a black Cyrano, adds lust to passion.

Can this be one of the reasons why the American Anglo-Saxon has held aloof from the exploitation and particularly the creation of songs in the musical vernacular? Can it be only a coincidence that the three races who have contributed most to our popular song — the Negro, the Irish and the Jew — should be the familiar example of oppressed nationalities, credited with a fine intensity of inner life and with passions less bridled than those of the more conventional — not necessarily the more frigid — American Anglo-Saxon?”

We can see the politics showing through the writer’s statements involving ‘oppressed’ races, and his biases towards Anglo-Saxons.

I will explore this further in future posts, because it seems that the cultural revolution has been more insidious and more important than the gradualist political revolution.

 

 

On cultural appropriation

Here’s an interesting piece giving some perspective on our Hallowe’en traditions:
The rise and fall of Halloween trick-or-treating

It looks like Halloween traditions are being transformed, and in the wake of  mass immigration from entirely unrelated cultures, we will probably see the observance of it vanish eventually — possibly overshadowed by the Hispanic ‘El Dia de los Muertos‘, the ‘Day of the Dead.’

Cultural appropriation, so-called, is increasingly being denounced as some kind of crime against minority victim groups. Most recently there was a bizarre story about canoes:

“According to Misao Dean, Professor of English at the University of Victoria, the canoe can be a symbol of colonialism, imperialism and genocide due to history. She also accused the canoers of cultural appropriation because they are primarily white men and have a privileged place in society.”

This is how strange things are becoming. However some online commenters pointed out how the design of the canoe resembles the Viking boats and ships, and visually, this seems evident. It could be argued that the Vikings, who apparently arrived in North America many centuries ago and founded short-lived settlements, may have inspired the American Indian tribes to try to replicate their boats. Seems plausible to me. So then the Amerindians were the ones ‘stealing.’

Back to Halloween: that festival, under the influence of an increasingly dark popular culture (Hollywood movies, sensationalistic horror fiction, etc.) has become more sinister and creepy than it once was in less corrupt times. Despite that, though, the Hispanic ‘Dia de los Muertos’ is even less wholesome. If you do an internet search, you will find lots of articles about the Hispanic observance, and they are overwhelmingly positive. Food Network has recipes for ‘Day of the Dead’ foods, and Hallmark even has a line of merchandise which celebrates Day of the Dead. Many of the articles you find insist that it’s all about ‘celebrating life’. But then it is associated with the ‘deity’ known as Santa Muerte, or Saint Death.

By Christian lights, the ‘deity’ is a false idol and the holiday is pagan. However, it appears to be on the way to becoming part of our culture, or what was once ‘our’ culture. An acquaintance and I were noticing how much merchandise is now in stores at Halloween time, featuring the multicolored skulls and other ‘Day of the Dead’-related imagery. Christians, if you think Halloween isn’t fit for Christian children, then Day of the Dead is not something we should welcome — though because of Political Correctness, to object to it will be called ‘racism.’

So, liberal ‘whites’ and Hispanics should be raising a fuss about our ‘culturally appropriating’ the Day of the Dead. But they’re not.

Liberals and their allies/mascots should also be objecting to Whites ‘twerking’ and listening to hip-hop, urban, rap, and other forms of music created by (and for) blacks. Why not object to that? I oppose our ‘culturally appropriating’ music and entertainment for blacks. That belongs to them, is best fitted to their tastes and predilections; it shouldn’t be for White consumption.

And what about the trend towards foreign foods? I realize most White Americans now have been conditioned and encouraged to eat exotic ethnic foods, and many White Americans are addicted. How else to explain the sudden craze for consumption of highly-spiced, hot foods, like Sriracha sauce/Sriracha-flavored everything, to ‘ghost peppers‘? Call me old-fashioned and stodgy, but I don’t think European, or at least Northern European digestion is designed for these types of foods.Given what we know about HBD and very real physiological/anatomical differences, it seems that maybe we are not all meant to eat the same diet.

It does seem that the excessively-spiced foods are a staple in very hot climates, and they seem to serve a purpose of inducing perspiration, which is good in that kind of environment. It isn’t needed in temperate and cold climes.

An old saying has it that ‘You are what you eat.’ Maybe food does help to make us who we are in ways we don’t quite understand. The French used to call the English ‘rosbifs‘, from their fondness for roast beef. Now it seems the English are just as fond of the exotic foods — kebabs, curry, Thai food, and all the rest — that the traditional English diet is less popular.

And what about the global pop culture that has swamped our own traditions? Everywhere you go on this planet, it seems you see all ages of people in jeans and athletic shoes (sneakers, trainers, whatever you call them). Then there is the ubiquitous ugly graffiti (no, it is not art) and ‘gang signs’. That’s cultural appropriation from blacks, again. Give it back to them; it’s theirs, not ours.

Our slang, too, is increasingly based in ghetto jargon, and even pro-Whites’ vocabularies are saturated with it, often oblivious to its origin.

On the opposite side, nonwhites, while howling about Whites ‘appropriating’ their dubious ‘culture’, affect White physical features. See ‘black’ celebrities like Rihanna, Beyonce, et al, with fake blonde hair, whether it’s weaves or straightened and dyed natural hair, and lightened skin. Some, of course, is photoshop  effects in their pictures, but obviously they bleach or use skin-lightening cosmetics. Yet they claim pride in their race, and express anti-White sentiments. They shouldn’t try to mimic a White appearance, then. It isn’t convincing in any way, and we could say it is the equivalent of Whites using blackface — which nonwhites complain bitterly of.

Even East Asians are now attempting to whiten their appearance. For decades East Asian women have been able to have eye surgery to remove their natural epicanthic fold and widen their eyes, to approximate the rounder eye of White people. Now it seems that lightening the hair to an auburn or reddish color, or even a pale blonde color (approximately) is the in-thing. Even the young males are doing this. I notice on some of the Korean and Japanese ‘dramas’ that most of the cast, of both sexes, have European-colored hair, rather than their natural jet-black or very dark brown hair.

Hindu women, too, seem to like to use cosmetics or bleaches to make their skin lighter.

Paradoxical, isn’t it, that though they resent and often hate us, they try their best to look like Whites, and in the case of the women, to get White spouses? Or maybe it isn’t paradoxical. I think that their animosity and resentment of Whites is a product of envy, pure and simple. Envy, wishing that we had the possessions and qualities of others, often produces hatred or resentment of those who have what we want, and imagine we deserve.

We often ask why they come to our countries yet undermine us, or express hatred and ‘fear’ of us. The answer again is envy. Envy is no minor thing; it was traditionally one of the ‘Seven Deadly Sins’ in Christian teaching. Envy, pride, and covetousness, all wrong, morally. Those who make excuses for those who envy and hate us, who attempt to gin up sympathy for them, are excusing those very obvious sins of envy and covetousness.

But on our side, why do we ‘culturally appropriate’ aspects of nonwhite cultures? Do we actually envy them, or covet what they possess? Liberals and xenophiles think their ways are more ‘colorful and vibrant’ and more ‘authentic’ than our bland and ‘plastic’ culture.

We need not envy them or imagine them superior in any way. Their desire to live amongst us shows that they see our culture as preferable. When will we see that for ourselves, and stop living in their shadow?