One out of many?

I happened to catch part of the ceremonies at West Point yesterday, with President Trump officiating.

I couldn’t help but notice the dominance of ”diversity.” It seemed to me, just scanning over the WP graduates that there were few Whites to be seen and that girls (I mean, women, or womyn, whatever) accounted for some of the slots obviously allotted to Whites, so that even fewer White males appeared.

Obviously they are continuing in the tradition of a predecessor:

A diverse Army gives us strength,” said General George Casey some years ago.

Remember the rest of his comments, and the context? In a memorial service for those killed at Fort Hood in Texas. In case anyone has forgotten, the shooter was Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hassan. Enough said.

Hassan’s presence surely ‘gave us strength’ according to Casey’s calculus.

Anyway the rest of his remarks:

“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.”

General George Casey Jr.

West Point is following the Casey doctrine, evidently, as is the rest of our confused society. Diversity must be served, at all costs.

Then we have talk of ‘Unity’ being a must, because we can’t let “Them” divide us. A lot of people have bought this argument, that some outside forces (probably the ‘racist’ democrats, which many liberal Republicans devoutly believe) are sowing divisions — which would never exist if they weren’t being caused by some outside element — ‘Them’.

I realize many people alive now weren’t around to be aware that these things, these divisions and clashes and animosities have always been present, because different groups are — wait for it — different. Imagine that. People have somehow been persuaded, or persuaded themselves that we all once lived side-by-side in relative peace, while certain ethnic groups did not commit crimes. They all lived upstanding lives, got married (legally) and stayed married and raised families. We were all Americans, all melting-pot descendants of immigrants who became model citizens.

Believing this, people are expecting — should Q et al restore America after delivering all the malefactors to their just deserts — that we can all live in a state of Unity-in-Diversity, happily ever after. Because some things are just social constructs.

The Unity that is being touted is paradoxically Diversity, but it will, ideally, be a Diversity which does not divide; we will all just be flag-waving Americans. But the diversity that does not divide or set us against each other will not dissolve into some kind of fairyland Unity; it will corrode any possible unity.

I believe Donald Trump’s view of this imagined Unity is the same as that promoted by the Q movement; I’ve seen enough of their memes and of their channel which is on YouTube. Some of those who are regulars speak very harshly of anybody who they deem ‘racist’ (that is, too ethnocentric or ethnopatriotic); their programming is very heavy on the ‘rainbow’ view of America. The ‘Democrats Are the Real Racists’ meme, despite its uselessness as a political argument, is very much alive and well.

On the other hand, Vox Day in a recent post declared that Unity is not desirable; it is the problem. {I am paraphrasing}. If Unity somehow = Diversity, then he is certainly right. Of course Unity as envisioned by the pollyannas does imply that we have to create some artificial, non-organic unity, and that would be forced, just like things were forced back in 1957.

Unity has to be organic, from the ground up, not coerced and enforced by laws or government edicts, nor can it be forced by self-designated arbiters like the Antifa. It also should not be the result of peer-pressure from self-righteous liberals and lefties, or liberal Republicans who are little different from outright lefties now, with their bowing and genuflecting. Some do this physically, as we saw, but some do it in spirit, in words, and it’s just as bad.

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.