Wednesday, April 28, 2010

New Age Religious Ritual?

KonWomyn said...
Mahndisa

Yes I do plan to adopt when I get wed and have a family, I mentioned this before in the abortion discussions.

Now you said:

"Apparently their parents could not care for them and our media tells us that the infrastructure in those countries were so underdeveloped that the kids needed to be adopted out."

Yes the infrastructure is bad, but it does not follow that is so bad lovely White women have to swoop in and 'save' one or two with the saddest stories and drop a few thousand dollars for the rest as incentive for Kabbalah converts and as an indirect legal bribe.

The thing is that both Chifundo (Mercy) and David had fathers and family. Granted Chifundo's father only found out about her when she was already adopted but he wanted her back, but his appeal was said to be too late. For both kids its not like they didn't have family who loved them.

Growing up in a children's home but with access to your birth relations does not neccessarily mean one doesn't have a 'HOME'. Yes it's not the best and yes iFeel for kids who have to grow up that way...but I don't think turning out like Britney Spears or Drew Barrymore shows coming from a 'HOME' - but a DYSFUNCTIONAL HOME.

My suggestions are tied up in many things, but the common thread through all the stories of these kids is that at some point these self-reliant parents were no longer self-reliant - its an economic question rather than one of child neglect.

So the question is how to make these parents self-reliant so they can take care of their own? One example is the hand-made jewellery project Madonna started with young mothers in Malawi. (I'd prefer short-term funding that came from other sources).

Also, there are plenty of schoolleavers who could sign up for volunteer schemes with these homes to do arts and crafts or start reading programmes.

Those are practical things, but the essence of a child is founded in the family, the sense of rootedness, self-identity and that cannot be overlooked when some neo-colonial Kabbalah missionary who moonlights as a granny stripper comes in with a fat cheque and a private plane.Hot Wax said ...
Think Hollywood.

What religion are most of these knucleheads?

NEW AGERS.

In actuality, the New Age movement is/was a gigantic social engineering project that was established for the purpose of fostering an acceptance of a New World Order.

69 comments:

DMG said...

Yeah, I feel you on this. Celebrities (whatever that word means) seem to be adopting international children almost as fast as they are buying those little pocket dogs.

On one hand this bothers me for too many reasons than I can list, first and foremost culture stripping (especially when they give them some absurd name that would be more appropriate for a city or street).

On the other hand, what does all of my outrage do if the alternative is that the child would otherwise die of malnutrition, an easily treated disease or neglect before the age of 5? Or get sold into slavery, or prostitution before puberty?

Should people work/demand changes be made so that these children won't be in such dire circumstances that put them at risk for foreign adoption? Hell yeah (the details are another discussion entirely).

When talking about the individual child, foreign adoption may mean the difference between life and death.

I still think this adoption thing is a fashionable trend. I do recall recently the story of a family who "returned" a child to Russia, as though he were a Christmas present who peed on the rug one too many times.

Anonymous said...

Her kid is from New Orleans.

Reminds me of this. said...

There is a whole trend thing I agree. But I don't ever want to go down assuming what's in someone's heart or their intentions (not saying that I read that suggested in your post), I'm just saying. There is a problem with the baby's name. Louis Armstrong? because he's born in New Orleans? This is what Black History Month does to the brain.

Reminds me of this.

Anonymous said...

....hence the mardi gras beads.

Anonymous said...

^^^I'm over here sabotaging my own posts.

There is a whole trend thing I agree. But I don't ever want to go down assuming what's in someone's heart or their intentions (not saying that I read that suggested in your post), I'm just saying. There is a problem with the baby's name. Louis Armstrong? because he's born in New Orleans? This is what Black History Month does to the brain.

Reminds me of this.

http://www.seanbaby.com/superfriends/apache.htm

DMG said...

New Orleans, Africa, Indonesia, whatever. It's just like her fucking movies. White girl to the rescue to save the day.

cadeveo said...

Why don't we ever see it in reverse? How come we don't see Denzel Washington on the cover of People Magazine holding up a scrawny trailer park kid from some nook of impoverished white people like Appalachia or rural Arkansas? I can't speak for the individual motivations of these celebrities, but they are just as easily swayed by the Social Proof of what their Hollywood friends are doing as we are by the shit folks in our own circle of friends do.

The more that this kind of thing is hyped up by the media machine, the more incentive for wealthy Caucasian celebrities to up and adopt some darker-skinned kid from somewhere across the globe. Somewhere in there I think the trend is partially fueled by and perpetuates "white guilt" and it's twin--"white savior syndrome." It's not enough that these people have shit-tons of money, but now they need to feel that they are also "good people." But in a very conspicuous way. They feel guilty about what folks who like them may have done in the past and now want to some how make things right. Unfortunately, what that means is "saving" some non-white folks again, with the result of undermining the notion that the non-rich, non-white parents could possibly take care of their own damn kids, that there is something of value to be preserved about the organic family that child came from. Once again, this subtly suggests a paradigm of "dependence"--wealthy, white, folks "depend" on saving someone to feel "good" and the the less economically privileged, less white folks have to depend on (or at least feel it is a blessing to be "saved" by some wealthy white celebrity. This also somehow, I suspect, bolsters the notion of the benign nature of "globalization"...but going into other people's homes to "save" them has always worked so well in the past! Right?

Okay, maybe I'm reading way too much into this. I would, for once, like to see a Sandra Bullock go and "save" a poor white kid...(but then that poor white kid would probably be "less cute" and might come from some heavily-tattooed racist family of car mechanics. No...that'd hit too close to home.)

Pink said...

Ugh I hate to think about what type of a life these children would live without their "white saviors", but honestly I'm almost willing to just find out... I'm getting sick of this trend.

That baby is absolutely adorable though.

Anonymous said...

^^

No you're not over thinking it Cadeveo, but you are plagiarizing what I was going to think to post. I think you have to surround yourself by those who are in the depths of the conversation instead of acting on what you (as a celebrity) may think is right. Engage in the conversation with those who are there. I can think of a hundred people who these celebrities can go to for consultation but aren't good for their publicity. However, I know they can atleast think of Cornell West for starters. He's media friendly. Safe. If they want to channel that inner-guilt.

That is too much investment. They are looking for the "Mercedes emblem on the dookie rope" solution. Even though you may not own a Mercedes, but the emblem on a fat gold chain does enough to let the crowd know that you still high post.

Those black babies are probably those Mercedes emblems. A quick ready made solution. Once again I can't speak for the individual, but if she was in these conversations of imagery and race, she could peep if her moves are real power moves or if they are they just reinforcing the (as Basquiat inscribes) "samo."

DMG said...

Pink,

The think is that YOU wouldn't be finding out. The kid would. And that's why I'm conflicted about this. Looking at from the individual kids standpoint in some ways it's a win...provided Sandra Bullock has better sense in childrearing than movie rolls and men.

HotmfWax said...

For the true Explanation, you all must be willing to go off plantation with me for a minute.

Your mind might not let you, however 10 years from now you gonna say that crazy nugga was right.


We are just starting to get hip to a trend that be around for 30 years.



Remember Eddie Murphy and that God awful movie Golden Child?

Switch back -you remember israel bringing 200 black kids from Ethiopia early 80's?

Recently Haiti and the high number of adoptions?

Think Hollywood.

What religion are most of these knucleheads?

NEW AGERS.

(here we go)


In actuality, the New Age movement is/was a gigantic social engineering project that was established for the purpose of fostering an acceptance of a New World Order.

Thus the racist and anti-semitic overtones espoused by Blavatsky were echoed by the Lucis Trust (formerly the Lucifer Publishing Company) founded by Alice Bailey and her thirty third degree masonic husband Foster. Both Blavatsky and the Bailey’s promoted eugenics and the notion that people of color were mentally inferior to the Aryan race (a prominent trustee of the Lucis Trust has been former US Defense Secretary and World Bank President, Robert McNamara).

INDIGO CHILDREN.

What, you may ask, has the above to do with the Indigo children? Simply that the infamous Dr. Puharich subjected children (some as young as nine) from seven different countries(MOSTLY THIRD WORLD) to intensive hypnosis at a facility known as Puharich’s “Turkey Farm.” The purpose of the project was to determine whether the children possessed the ability to remote view targets of military and intelligence interest. A secondary purpose of these insidious and unethical experiments was to ascertain whether the children’s psychic abilities emanated from a unknown source.

Sadly, Puharich’s unethical treatment of the children who participated in the hypnosis experiments left some of them traumatized. At the same time that Puharich was conducting his hypnosis experiments at the Turkey Farm, scientists in the Peoples Republic of China were studying the amazing psychic abilities of a young boy. Soon after, they discovered other Chinese children who were similarly gifted. The 1970’s also was a decade in which scientists at UCLA discovered that some highly intelligent children possessed more DNA codons than most humans; these particular children also suffered from Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (a misnomer since such children possess a rare intelligence gene and consequently become quickly bored unless intellectually stimulated).

Exploitation of the Indigo Children

MILITARY/GOVT don’t waste their time and financial budget attempting to program children of low intellect. As soon as word of the UCLA discovery entered the public domain, New Agers began publicizing (and profiting from) the situation, calling the kids “Indigo Children” or “Crystal Children” (all human cells contain liquid crystals). To make matters worse, some unthinking New Agers began establishing groups where parents of such gifted children can take their offspring to socialize with kindred souls.

The establishment of such groups for “Indigo Children” was manna from heaven for mind control programmers.

At the present time, there are at least six hundred such groups for Indigo Children throughout the world. There have been one well known New Age writer and lecturer who is involved with Indigo Children on behalf of a certain intelligence agency; doubtless there are others.

It appears to be the consensus of New Agers that the Indigo Children are a new race of beings (with a high degree of melanin and pineal gland activity, black eyes) whose function will be to effect a paradigm shift to a higher dimension for humanity to enter into.

The elitist believe that at the present time, the human race has devolved to an exceedingly low level, as is evidenced by the barbarous wars of the past century and the incredible environmental damage currently being perpetrated to planet Earth.

HotmfWax said...

final-

They believe that less than a thousand of the aforementioned non-human beings are presently living on planet Earth for the purpose of disseminating advanced cultural and technological concepts, so that a new civilization can be implemented following the forthcoming period of planetary cleansing.

New agers believe it is the legacy presently being bestowed upon humanity by these non-human beings that is intended to be adopted by the current generation of Indigo Children after attaining adulthood, for they have the level of intellect necessary for comprehension of these advanced concepts.

THEY ALSO BELIEVE THE FOLLOWING:

1-After attaining adulthood, what type of civilization will arise if the Indigo Children implement these advanced and already experimentally proven concepts in a wise and spiritual manner will be wonderful.

2-The Indigo Children are not to be considered "superior or elite" in comparison to other humans, but rather viewed as living demonstrations of the dormant abilities that are NOW beginning to rapidly unfold among ALL HUMAN POPULATIONS.

3- THAT Scientific communities in China, the US and other countries are now identifying small groups of infants and children that display rare abilities such as purging HIV, advanced genius and psychic/telekinetic abilities and other extra-ordinary attributes. These are the identified Indigo Children. Indigos can display some or all of these qualities and others not yet identified.

4-In Indigo Children, fragments of DNA science identifies as 'junk DNA' and other portions of the DNA chain that science has yet to identify, are more organized and operational at birth than in the average populations, which gives Indigo Children biological, mental and/or spiritual skills and abilities that appear advanced, compared to that of the norm, these attributes can also present developmental challenges for some young indigos, as our present environment and cultural structures are harmful to humans with the advanced biological and psychological sensitivities that come with accelerated genetic development.

Now if you are a new ager like Angelia, Madonna or Sandra and you believe in this stuff, why not get you one?:)

BTW, Chinese and African Heritage are the most desired.

YOU THINKING I MAKING THIS UP?

Pink said...

DMG I agree, the kids stand to benefit so that's a good thing. I'm just waiting for Not Without My Black Baby to hit in theaters near me.

Sasha said...

Isn't the child's name Louis Bardo Bullock? (Not Louis Armstrong)


I'm all for people adopting and taking a child into their home who is born of their heart and not their body. That's wonderful. More power to them. That includes interracial adoption. What I don't like is the message that is implied when stories like this are paraded all over the media. "How good of Sandra to take in this poor abandoned black child." No one would see this story as remotely newsworthy if she showed up with an adopted white child because apparently, there is no honor in that. I am glad, however, that she adopted a U.S. born child.

chosen said...

just look at the pics. the baby don't even trust her! between "the blind side" and her nazi husband i don't blame the po' thang.

as an adoptee (with black adoptive parents) who knows several adoptees of color with white adoptive parents, i can say without a doubt i'm am glad that i was not adopted by white folks.

the kind of paternalistic 'love' that is evident especially in trans-racial adoptions [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxBfwX0Mp4o] (and the prior abandonment by the biological parents) does serious damage to the child's self-esteem, issues with intimacy and identity, etc. and can produce emotional and behavioral havoc.

folks shouldn't be so quick to absolve assholes who pick out an exotic child and try to raise it as white, just because 'they did it out of love'.

what's love got to do with it? you all above got it right, this is about white guilt thinly disguising global cultural imperialism.

Sasha said...

Another "New Ager"?

http://www.blackcelebkids.com/2008/11/19/joely-fishers-domestic-bliss-with-daughter-olivia-4/

Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden said...

HW indigo children and crystal children are different. The crystal children are being born today of my kids generation and the indigos are of my generation and slightly younger.

As to these notions causing celebrities to adopt Black babies. So be it. If these children get a loving home with people who care about their wellbeing, then what more could we ask for.

It bothers me when people are so critical of transracial adoption especially in the US where there are more Black children up for adoption than anyone else. I realize that sometimes transracial adoptions don't work out, but the same could be said for adoption in general sometimes people bond with their adoptive family and other times they don't regardless of race.

DV and DMG are you guys planning on adopting some Black children who need it? If not, this is just bs talking points. At least these celbrity people ARE adopting children. What a shame that they are vilified because they take up slack that others DON'T.

Pink said...

I personally know some white couples who have adopted black children and are excellent parents so my skepticism does not extend to the general public. Question. Do any of us have any doubt that if there was to be no publicity at all about their black babies, if the world would never know, half of these celebs would have left these kids right where they were?

Big Man said...

I wrote about this yesterday. Team Brown Baby is always adding new members.

HotmfWax said...

The sad truth is that you can not understand the "new age" movement without understanding the egyptian history and their study of the khmet, pineal gland/ melanin /consciousness etc., etc., because the whole new age "formula" was somewhat lifted from most of this stuff via the Europeans. Therefore guys like Bobby Hemmitt and lots more afrocentrics are in the same space as Depak Chopra , Echart Tolle, and many popular new agers and sometimes could come off as more eccentric than these people. However you can't talk about consciousness with addressing the melanin theory for both hypothesis to work. Here is a good starting point about melanin and it rational as in regard to this subject (1-3).

THIS WILL EXPLAIN WHY THE SPECIAL CHILDREN ARE RANKED BY MELANIN. Again they don't have to be black according to these new agers, but you could see why it can help.

BTW, at the vatican there are major statues of the pineal gland siting along side all the stolen Egyptian items. mmmm..something to it?

finally -my same theory applies here also as it did for T woods. Be aware of media amplifications. Sandra, award helping black child in movie blind side, now in real life saves another black baby, divorce Nazi-loving husband etc, etc., Shoot -I could not write this stuff if you paid me.

Adopting Black Kids will now be in vogue.

They want kids from Haiti now? mmm....how
benevolent.

Constructive Feedback said...

FAMOUS BLACK PEOPLE RAISED BY WHITE WOMEN

* President Barack Obama
* Alicia Keys
* Halle Berry
* Derick Jeter
* Shemar Moore
* Jason Kidd
* Mario Van Peebles
* The Children Of Quincy Jones
* The Children Of Harry Belafonte
* The Future Kids Of Harold Ford Jr

Seven Half Store said...

LMBAO @ "The Future Kids of Harold Ford Jr"

Thordaddy said...

Radical autonomy... Plain and simple... The logical result of applying liberal "principle" consistently. What we see IS indiscriminate behavior being exalted as enlightened thinking.

So a "bad boy" biker sporting Nazi gear is "white supremacy" and 40 something year old white liberal female adopting a black baby is "normal."

In reality, we see devout dyke scripture in action.

All baby needs is "loving" environment.

Which to the self-refuting radical autonomist means the baby doesn't necessarily need Sandra or the devout dyke.

So in reality, the actions by Sandra (as abnormal as one could ponder) are BY DESIGN a tactic to LIBERATE the child to a "loving" environment WHICH is all he needs.

Where's dad to protect? He's fuggin' Jesse James and lil black boy ain't his kid. That kind of emasculation put uh chick six feet under.

Thordaddy said...

Sandra: Hey Jesse...

Jesse: Hey, baby...

Sandra: Guess what?

Jesse: What?

Sandra: No, guess??? (chuckles)

Jesse: Yur pre'nant?

Sandra: (chuckles and giggles) Sort of???

Jesse: Sort of???

Sandra: I adopted a baby... His name is Denmark Vesey...

Jesse: (drops dead)

The R. said...

REALLY YOU GUYS? Have you lost your minds? Do you really just want to say something to be saying it? You'd really rather have a kid, any kid, grow up impoverished than to be adopted by a celeb? Aren't celebs just people with cool jobs? Ask Spielberg's Black son or Tom Cruise's Black son. I bet they'd tell you self righteous, pompous, overspeaking Negroes which position is better.
Shut up and think. Is this the same group that thinks eating raw is too expensive? I bet Madonna's Black baby that will live to 100 and be healthy all her life wouldn't agree with you dummies.
And by the way, she named him Louis because she said as soon as she saw him, "What a Wonderful World" sang in her head.

Thordaddy said...

The R,

The problem with your stance is that we have to suspend any notion of "normal" to satisfy your latest liberal whim.

No one begrudges the black baby. He's completely innocent and defensless in this attempt to decree THAT ALL HE NEEDS IS A "loving" ENVIRONMENT.

Which is the same as saying he doesn't need anything particular in his life. White single mom who dated "bad boy" supremacist... No problem... He just needs a "loving" environment.

It's hollow, dawg... Everybody can see it and only a few do anything about it. Jesse just went on a rabbit hunt. You got to love'm for that. No better way than that in throwing your "woman's" emasculating attempts back in her face.

Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden said...

"Question. Do any of us have any doubt that if there was to be no publicity at all about their black babies, if the world would never know, half of these celebs would have left these kids right where they were?"Pink

Hey Pink I don't know about that. Adopting a child is no small feat but children can make your life feel so fulfilled that you can be addicted to being around them! Maybe that is why so many celebs adopt children too. They have the money to do almost anything a human could want but yet they are spending their resources on children! That is a wonderful thing and since rich people have access to information that we don't, who knows? I don't think people formally adopt children for a fad and if some do, the adoption won't last (much like the woman who turned her adopted child back to Russia last month)...I'm more concerned about regular people emulating celebrities without the financial stability or mental werewithal to take care of these kids.

Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden said...

Okay TD, then how many kids have you adopted? Screw your liberal whimsical talk. Children need LOVE first and foremost and they need parents who are STABLE. If anything, the criticism of these celebs ought to be whether they are mentally competent not because they adopt these kids but due to other public choices and shenanigans in which they've engaged.

But just like most blogs this is just something to keep people occupied with nonsense that does not impact their lives and distracts them from what matters in the world.

Unless any of the critical posters adopts, fosters or mentors a child other than their own they've not a pot to piss in!

Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden said...

CF had a point.

Thordaddy said...

M. Rigmaiden,

You're putting the best possible face on this latest debacle. Who of the celebrity adopters seem normal to you? Jolie...? Madonna...? Sandra...?

You don't see the underlying agenda.

If you say, "All a child needs is a loving environment," then you are saying that a black child "doesn't necessarily need HIS PARENTS."

Or anyone for that matter. These EXTREME adoptions are symbolic bitch slaps to REAL MOTHER AND FATHERS by a devout dyke/radical homosexual creed that desires radical autonomy FOR ALL so as to be absolutely liberated.

These transracial adoptions symbolically represent the dissolving of black racial awareness. In reality, they make it all the more acute. Such is the effect of radical autonomy.

Thordaddy said...

M. Rigmaiden,

Why does someone have to adopt to see the agenda in these celebrity transracial adoptions?

Why are you okay with the idea that it DOESN'T MATTER what race, what sexual combination, what religion, what ideological belief consitute the "parents" of an adopted child?

It's absoluting counterintuitive. So counterintuitive is it, THAT YOU ARE ESSENTIALLY SAYING nothing matters in regards to the "parents." A child doesn't even need parents, only a "loving" environment.

But you know, ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVE KIDS, that they need a whole lot more than just love.

IWonderAsIWander said...

It's none of your business what race these peoples' babies are. My white neighbors have two black kids and they say they adopted them "because they wanted kids." Period. Having a problem with interracial adoption is some plantation shit.

Seven Half Store said...

The assumption is that because celebrities are wealthy they can obviously provide a better life than would the birth parents, orphanages, foster care system etc.

We assume the advantages are overwhelmingly better. Maybe he wont spend more time with his nanny than he ever sees of his adopted mother. Maybe he will know more about himself and the world around him than he will the latest apple products and designer clothes. And then maybe not.

I have my own ideas about "mixed children" and self identity. But mixed kids come from their birth parents. Little Louis will notice a big difference between his parents and those of the kids on the playground. And one day at night there might arrive a conversation about where he comes from and why Ms. Bullock chose him. And even deeper still I'm sure he will wonder where he came from. REALLY WHERE HE CAME FROM. And I think as a mother, whether you are an adoptive one or not, you are responsible for providing that. So, I question whether or not this comes to mind when celebrities are struck by love.

Thordaddy said...

IWAIW,

See... Again, liberal whim substituting itself as informed thought.


Saying, "It doesn't matter what race the baby is" is saying, "It doesn't matter what the race of the parents are" is saying, "It doesn't matter WHO the parents are."

Is that true???

It doesn't matter who the parents are? Then it doesn't matter who the adopting parents are.

All that matters is a "loving" environment?

When you say it doesn't matter, we believe you. But then you write to state your opinion anyway. But it doesn't matter. Normal people think things matter. Especially cross-racial adoptions seeking to dissolve racial awareness by bringing into laser focus.

The work of radical autonomists.

DMG said...

Mahndisa

Yes, actually that is in my plans.

Denmark Vesey said...

"So a "bad boy" biker sporting Nazi gear is "white supremacy" and 40 something year old white liberal female adopting a black baby is "normal."

In reality, we see devout dyke scripture in action.

All baby needs is "loving" environment." TD

Thordaddy is truth.

And a deeper thinker than you muhfuggas who can't see beyond an episode of "A Different Strokes".

"All" a baby needs is a "loving" environment?

Bullshit.

Sandra "loves" Sandra.

Just like people who buy dogs and dote on them and kiss them in the mouth. They don't love them damn dogs. They love themselves.

These babies are feel good OBJECTS of love.

Glorified puppies.

What makes Sandra Bullock equipped to be the mother of this child?

Money?

Is that all a child really needs from a parent?

Want a pet?

GO TO THE FUCKING SPCA.

Seven Half Store said...

The beautiful part of this blog subject is that we all care enough about the little boy in question to some degree.

We have such strong opinions about his well being because he is "ours"
This is not a question of whether or not he should or shouldn't be adopted. This is ONLY about whether we would rather he be with "us" or Sandra Bullock.

And the people overwhelmingly vote for "us". If we put our guilt aside for admitting it was some black family's fault for the child being in this position in the first place we might get down to asking questions that address our own fears about adopting.

Also celebrities can do tons in the way of improving lives for sdopted kids without actually taking them into their own homes. After all, for everyone child they take hundreds more are left behind.

Fred G. Sanford the "G" is for Gee-Chee said...

And by the way, she named him Louis because she said as soon as she saw him, "What a Wonderful World" sang in her head.-R

Riiight...what a coincidence,
while she just happens to be in New Orleans,
witnessing the birth of a black baby in New Orleans,
"What A Wonderful World" would pop in her head.
With swift mental stamina, she calibrates the wisdom of ages with planetary alignment.

Come on bro, I've seen LA Gear-Jordan knockoffs that's less tacky.

Big Man said...

Nobody else is curious about what life will be like for a little black boy being raised by a white woman who fell in love with a white man who loves White Power and Hitler?

Am I the only one who sees that picture and goes "Hmmmmm...."

I'm not asking for outlawing transracial adoptions. And I do undersstand that some of these kids face horrific conditions in orphanages.

But, I'm suspicious of fads in general. I'm even more leery when those fads involve children.

For once, I have to say Thor raised a decent point. The idea that a "loving" environment is all that is needed begs the question of what constitutes a "loving" environment.

There are some folks taht believe you can't spank your child and love your child. Would it be ok for those folks to start removing children from homes and placing them in more "loving environments"?

We need to define the words we use better, and we need to stop using extremes to examine nuanced points.

From my perspective, there are some serious questions about Sandra Bullocks ability to be a quality mother. How in tune can she be with the life of a young black boy in American if she couldn't even figure out that her husband was a stone cold racist who was banging porn stars?

I mean, seriously folks, that's amazing to me.

Big Man said...

I cannot make this point enough.

We're talking about raising a little black boy in America.

How many black women are criticized for daring to raise little black boys without fathers? How often do we see the ills of hte black community laid at their feet for the very same choice that Bullock is now contemplating?


Obviously, it's not about being a single parent. It mustbe about their poverty. Only, not every black single mom is poor, so that can't be it, either.

Instead, it must just be that they are black. Black people clearly don't know how to raise children, that's the message I'm receiving from this selective outrage.

A Black woman is ill-equipped to raise a young black male in America, but a white woman and her "love" should get the job done.

Really folks?

A white woman who married Jesse James. And claims she lived with him for five years and had no idea that he was in to White Power.

Nobody else finds this incredibly hard to believe? Hell, I'm only glad that little boy didn't have to grow up with Jesse James as his father.

We could have a had a real-life Clayton Bigsby.

Big Man said...

Oh, and I have mentored children, some of them foster children.

I am deeply saddened by the depth of that problem, and I am really considering fostering children once my own kids get to be school age.

But, I think it's a tad shallow to tell people they can't discuss a topic unless they've actually adopted, fostered or mentored a child.

Why is that the case?

Thordaddy said...

Lil man,

You need to see the bigger agenda.

These white celebrity transracial adoptions ARE THE ATTEMPT to liberate child from parents.

All your questions simply answer themselves. It doesn't matter. This is the price of liberation. Some people can do what you can't and they are sufficiently liberal in doing so which means you can question it, but it doesn't matter.

Sandra adopted TO PROVE that all a child needs is a loving environment. Which is to say, he won't need Sandra just the "loving environment" that her money can pay for. Sandra can pay to having parenting mean nothing. Which is the point of liberating child.

Thordaddy said...

All liberationist movements are rooted in dissolving the most oppressive relationships.

From a child's perspective, to liberate means to dissolve relations with your parents. From a liberationist mentor standpoint, it means teaching children that only a "loving" environment is needed to raise children. The goal of course is a greater acceptance of radical autonomy which in this context means greater sexual autonomy for deviants.

Bullock is a useful idiot at the forefront of liberating children from parents in order to maximize the sexual autonomy of deviants. It is not a coincidence that both Jolie and Madonna could very well fit under the deviant category. And with Bullock's latest catastrophic breakup, her competency should definitely be under question.

Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden said...

Oh Big Man, to me it seems really hypocritical and lame to discuss all these issues in the Black community and society at large if all people are doing is armchair philosophizing. Understand, I'm not referring to you when I say this either.

In particular children really DO need love first and foremost. You know that children who didn't get hugged and snuggled with develop attachment and conduct disorders?

I am not one of those women who spends their time talking mess about single Black Mothers either. In fact, I am usually happy to hear that they intend on keeping the baby rather than aborting it.

I'm not saying that it won't be hard for a little Black boy who is raised by a white woman; believe me. But then again life will be hard for a little Black boy in this country no matter who is raising him. And hopefully this fact will change in time.

Frankly I believe that there should be federal guidelines that call for people who transracially adopt to take some ethnic history courses and counseling and try to mingle with people of those ethnic groups. If the parents cannot do that or feel too uncomfortable then their ability to adopt a child of color should be questioned.

With that in mind, I am so happy to see children who need homes get adopted by parents who provide them with LOVE, Affection, and stability. I believe that the love and affection is most important and a knowledge of self is important as well, but that knowledge is obtained through self discovery and cannot be granted by parents anyhow.

Consider how many Black parents have raised self hating Black children because they have no sense of self. It is possible that a white parent of means might be able to get the Black child on a trip to Africa and involved in private dance lessons and music lessons etc. I really think that speaking ill of transracial adoptions shows an archaic way of looking at the world.

After all we are all humans who need attachment and long for relationships with one another.

As a poster above pointed out, it saddens me that more Black people don't adopt.

My husband and I are considering fostering once Eno gets to be five or so. We would have done it sooner, except God sent me Eno!

Big Man good on you for mentoring kids and DMG good on you for considering adopting a child or fostering one.

KonWomyn said...

"REALLY YOU GUYS? Have you lost your minds? Do you really just want to say something to be saying it? You'd really rather have a kid, any kid, grow up impoverished than to be adopted by a celeb? Aren't celebs just people with cool jobs? Ask Spielberg's Black son or Tom Cruise's Black son. I bet they'd tell you self righteous, pompous, overspeaking Negroes which position is better." The R

Nah you need to hold up and think about your statement. Celebs are not 'just people with cool jobs' - what is 'just normal' about a Scientologist who refuses to discuss race with his adopted Black child?

What is 'cool' about a woman who treks all the way to Malawi to adopt a perfectly healthy baby girl and then pushes through a Kaballah agenda? What is 'normal' about having a nanny working overtime to take care of your kids while you show your +50 varicose veined out goods to the world? How will those kids grow up?

I'd rather Baby David, Shiloh, Chifundo (Mercy), Zahara, Louis stayed in their respective parts of the world and have a chance at becoming an artist, mechanic or a nurse rather than a chance in life at being all coked up and drunked out constantly under the Plantation media microscope as The Adopted Ethnic.

Save me the faux humantarian jazz, Madonna, Tom Cruise and Angelina Jolie have more than an innocent interest in these kids. And Sandra Bullock the wife of a closet Nazi is now taking The Blind Side from the screen to reality and y'all think these are just a bunch of normal people with cool jobs.

*SMH*

Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden said...

KW what is your suggestion for caring for these children then? Apparently their parents could not care for them and our media tells us that the infrastructure in those countries were so underdeveloped that the kids needed to be adopted out. Will you adopt any children?

Notwithstanding any pathology these celebrities may pass onto their children, or NOT, I still think it's better for them to live in a HOME as opposed to an orphanage or the streets.

stephanie grace said...

this is a perfect opportunity to find out if more affluent environments and upbringings will increase these little nigglets' IQ's!

Thordaddy said...

M. Rigmaiden,

Don't you see that these "homes" are a village? These white liberal female celebs adopt TO PROVE a child DOES NOT NEED PARENTS? Bullock IS PROVING that a black child DOES NOT NEED his black parents? These celebs adopt because they represent avante garde devout dykism that seperates child from a necessary mother and father and replaces them with a "loving" environment (the village).

But the devious aim is child liberation and the maximizing of sexual autonomy for liberal deviants.

This child will be IN THE VILLAGE without mother and father liberated by material wealth and oh so vulnerable to the predators in the mist. And Bullock will do what??? She's incredibly weak and we have a slew of broken relations to prove it. She needs the village.

The Negro World said...

That "thing" frank thomas is holding is ugly. Hate to talk about an infant but look at its foot?

KonWomyn said...

Mahndisa

Yes I do plan to adopt when I get wed and have a family, I mentioned this before in the abortion discussions.

Now you said:

"Apparently their parents could not care for them and our media tells us that the infrastructure in those countries were so underdeveloped that the kids needed to be adopted out."

Yes the infrastructure is bad, but it does not follow that is so bad lovely White women have to swoop in and 'save' one or two with the saddest stories and drop a few thousand dollars for the rest as incentive for Kabbalah converts and as an indirect legal bribe.

The thing is that both Chifundo (Mercy) and David had fathers and family. Granted Chifundo's father only found out about her when she was already adopted but he wanted her back, but his appeal was said to be too late. For both kids its not like they didn't have family who loved them.

Growing up in a children's home but with access to your birth relations does not neccessarily mean one doesn't have a 'HOME'. Yes it's not the best and yes iFeel for kids who have to grow up that way...but I don't think turning out like Britney Spears or Drew Barrymore shows coming from a 'HOME' - but a DYSFUNCTIONAL HOME.

My suggestions are tied up in many things, but the common thread through all the stories of these kids is that at some point these self-reliant parents were no longer self-reliant - its an economic question rather than one of child neglect.

So the question is how to make these parents self-reliant so they can take care of their own? One example is the hand-made jewellery project Madonna started with young mothers in Malawi. (I'd prefer short-term funding that came from other sources).

Also, there are plenty of schoolleavers who could sign up for volunteer schemes with these homes to do arts and crafts or start reading programmes.

Those are practical things, but the essence of a child is founded in the family, the sense of rootedness, self-identity and that cannot be overlooked when some neo-colonial Kabbalah missionary who moonlights as a granny stripper comes in with a fat cheque and a private plane.

Seven Half Store said...

Lol @ "Stef Grace"

HotmfWax said...

Back to the "new age" people, do you really think Sandra Bullock is sane. Dammit she is in a cult and this is a ritual.

End of story:


She hires new age witches?

"When Sandra Bullock wants to make sure her movie is going to be a box office hit, she asks a White Witch to cast a spell on the entire production so audiences will flock to see it. Forget personal trainers. A personal witch is the latest accessory for the star who has everything."


She loves witchcraft:

Interview after Practical Magic.


"These dialogues mirror and represent the true perspectives of those who produced the film. Director Griffin Dunne comments, “The characters use of magic is a more practical, almost holistic approach that seems like a gift that virtually anyone could have.” Actress Sandra Bullock similarly confesses to her witchcraft inclinations. Of her abilities, she says:

“It's almost like it's my conscience and my devil all in one. It's almost like I can read minds at this point. Instinct or intuition or a sixth sense-that's like our gift.”

Bullock promotes and believes in the same satanic lie as the movie. Like Crowley, who sought to open peoples minds just enough to present his satanic poisons, Bullock also encourages the youth to leave their minds at the door and accept a poisonous agenda: “The magic only exists if you allow it. If you open yourself up to the possibilities of it.”

Give her a baby from "voodoo inspired" New Orleans

Duh?!!

Big Man said...

I'm surprised Gee Chee didn't have a comment about that voodoo comment.

Big Man said...

So, Sandra Bullock, who is not Jewish, decided that she and her non-Jewish husband needed to give their newly adopted black, non-jewish child a bris.

Are we still seeing this as a mainly benign, transracial adoption?


Seriously, what the EFF does she have to do? Does she just have to come out and tell y'all that her black baby PROVES she's not racist, no matter what her crazy husband did?

Anybody who is not seriously troubled by this whole situation has their head in the sand.

DMG said...

Guess we have to go through Voodoo-Vodoun again....

DMG said...

What? A bris? OK, this is the kind of stuff that pisses me off. People just running around trying to "make up" a culture. What the hell does some Mohel have to do with circumcising this kid if neither he, his mama, adoptive mama, or anyone else has anything to do with that desert religion?

Or maybe Big Man has a point. Is this some sort of "hey, my husband looks and acts like a racist from a mile away, but I-in-no-way-am-racist. Look black baby, jewish tradition. She's more of a contortionist then some of the folks on this blog.

Help me out. Better yet, somebody help that kid out.

Thordaddy said...

These black liberationists act like they've never met a white liberal WHO THINKS SHE CAN DO WHATEVER SHE WANTS, too...

To a radical white liberal, BABY'S RACE means NOTHING. Baby's "religion" is irrelevant. Baby ONLY needs the "loving" environment... The village... In the village, baby is liberated from his oppressive parents. Baby is deracinated and emasculated.

Meaning, white liberal female adopted baby to create a radically autonomous individual.

The radically autonomous individual is best suited for a village environment where his parents have abandoned him.

It follows the false paradigm...

We are products of unintelligent design being intelligently evolved.

These radical liberals are de facto machines.

Big Man said...

What's the opposite of a liberal?

And, do those people think they can do whatever they want?

Where do those people draw the line?

Denmark Vesey said...

TD should be charging ya'll cats a "BREAKDOWN FEE".

DMG said...

The only fee he should be charging is a finders fee...for hooking us ALL up with his dealer. Whatever he's smoking, injecting, ingesting or whatever seems to be fantastic.

Thordaddy said...

Lil man,

There is no "opposite" to a liberal as he may represent all sides. He desires a radical autonomy by having relations to none. He still operates in the real world and so he must manifest as something more "particular" than a liberal. We see many of these in the Republican party. Liberals parading as "conservatives." Other examples would be "Christian" abortion advocate, a US Marine down for mandated vaccine, an Eastern Orthodox evolutionist, a black liberationist "Christian," etc...

Denmark Vesey said...

Yeah. Aight D.

The exaggerated disdain routine is a little played out.

Just because the cat's thesis is far more developed than is yours is not evidence of intoxication.

It's evidence of critical thinking, education as opposed to indoctrination, and courage.

Give dude his props.

DMG said...

Why would I give him any props?

You REALLY think he has a developed thesis, or are you just saying that to be contrarian to whatever I happen to put forth (which is really played out by the way)?

Let's take a look. He offers the SAME played out liberal/radical autonomist bullshit for EVERY topic. No analysis, no nuance, just personal twisted ideology and homegrown dogma...based on nothing.

It ain't personal. I just recognized his nonsense early on. Shit, I give YOU props without any problem, when I think you got something right...and you know we battle on every topic.

Your "favorite white boy" is whack. Pure and simple. Hate to say it, but somebody has to.

Big Man said...

I'm sure you'll be charging a breakdown fee soon enough DV.

After all, what's the point of redefining words if you can't convince folks to pay you to tell them the new definitions?

Anyway, "liberal" appears to be a catch-all in Thor's lexicon.

It's whatever he defines it as at the moment, which I suspected.

There is no "opposite" to a liberal as he may represent all sides

Which would mean he also represents the "Truth" that Thor is so fond of referencing.

But, then, that wouldn't be right because then the truth would have some aspects of radical autonomy, right?

No, no, no. Let's just stick with the definition that a "liberal" is whatever Thor says it is at the moment.

Just like "black."

And "sista."

Now I can see your appreciation DV.

Big Man said...

DMG

You gotta figure why Thor is the "favorite" to figure out why DV encourages him so.

Birdeye used to be the favorite. That was before your time, but I'm sure CNu can brief you on him.

Anyway, DV advocates black supremacy. Now, while he changes the definition of black to suit his purposes, it does have some connection to "black" as the world defines it.

Thor advocates white supremacy. He likes it here cause DV allows him to spout that nonsense with no censure and even encouragement.

Here's the thing, you have two apparently divergent theories: black supremacy vs. white supremacy.

Now why would DV identify a white boy who supports white supremacy as his favorite white boy?

Maybe because every time Thor opens his mouth, he supplies a testimonial for Denmark Vesey's meme, while at the same time invalidating his own.

But, I could be wrong, it wouldn't be the first time.

Thordaddy said...

Lil man,

Define liberal and then tell me how it diverges from one desiring the freedom to do whatever one wants?

I'm willing to bet that Sandra has broke off a number of relationships with the pronouncement, "I'm adopting a black baby."

With enemies like Jesse who needs friends?

that dude said...

Folks here read gossip and really think it's real.

Anonymous said...

A lot of gossip is real

Big Man said...

Thor

Why the hell would I define your favorite word?

It's your word and you defined it.

Liberal encompasses everything.

Those are your words, and that's all folks need to see.