"An Asianist Responds To Multiculturalism In The Academy"

An Asianist Responds To Multiculturalism In The Academy
September 29, 2017
By Roger
Red State

It may seem odd to speak of “multiculturalism” in the context of the monoculture that the twenty-first century academy has become, but “culture” itself is one of those protean terms that, chameleon-like, tends to take on different nuances, some of which are at odds with each other.

Multiculturalism was a fairly new word back in the ’80’s when I was in graduate school studying the East Asian classics and, naively understanding it to refer to high culture (“capital c” Culture), I was all for it. It would be very welcome, I thought, for the canon of recognized classics to be expanded to include the great works of the Far East and elsewhere. That initial misunderstanding was short-lived as continued exposure to the term revealed its (purported) meaning to be “small letter c” culture: the peaceful coexistence of various groups with differing cultural identities, and even (so it was claimed) a willingness to learn from each other—the ideal of a salad rather than a melting pot. Though less lofty, still quite laudable, and I endorsed it.

But “multiculturalism” has become an example of what Richard Weaver called “god terms”; i.e., words that defy close definition, but that elicit a positive reaction from the majority, words like “freedom” or “progress” being common instances. Every society has such terms, many of which may of course play a salutary—or at least a benign—role. One characteristic of a god term is the fact that people take its meaning for granted, and may take a demand for a definition to be some kind of hostile gesture. The academy has its own perverse god terms, “diversity” (every third word of college administrators) coming immediately to mind. A career spanning three decades in this environment has disabused me of any notion that multiculturalism is anything like what I once supposed it to be. As with other god terms, merely asking for clarification—much less a precise definition—is taken as a sign that the enquirer is morally suspect, but at the risk of incurring such obloquy, allow me to share a few experiences that turned this erstwhile true believer into a skeptic.

The first occurred a few years after my appointment in a tenure-track position, in the early ’90’s, when I was asked to make a presentation at a campus-wide multicultural extravaganza. That invitation confirmed what (I still supposed at the time) was the most admirable aspect of multiculturalism: promotion of genuine interest in other cultures. I spent much time preparing a lecture/demonstration that would likely appeal to undergraduates, light on pedantry and heavy on audio-visuals. The paucity of my audience—no more than five, none them students—was painfully emphasized by the size of the hall. What went wrong? All the events had been adequately publicized. Were the students just not interested in these multicultural events? Then I discovered upon further inquiry that most of the other sessions were delivered to packed houses: the African-American students to hear the African-American speaker, the Latino/a students to hear the Latino/a speaker, the LGB students (that was still the common acronym back then) to hear the LGB speaker, and so forth. I was the only presenter who was not by birth or identity a member of the culture about which I was presenting, so apparently I was not “authentic” enough. But beyond personal pique, it caused me to wonder about what people really meant when they used the word MULTIcultural; if it’s mere tribalism, then isn’t that really just as old as the hills? What is “multi” about it in any new or positive sense?

Some months after that, I mentioned the incident in a general education course I was teaching at the time and wondered aloud if the term should not be “multiethnic” rather than “multicultural.” At that hypothetical question, an African-American student in the class went ballistic, ranting that unlike me, she was from a “multicultural” family, so she could address the meaning of the term with more authority than I ever could. Such are moments of panic in any professor’s life; you never know where such manufactured outrage might lead. But after recovering from my anxiety, it occurred to me that her outburst merely corroborated the point I was making. Never mind the fact that I am married to an Asian woman, have raised a biracial family, and have devoted my life to the study of a non-Western civilization, I am not “multi”—according to that student an honor bestowed only by birth. This was only confirmed some years later when various campus offices sponsored a recital of traditional Chinese music, bringing in a noted Pipa artist. I only knew of the event because my wife—who happens also to teach at the university—received an invitation from the Office of Multicultural Affairs. She received an invitation because she is Asian. Never mind the fact that I was more knowledgeable about the music and its historical background than anyone in the audience, I was just too Caucasian to be invited by the multi crowd.

Thus I came to the conclusion that the term really has very little to do with culture in any received sense of that word. Though it has more recently been partially eclipsed by “diversity,” it still has currency as a god term. And however defined, in Wikipedia or elsewhere, in actually usage it is clearly aimed at boundary maintenance rather than understanding, and too often at the generation of new victimologies whose purpose is division rather than comprehension and mutual empathy.

What does this have to do with the teaching of East Asian or any other culture? It has been my experience that too little grounding in one’s own cultural tradition actually hampers efforts to understand another. Fascinating comparisons between, say, the Socratic method and Confucian discourse cannot be made if one knows nothing of the former, and such examples could be multiplied exponentially. My best students have always been those who approach the study of the Far East with a working knowledge of the West under their belts. THAT is how multiculturalism ought to work. Instead, I’m always confronted with the expectation that an important mission of my field of teaching and research is to provide fodder for the regnant narrative of relativism, or for the perpetual outrage of SJWs-in-training as they approach ancient texts with ignorant—but impeccably politically correct—presentist biases. It would be extremely difficult if not impossible to discuss these issues rationally on campus without being tarred with all kinds of nasty names, and if certain mean-spirited people made the connection between my identity and this essay, whose tone is hardly incendiary, it could have unpleasant consequences. Such is “diversity” in the modern academy.

How can W. Kamau Bell be married to a white woman and say the things he does about white people?

How does their after work conversation go?

- The New York Times did a great review of my show on The Comedy Network, not that I care.

- Yeah! You knocked it out of the park!

- I was gooood!

- Yep. I know some of those white people - the types I mean.

- Yeah. I'm sure you do!! There's your Dad.

- Yeess, Dad, yes.

"We Ought to Obey God Rather Than Men."

Acts 5: 16-29

16 There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one.

17 Then the high priest rose up, and all they that were with him, (which is the sect of the Sadducees,) and were filled with indignation,

18 And laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in the common prison.

19 But the angel of the Lord by night opened the prison doors, and brought them forth, and said,

20 Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life.

21 And when they heard that, they entered into the temple early in the morning, and taught. But the high priest came, and they that were with him, and called the council together, and all the senate of the children of Israel, and sent to the prison to have them brought.

22 But when the officers came, and found them not in the prison, they returned and told,

23 Saying, The prison truly found we shut with all safety, and the keepers standing without before the doors: but when we had opened, we found no man within.

24 Now when the high priest and the captain of the temple and the chief priests heard these things, they doubted of them whereunto this would grow.

25 Then came one and told them, saying, Behold, the men whom ye put in prison are standing in the temple, and teaching the people.

26 Then went the captain with the officers, and brought them without violence: for they feared the people, lest they should have been stoned.

27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them,

28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.

29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

The Ridiculed and Maligned Rob Ford: His Redemption Lies With Us

Rob Ford, Donald Trump, and the New Direction of Political Polarization
by G. Mark Towhey

G. Mark Towhey is a professional adviser to political and business leaders
and the former chief of staff to Mayor Rob Ford. He is the author of
Mayor Rob Ford: Uncontrollable. How I Tried to Help the World’s Most Notorious Mayor
(Skyhorse Publishing, 2015).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are not a typical American. Not even close. The typical American doesn’t read lengthy articles in policy journals. The typical American gets up far too early in the morning, after too little sleep, works too hard for too long in a job that pays too little, before heading home, feeding the kids, cleaning the house, and collapsing into bed far too late. He or she has precious little time to consume news: a fleeting glimpse of pithy headlines, maybe a two-minute newscast on the radio if they drive to work or a few minutes of local TV news—mostly weather and sports scores. It is through this lens that typical Americans view the world beyond their personal experience and that of friends and family. It’s through this lens that they assess their government and judge their politicians.

These are the typical Americans who elected Donald Trump. They weren’t alone in voting for Trump, and they didn’t cast their ballots by mistake. They chose Trump because, out of the available alternatives, he best represented their view of the world.

I am not a typical American, either. In fact, I’m a Canadian. I was a key player on the team that helped elect Rob Ford as mayor of Toronto—North America’s fourth largest city. I helped him craft a campaign platform that resonated with typical Torontonians and, later, helped him translate that platform into an actionable governing agenda. I helped him get things done. Three years later, Ford fired me as his chief of staff when I insisted that he go to rehab to address the personal demons that were destroying both him and his mayoralty. My experience with Ford has given me an unusual perspective on the recent presidential election, the Trump phenomenon, and the rise of a new and powerful political force that favors unorthodox candidates.

The Right Message for a New Coalition

No, you and I are not typical at all. We have time to read (and, apparently, to write) long-form articles in policy journals. We can pause our breadwinning labor and child-rearing duties long enough to consider hypotheticals and to ruminate, now and then, on an idea or two. We may not recognize this as a luxury in our modern world, but we should. Amid all that rumination, however, we rarely stop to think that what motivates us does not necessarily excite typical Americans, the people who elected Donald Trump some six years after their northern cousins elected Rob Ford in Toronto.

Almost by mistake, this bloc of typical citizens—overstressed, under-informed, concerned more with pragmatic quality of life issues than idealistic social goals—has become a powerful political movement. And we didn’t see them coming. Conventional political leaders seem to completely misunderstand them, and even their own champions often appear to disrespect them. They do so at their peril.

In 2010, Rob Ford was a dark horse candidate in the race to be mayor of Toronto. He later became internationally notorious for his very public battles with drug addiction and frequent appearances as a punch line in late-night television monologues. But his 2010 campaign was based on his understanding of the struggles typical residents endured and their limited time for politics. Ford boiled his campaign down to “Respect for Taxpayers” and “Stop the Gravy Train.” His message was concise and understandable. It fit on a bumper sticker. It could be passed by word of mouth from one person to the next without loss of meaning or impact. That it meant something different to everyone was not a weakness but a strength—no matter what you thought the “gravy train” was, everyone wanted it stopped.

In the U.S. presidential election, Donald Trump appealed to rising popular concerns regarding the direction of the country and to a nearly universal, easily-repeated desire to “Make America Great Again.” Unemployed or struggling to get by? “Build a wall!” Fed up with establishment fat cats getting rich while your family struggles to make ends meet? “Lock her up!”

Respect for Taxpayers. Make America Great Again. Both fit on a bumper sticker. Easy to remember. Hard to disagree with. Quick to pass on by word of mouth.

Yet these campaigns didn’t succeed simply by spinning a better message. They out-communicated their opponents, for sure. But, they found a fertile audience because they addressed a compelling need in the population better than anyone else. There are very real gaps in our society that have not only gone unfilled—they’ve gone seemingly unrecognized by our governments for decades.

The Indiscreet Charm of Rob Ford

Rob Ford beat his opponents by assembling a pro-change coalition. Of those who voted for Ford, about 60 percent self-identified as traditional right-wing conservative voters (in provincial and federal elections—there are no political party affiliations in Toronto municipal politics). The remaining 40 percent of Ford voters were about equally divided between centrist Liberal Party supporters and left-wing New Democratic Party supporters. What united them was a clear hunger for change in a city where they wanted government to make their lives a little bit easier: taxing them less and focusing on the often forgotten must-do details of municipal life—taking out the garbage reliably, keeping the buses moving, fixing potholes, etc.

While his opponents focused on ideological issues surrounding climate change, mandating “green roofs” on new and renovated commercial buildings in Toronto, Ford channeled the typical resident’s anger about living through a month-long garbage strike. He vowed to privatize garbage collection to reduce costs, improve service, and prevent future strikes. He pointed to the glaringly obvious example of one quarter of the city where this had been done with complete success. No need to study the issue. Just do it. He did. It worked.

While other politicians wrung their hands and beat their breasts about the plight of Toronto’s poorest people, Ford went door to door in the city’s run-down social housing complexes, dragging civil servants with him, to talk to occupants, to hear their list of complaints, and to direct the bureaucrats to “Fix it. Now.” Things got done. While other members of the Toronto council created committees to investigate the establishment of a sophisticated “311” call center to respond to citizen requests for service from the city, Ford returned every constituent phone call and went personally to people’s doors to hear their concerns and fix them. Personally.

Most Toronto politicians preached their ideology and debated abstract concepts. Ford focused on fixing what was wrong today. Ford made life easier for residents now.

Near the end of the 2010 election campaign, Ford was caught flat-footed during a televised debate by an ambush question about what he would do to welcome a boat of Tamil refugees reported to be making its way across the ocean to Canada, likely to settle in Toronto. The other candidates spoke eloquently about Toronto’s motto, “Diversity Our Strength,” and the critical role immigration played in creating the wonderful fabric of our municipal society. Ford, however, reacted frankly, honestly, and in a manner that would have spelled doom for most political candidates:

“Right now, we can’t even deal with the 2.5 million people in this city. I think it is more important to take care of people now before we start bringing in more people. How are we going to welcome another million people in? It is going to be chaotic. We can’t even deal with the chaos we have now. I think we have to say enough’s enough.”(1)

His opponents pounced on him, calling it a “turning point”(2) in an election Ford had been winning, and crowing that the public was finally seeing “the real Rob Ford.” The premier of Ontario said Ford’s comments weren’t “representative of Canadians or of the society that we aspire to build here together.”(3) An influential academic from Ryerson University, speaking on behalf of the city’s educated elite, was critical, saying, “Anyone who runs for public office needs to do research before they blurt out comments on issues.”(4)

The criticism of Ford for his comments on immigration sounds eerily similar to criticism of many campaign pronouncements made by Donald Trump. Also similar was the reaction of typical residents. They weren’t upset with Ford in 2010. In fact, the vast majority of typical Torontonians—including the majority of recent immigrants—agreed entirely with Ford.

There was a very large gap between the response of the political and academic elite in Toronto and the response of the typical Toronto voter. That gap was just as evident in the results of the 2016 presidential election. How did we not recognize it during the campaign?

Populism and Widening Socioeconomic Divides

We see many gaps in American society today. The gap between rich and poor, in particular, is growing wider. The Occupy Wall Street movement grew out of the fact that, for too many Americans, the economy simply was not working. Since the end of the Great Recession in 2009, incomes for the richest 1 percent of Americans have grown significantly, reflecting the recovery in the stock market. Incomes for the poorer half of Americans, however, have been largely stagnant. Only 50 percent of children born in 1980 will earn more than their parents, compared with 92 percent of those born in 1940.

We shouldn’t be surprised that there is also a gap between the lifestyles, interests, perspectives, and priorities of the most successful Americans and those of what I’ve loosely labelled “typical Americans.” The people who make the decisions that matter in America are, by definition, our political and business leaders—the people who have been most successful under the status quo. Naturally, they have an implicit bias toward believing that the system works, because it has worked well for them.

Even if you do not consider yourself (yet) to be a business or political leader, you have somehow found the luxury of spending ten minutes doing nothing more than reading this article. So, whether you know it or not, you’re probably more successful than most Americans.

Let’s face it: it’s people like us who’ve formed the political class, the policy makers, the decision-makers, and those who advise them. What’s important to us is not necessarily what’s important to typical Americans. In fact, the gap between our perspectives and theirs has been growing for years. It’s now so different that we’re seeing new political powers emerge, new coalitions formed along an entirely new spectrum of political interest. Donald Trump exploited this gap by focusing his campaign on uniting typical Americans who, regardless of ideology, felt that status quo America simply wasn’t working for them anymore.

Both Donald Trump and Rob Ford have been described as “populists”—usually by critics who use the term pejoratively. But is populism such a bad thing? President Abraham Lincoln talked of a “government of the people, by the people, for the people” as the ultimate expression of democracy. Who wouldn’t want a democratic government to represent the population it governs? Is that not populism?

The aspersion most frequently cast on populism is that “the people,” meaning the masses of typical voters, don’t really know what’s best for them. The people may want to end immigration in the hopes it will increase wages, for instance, but we know better. A politician who promises to deliver the demands of an ignorant electorate is a “populist,” and that is a very bad thing. A politician who equivocates during the election, then does nothing to impede immigration, on the other hand, is a wise man skilled in the art of political campaigning and governance. He does not deliver what the people wanted. Instead, he presides over a government of the people, by those smarter than the people, for . . . well, frankly, we’re not sure whom.

In Toronto, the political and academic establishment knew that designating the city’s transit system an “essential service”— and thereby removing transit workers’ right to strike—would likely drive up labor costs.(5) The typical residents wanted this designation so they wouldn’t have to suffer through future transit strikes. But the elites knew better. They long opposed the idea. Rob Ford, however, believed the people should get what they wanted. He knew how typical Torontonians suffered during transit strikes: when they couldn’t get to work, they didn’t get paid. Ford made and delivered on the promise. Transit in Toronto is now an “essential service,” and there have been no more strikes.

Typical Americans have spent decades electing smarter people who call themselves Republicans or Democrats. After each election, they’ve waited for their lives to improve, even just a little bit, to no avail. Whether Republican or Democrat, it seems the smarter people they’ve been electing have all failed. Maybe it’s time to elect someone who’s not a genius—who doesn’t pretend to know all the answers. Maybe it’s time to elect someone who’s more like a typical American, who will make decisions much the way any typical American would. Maybe it will work. Maybe it won’t. But electing the same smart people hasn’t worked out well for typical Americans, so what do they have to lose?

Rob Ford never thought he was the smartest guy in the room. Donald Trump might, but he talks like a regular guy, and voters got to know him “personally” through his popular TV show, “The Apprentice.” The fact that Trump frequently garbles his message, says outrageous things, and makes frequent mistakes only makes him seem more like an “average guy.” Both Trump and Ford were accepted by typical voters as one of their own.

Making Life a Little Bit Easier

There’s a masterful scene during the opening episode of the fourth season of Aaron Sorkin’s Emmy-winning TV series The West Wing. It puts what typical Americans want from government clearly into perspective for characters Toby Zeigler and Josh Lyman, both senior White House staffers in the show. They’re stranded in a hotel bar and strike up a conversation with a middle-aged “typical American” who’s spent the day touring the University of Notre Dame with his college-aged daughter.

The man and his wife together earn $80,000 a year and, he laments, “I never imagined I’d have trouble making ends meet. I spend half the day thinking about what happens if I slip and fall on my front porch. It should be hard. I like that it’s hard. Putting your daughter through college . . . that’s a man’s job, a man’s accomplishment. Putting your kids through college, taking care of your family. . . . [But] it should be easier, just a little easier, because in that difference is . . . everything.”

What that man wants from government is not welfare. Not a hand out. Nor massive tax reductions. He just wants government to focus a little bit of its resources and brainpower on making everyday life “just a little easier.” Our typical Americans are not much different. They don’t want perfection. Nor Utopia. Nor ideological purity. Just small, concrete steps that improve their lives. They are, for lack of a better word, pragmatists.

Rob Ford and Donald Trump recognized this. In Rob Ford’s case, he was genuinely focused on the little things that plagued everyday residents in the city of Toronto. His political affiliation was influenced by his father who wore conservative clothes and was a one-term Conservative Party politician, so Ford identified as a conservative. But his day-to-day political priorities were shaped by what he learned from typical Canadians at the most stressed levels of Toronto society—lower and middle income, precariously employed, and without permanent housing.

Ford received and returned over 100,000 phone calls from city residents during his ten years as a city councillor before running for mayor. I know this is true, because he kept a record of every single phone number he’d called. These were regular people, frustrated with their government, and struggling to get by. Their problems were small: trees that crashed on their fences, neighbors whose yards were an eyesore, garbage that didn’t get picked up, potholes that never got filled. One by one, he helped them fix their problems. He became good at it. And he developed a genuine perspective on city governance that was entirely shaped by the experiences of typical residents.

That perspective shaped Ford’s approach as mayor. He believed it was his job to deal directly with his constituents. He left his political staff to deal with the bureaucracy and with other politicians. That’s the exact opposite of how most politicians manage their affairs. Normally, they leave constituent work to junior staffers and focus their personal attention on big-picture, “global” issues.

This is why hundreds of thousands of people loved Rob Ford. It’s also why he wasn’t as effective as he might have been. By focusing entirely on the immediate problems facing residents, he often missed opportunities to step back and identify the bigger, systemic issue that was causing those problems. But people saw that he at least attempted to solve noticeable and growing problems that had not been addressed by the conventional political class.

In Donald Trump’s case, I am not convinced that he is genuinely moved by the plight of the typical American. He’s the epitome of establishment success. Whether billions or millions, he has enjoyed a comfortable and luxurious life by trading on the equity of his surname and the moxie of his deal-making. He’s a smart businessman who recognized a gap in the political market for a candidate who would champion the overlooked wants and needs of typical Americans. Whether he will remain true to those people as a guiding principle remains to be seen.

Trump voters listened to his rhetoric and heard in it the promise of a life made a little bit easier. Not the wholesale redistribution of wealth Bernie Sanders proposed—but a little bit of help, from a Washington focused a little bit less on grandiose international projects, a little bit less on the broad, utopian goals of traditional Democratic or Republican ideologues, and a little bit more on the day-to-day obstacles in the way of a better life for too many Americans.

Just prior to the 2010 Toronto mayoral election, I spoke with an upper middle-class banker who planned to vote for Rob Ford because, he said, “A lot of what he says seems impossible to accomplish. But, if he gets just one of those things done, my life will be a little bit better.” That was all it took to win one man’s vote. In the end, Ford won votes from 383,501 voters just like that. Enough to be mayor.

The banker was certainly not a typical Torontonian. He had time to dabble in political argument, even wrote checks to political candidates. But even he shared many of the challenges faced by typical residents. He may have had an easier life, but where he rubbed up against the city government, it was often in the same frustrating way as people with less time, less money, and fewer options. They shared a common cause, wanting their lives to be just a little bit easier.

The Eclipse of Left-versus-Right

If you spend much of your time working in, observing, or otherwise thinking about politics, then you probably view the political world along a left-versus-right spectrum. Democrats on the left versus Republicans on the right. Socialists on the far left, ultra conservatives on the far right. That’s the prevailing view of political affiliation. But I have grown to believe it’s a view that only prevails amongst us—the fortunate few who have time to ponder such intangibles.

In 2010, Rob Ford assembled a passionate coalition of voters that defied the traditional Left-Right spectrum in Toronto: they were conservatives, liberals, and socialists. The pro-Brexit campaign crossed political party lines and won. Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election by pulling together a coalition of support that most pundits didn’t believe existed. After all of this, I’m convinced that typical Canadians, Britons, and Americans simply do not view the world the way I do. They don’t see life through ideological lenses. They don’t measure politics on the traditional Left-Right continuum.

Most typical Americans don’t have time to divide the world into Left and Right. Instead, they instinctively divide the world into things that affect them and things that don’t, things that help them and things that don’t.

We can find typical Americans struggling to make their lives a little bit better on both the left and right ends of the political spectrum. Those on the Left often share the same problems with those on the Right, though they may want different solutions to them. The theoretical differences between the Right and the Left are determined by these different solutions. But a typical person’s vote—and a voting coalition—is at least as likely to be determined by a common problem—especially when no one else is paying attention to it.

Another Dimension: Pragmatism versus Idealism

We tend to think of “pragmatists” as centrists who occupy the space where the Left and the Right merge on a Venn diagram, representing a moderate position blurred between the two. For many people, however, pragmatism is not defined by moderate ideological tendencies but rather by a different prioritization of issues entirely. It’s a focus on the concrete, rather than the abstract. It targets immediate, specific problems rather than deep, systemic causes. It prefers clearly defined and implementable solutions rather than aspirational visions. In other words, what if, instead of referring to a place on a Venn diagram, the pragmatic-idealistic divide actually functions like a different political axis?

It may be easiest to describe this other political axis simply by visualizing it. Imagine, for a moment, the traditional Left-Right political spectrum on a horizontal line: Let’s call this the “x-axis,” and it runs, naturally, from left to right. Now imagine a vertical line that intersects the x-axis at its center. Let’s call this, unsurprisingly, the “y-axis.” At the top of this vertical line, we’ll put people who place a high value on theoretical concepts, ideals, ideologies, and principles that affect society in the abstract. Let’s call that end of the y-axis the “idealist” end. At the opposite end of the y-axis are people who place a high value on practical solutions and actions that help them personally. Let’s call this the “pragmatic” end.

Those at the idealist end of the y-axis are people who’ve succeeded in the current political and economic system. Those at the pragmatic end struggle to get by in the status quo system. They’re people like Aaron Sorkin’s man in the bar. People who want small but realizable improvements, practical solutions, and help now.

I believe this y-axis is how many Americans divide the world: idealism versus pragmatism; aspirations versus practical solutions; someday versus today; how it affects the world versus how it impacts me; people who’ve succeeded in the current system versus people who are struggling in it.

You (probably) and I (certainly) may fall to the left or to the right of the x-axis, but we are both more likely to be idealists than pragmatists on the y-axis. Whether we vote Republican or Democrat, we are the people who’ve found success (or inherited wealth) in the world as it is now. We don’t need it to be much easier. We’re “the establishment.” We have time to think, to discuss, to worry about how to feed the world’s children in the future. Most pragmatists, however, are too busy to worry about the future. Whether they’re on the left or right of the x-axis, they share a focus on more immediate needs, on feeding their kids today.

As the Democrat versus Republican partisan divide (the Left-Right ideological x-axis) has widened, it’s become more difficult for either party to build a plurality on these terms. There is a large group of Independents in the middle, but, as Gallup has reported, even they tend to lean towards one party or the other. Voters simply don’t move as much along the x-axis as they may have in the past.

The y-axis is another matter, however. Politicians like Rob Ford and Donald Trump have found success by building coalitions of voters who may be dissimilar on the x-axis, but who occupy a similar space on the y-axis. Both Trump and Ford built a voting base among pragmatists.

In the Republican primary race, Trump competed against a fractured group of establishment Republicans who had strong appeal across the right wing of the x-axis, but whose support was limited almost exclusively to the idealists—people for whom the status quo had worked well. They carved this territory up amongst themselves, but left the larger and growing pragmatic segment of the Right almost entirely for Trump.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton built her base largely amongst idealists on the Left and in the center. Clinton’s biggest competitor for the Democratic Party nomination, Bernie Sanders, also built his strong and faithful, but not decisive, coalition among pragmatists and idealists on the Left. But when he dropped out, some of his pragmatist supporters felt that they had more in common with the pragmatists on the Right than they did with Clinton’s idealists on the Left.

Trump crafted his message so it resonated not only with pragmatic Republicans but with just enough of the growing millions of typical Americans who make up the pragmatic extreme of the y-axis—no matter their traditional left-right political allegiances. Even if far left-wing voters wouldn’t vote for Trump, he appealed enough to their pragmatic sensibilities (hungry for life to be a little bit better) to drive a wedge between them and the left-wing idealists who rallied around Clinton (whose lives were already pretty good).

Implications for Politics and Policy

As the gap between rich and poor has expanded, and the percentage of people struggling has become larger, so too the pragmatic coalition has grown. Meanwhile, the shrinking segment of idealists has become increasingly entrenched in an unbridgeable left-versus-right divide. Thus the real opportunity in politics for the foreseeable future lies in uniting the pragmatists.

Donald Trump recognized this and used it to propel himself into the White House. Trump, like the pragmatic champion Rob Ford before him, was a flawed candidate and appears likely to be a very weak incumbent. Yet he was the only one to carry the flag for typical American pragmatists, and they chose him. Ford’s flaw was his inability to deliver on his full agenda due to his personal addictions. Trump’s flaw is that he is not really a pragmatist himself—he’s a savvy marketer who saw a gap in the market and moved first to fill it. Both men have had difficulty driving an establishment bureaucracy and the overall political process towards new, pragmatic goals.

When Ford ultimately failed as mayor of Toronto, the voters elected an idealist to replace him. Yet many still hunger for a more pragmatic approach to government. They deserve another champion. This is the real question: Will another pragmatist leader emerge who is better skilled in the political arts—a champion who can win the trust of the voters, win an election, and actually achieve lasting change in a political environment that is still largely controlled by idealists?

Can Donald Trump effect real change in Washington? It remains to be seen, but he may very well go down in history as the first to establish a beachhead for the cause of pragmatism, but not the leader to drive much further inland. On the other hand, if Trump can keep politics focused on issues that truly matter to typical Americans, and produce results that will genuinely make their lives a little bit easier, then that would likely pave the way to a second term.

The lessons for policymakers in this “pragmatic” world are many. Policymakers must recognize that a sizable segment of American citizens (enough to elect a president) is very unhappy with government—not just the government of the day, but the entire apparatus and culture of government. The political leadership of the country is largely drawn from the ranks of idealists who are increasingly disconnected from the day-to-day reality of the typical American. This has prompted pragmatists, despite the overwhelming burden of their daily routine, to stand up and be heard at the ballot box. They want a better process. They want better candidates. And they want their government focused on the very real obstacles standing between them and a somewhat better life.

Thus more attention and resources should be focused on doing the basics exceptionally well, and less on wonkish experiments or utopian designs that don’t make life easier for most people. For example, pragmatists want action on health care, not ideology. If President Trump cannot form a coalition with Republican lawmakers, then his base will be quite happy if he works with Democrats, as long as it produces a health care bill that makes their lives a little bit easier. It doesn’t have to be perfect.

This is a global tide: less ideology, more action. Small steps, not grand gestures. Results, not principles. Easier, not harder.

Pragmatists can and will vote for Republicans or Democrats. They’re up for grabs. They will follow a political champion who unites them with a pragmatic platform that delivers real, tangible results. But, if neither party makes the shift, then new candidates and new alliances may form voting coalitions of pragmatists to win the next presidency.

In the long term, addressing the needs of pragmatists is good for idealists too. As pragmatists breathe easier and can enjoy life a bit more, they will begin to have time to think about the future, to consider less tangible ideas, and to become . . . dare I say it, idealists themselves.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 John Michael McGrath, “Latest Mayoral Debate: Ford Opposes Immigration and Giving Credit to Suzan Hall, Proposes Scrapping the Land Transfer Tax,” Toronto Life (online), Aug. 18, 2010, http://torontolife.com/city/toronto-politics/latest-mayoral-debate-ford-opposes-immigration-scrapping-the-land-transfer-tax-and-giving-credit-to-suzan-hall/.
2 Robyn Doolittle, “Ford goes on the defensive,” Toronto Star, Aug. 18, 2010, https://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2010/08/18/ford_goes_on_the_defensive.html.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid.

5 As explained in the Toronto Star, “It seems counterintuitive that designating a unionized workforce as providers of an essential service could increase wages; after all, unions then lose the threat of a full strike. However, with the designation, the union’s apparent loss of bargaining power is offset by having to compensate employees for the loss of their right to withhold services, and the greater role given to third parties—arbitrators and mediators—in setting wages and working conditions.” Benjamin Dachis, “There’s a Downside to Making the TTC an Essential Service,” Toronto Star, Sept. 12, 2008, https://www.thestar.com/opinion/2008/09/12/theres_a_downside_to_making_the_ttc_an_essential_service.html.

Update: A Prayer for Zach

Zach in Ottawa

Zach got a hero's welcome home to Barrie on Tuesday.

I wonder though about his stepfather.

At an interview with CTV Barrie at the finishing point, Derek Clark, who accompanied Zach through the marathon route said about the course:

The tenth kilometer every single day he seemed to crash and he wanted to quit, and he wanted to give up. And I just kept reiterating to him that the whole reason he's doing this is to bring awareness to mental health.

Of course the challenge is tough. Isn't that why the stepdad went for the ride, to support, and especially to encourage, Zach?

I wonder if a real father would have made such statements? All warriors need boosting. The sergeant doesn't disclose those private, tough moments.

I think everyone wants Zach to believe that he is weak, and that he may indeed have "mental problems" himself.

Also, I think that the stepdad is angry, in a passive aggressive way. Zach exposed a family secret which he married into. I wonder if he knew that Zach's mother had these problems before he married her?

Poor young, white boy, with all the elements against him.

We should all pray for Zach.

Zach presented the Royal Victoria Regional Health Centre with more than $70,000.


Zach's Admirers

Mental Health, Mental Resilience, and the Masculine Psyche

Determined Zach, with his parents. meeting with the Mayor of Barrie before he set off for his march to save souls

A young boy from Barrie, Ontario did a fundraiser walk/run/cycle from Barrie to Ottawa to "raise awareness and funds for youth mental health." He says got the idea from Terry Fox, another Canadian cross-country fundraiser who made his historic walk across Canada to raise money and awareness for cancer on one leg, the other having been amputated from cancer.

But what was it that really triggered Zach's efforts?

Well here is a report on his mother Shelley Hofer from the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto in 2012:

Shelley’s sought various treatments for twenty years, but traces her feelings of sadness, crying for unexplained reasons, and depression back to age five or six. She’d tried psychotherapy and medications without much relief.

And here is what she says:

“It’s hard to explain that you’d feel so low and the only way out is to take your own life,” explains Shelley, who has been getting treatments at CAMH for a decade. “I would have died if I didn’t get this help.”

And another, not readily available piece of information:

Zach Makes Tracks is a 410-kilometre trek to Parliament Hill.
He's accompanied by his mom Shelley and his stepdad Derek.

His mother "suffered" from the "disease" leaving this young, already fatherless boy, bereft and motherless.

I tried to figure out what was exactly this "mental health" this woman "suffered" from.

All I could deduce was that it was the usual "lack of self-esteem" that seems to be afflicting women, young and old, and almost always white, in this world full of pressures, where women are no longer allowed to be women but a masculinized form of themselves, in line with the aggressive and pervasive feminist world in which we all live, and where men have been demasculinized.

Striving for feminists' standards doesn't make us into successful female managers and CEO, but divorced, unhappy women with amorphous psychological ailments.

And everyone bears the brunt, including those like young Zach, who talks about his "mental illness," which is simply his attempt at understanding his mother's suffering, and which he, in his boyish masculine way, wishes to cure.

He did so much better at confronting the problem than Ms. Hofer, who retreated into self-pity without regard for what she was doing to her family, including her young son.

So this is the lot of young, white boys, whose parents (and whose society) have deemed them "mentally unstable," yet who can prove themselves far sturdier than anyone around them when given the chance, and, like Zach, even when not.

And would (has) an ordinary young girl done anything similar where she confronts the dangerous elements of nature and technology, by herself, to raise money for a cure?



So far, the best women have done is run in groups for short spurts in order to sell pink ribbons. I couldn't find any young girls who took this on as something to emulate.

Being a minor, Zach had his father ride with him through the course

"He that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal"

Silk Screen
Harvest Moon
By: KPA

John 4

1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,

2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

3 He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee.

4 And he must needs go through Samaria.

5 Then cometh he to a city of Samaria, which is called Sychar, near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph.

6 Now Jacob's well was there. Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well: and it was about the sixth hour.

7 There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink.

8 (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy meat.)

9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.

10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.

11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?

12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?

13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:

14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

15 The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.

16 Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.

17 The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband:

18 For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.

19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.

20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.

21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.

22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.

26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

27 And upon this came his disciples, and marvelled that he talked with the woman: yet no man said, What seekest thou? or, Why talkest thou with her?

28 The woman then left her waterpot, and went her way into the city, and saith to the men,

29 Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?

30 Then they went out of the city, and came unto him.

31 In the mean while his disciples prayed him, saying, Master, eat.

32 But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of.

33 Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat?

34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

35 Say not ye, There are yet four months, and then cometh harvest? behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest.

36 And he that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal: that both he that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together.

37 And herein is that saying true, One soweth, and another reapeth.

38 I sent you to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labour: other men laboured, and ye are entered into their labours.

39 And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did.

40 So when the Samaritans were come unto him, they besought him that he would tarry with them: and he abode there two days.

41 And many more believed because of his own word;

42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.

43 Now after two days he departed thence, and went into Galilee.

44 For Jesus himself testified, that a prophet hath no honour in his own country.

45 Then when he was come into Galilee, the Galilaeans received him, having seen all the things that he did at Jerusalem at the feast: for they also went unto the feast.

46 So Jesus came again into Cana of Galilee, where he made the water wine. And there was a certain nobleman, whose son was sick at Capernaum.

47 When he heard that Jesus was come out of Judaea into Galilee, he went unto him, and besought him that he would come down, and heal his son: for he was at the point of death.

48 Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe.

49 The nobleman saith unto him, Sir, come down ere my child die.

50 Jesus saith unto him, Go thy way; thy son liveth. And the man believed the word that Jesus had spoken unto him, and he went his way.

51 And as he was now going down, his servants met him, and told him, saying, Thy son liveth.

52 Then enquired he of them the hour when he began to amend. And they said unto him, Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him.

53 So the father knew that it was at the same hour, in the which Jesus said unto him, Thy son liveth: and himself believed, and his whole house.

54 This is again the second miracle that Jesus did, when he was come out of Judaea into Galilee.

Saith the Lord: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy

I had the following chapters marked for some reason.


Jeremiah 13-15

1 Thus saith the Lord unto me, Go and get thee a linen girdle, and put it upon thy loins, and put it not in water.

2 So I got a girdle according to the word of the Lord, and put it on my loins.

3 And the word of the Lord came unto me the second time, saying,

4 Take the girdle that thou hast got, which is upon thy loins, and arise, go to Euphrates, and hide it there in a hole of the rock.

5 So I went, and hid it by Euphrates, as the Lord commanded me.

6 And it came to pass after many days, that the Lord said unto me, Arise, go to Euphrates, and take the girdle from thence, which I commanded thee to hide there.

7 Then I went to Euphrates, and digged, and took the girdle from the place where I had hid it: and, behold, the girdle was marred, it was profitable for nothing.

8 Then the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,

9 Thus saith the Lord, After this manner will I mar the pride of Judah, and the great pride of Jerusalem.

10 This evil people, which refuse to hear my words, which walk in the imagination of their heart, and walk after other gods, to serve them, and to worship them, shall even be as this girdle, which is good for nothing.

11 For as the girdle cleaveth to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave unto me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah, saith the Lord; that they might be unto me for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory: but they would not hear.

12 Therefore thou shalt speak unto them this word; Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Every bottle shall be filled with wine: and they shall say unto thee, Do we not certainly know that every bottle shall be filled with wine?

13 Then shalt thou say unto them, Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will fill all the inhabitants of this land, even the kings that sit upon David's throne, and the priests, and the prophets, and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, with drunkenness.

14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the Lord: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

15 Hear ye, and give ear; be not proud: for the Lord hath spoken.

16 Give glory to the Lord your God, before he cause darkness, and before your feet stumble upon the dark mountains, and, while ye look for light, he turn it into the shadow of death, and make it gross darkness.

17 But if ye will not hear it, my soul shall weep in secret places for your pride; and mine eye shall weep sore, and run down with tears, because the Lord's flock is carried away captive.

18 Say unto the king and to the queen, Humble yourselves, sit down: for your principalities shall come down, even the crown of your glory.

19 The cities of the south shall be shut up, and none shall open them: Judah shall be carried away captive all of it, it shall be wholly carried away captive.

20 Lift up your eyes, and behold them that come from the north: where is the flock that was given thee, thy beautiful flock?

21 What wilt thou say when he shall punish thee? for thou hast taught them to be captains, and as chief over thee: shall not sorrows take thee, as a woman in travail?

22 And if thou say in thine heart, Wherefore come these things upon me? For the greatness of thine iniquity are thy skirts discovered, and thy heels made bare.

23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

24 Therefore will I scatter them as the stubble that passeth away by the wind of the wilderness.

25 This is thy lot, the portion of thy measures from me, saith the Lord; because thou hast forgotten me, and trusted in falsehood.

26 Therefore will I discover thy skirts upon thy face, that thy shame may appear.

27 I have seen thine adulteries, and thy neighings, the lewdness of thy whoredom, and thine abominations on the hills in the fields. Woe unto thee, O Jerusalem! wilt thou not be made clean? when shall it once be?

14 The word of the Lord that came to Jeremiah concerning the dearth.

2 Judah mourneth, and the gates thereof languish; they are black unto the ground; and the cry of Jerusalem is gone up.

3 And their nobles have sent their little ones to the waters: they came to the pits, and found no water; they returned with their vessels empty; they were ashamed and confounded, and covered their heads.

4 Because the ground is chapt, for there was no rain in the earth, the plowmen were ashamed, they covered their heads.

5 Yea, the hind also calved in the field, and forsook it, because there was no grass.

6 And the wild asses did stand in the high places, they snuffed up the wind like dragons; their eyes did fail, because there was no grass.

7 O Lord, though our iniquities testify against us, do thou it for thy name's sake: for our backslidings are many; we have sinned against thee.

8 O the hope of Israel, the saviour thereof in time of trouble, why shouldest thou be as a stranger in the land, and as a wayfaring man that turneth aside to tarry for a night?

9 Why shouldest thou be as a man astonied, as a mighty man that cannot save? yet thou, O Lord, art in the midst of us, and we are called by thy name; leave us not.

10 Thus saith the Lord unto this people, Thus have they loved to wander, they have not refrained their feet, therefore the Lord doth not accept them; he will now remember their iniquity, and visit their sins.

11 Then said the Lord unto me, Pray not for this people for their good.

12 When they fast, I will not hear their cry; and when they offer burnt offering and an oblation, I will not accept them: but I will consume them by the sword, and by the famine, and by the pestilence.

13 Then said I, Ah, Lord God! behold, the prophets say unto them, Ye shall not see the sword, neither shall ye have famine; but I will give you assured peace in this place.

14 Then the Lord said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart.

15 Therefore thus saith the Lord concerning the prophets that prophesy in my name, and I sent them not, yet they say, Sword and famine shall not be in this land; By sword and famine shall those prophets be consumed.

16 And the people to whom they prophesy shall be cast out in the streets of Jerusalem because of the famine and the sword; and they shall have none to bury them, them, their wives, nor their sons, nor their daughters: for I will pour their wickedness upon them.

17 Therefore thou shalt say this word unto them; Let mine eyes run down with tears night and day, and let them not cease: for the virgin daughter of my people is broken with a great breach, with a very grievous blow.

18 If I go forth into the field, then behold the slain with the sword! and if I enter into the city, then behold them that are sick with famine! yea, both the prophet and the priest go about into a land that they know not.

19 Hast thou utterly rejected Judah? hath thy soul lothed Zion? why hast thou smitten us, and there is no healing for us? we looked for peace, and there is no good; and for the time of healing, and behold trouble!

20 We acknowledge, O Lord, our wickedness, and the iniquity of our fathers: for we have sinned against thee.

21 Do not abhor us, for thy name's sake, do not disgrace the throne of thy glory: remember, break not thy covenant with us.

22 Are there any among the vanities of the Gentiles that can cause rain? or can the heavens give showers? art not thou he, O Lord our God? therefore we will wait upon thee: for thou hast made all these things.

15 Then said the Lord unto me, Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my mind could not be toward this people: cast them out of my sight, and let them go forth.

2 And it shall come to pass, if they say unto thee, Whither shall we go forth? then thou shalt tell them, Thus saith the Lord; Such as are for death, to death; and such as are for the sword, to the sword; and such as are for the famine, to the famine; and such as are for the captivity, to the captivity.

3 And I will appoint over them four kinds, saith the Lord: the sword to slay, and the dogs to tear, and the fowls of the heaven, and the beasts of the earth, to devour and destroy.

4 And I will cause them to be removed into all kingdoms of the earth, because of Manasseh the son of Hezekiah king of Judah, for that which he did in Jerusalem.

5 For who shall have pity upon thee, O Jerusalem? or who shall bemoan thee? or who shall go aside to ask how thou doest?

6 Thou hast forsaken me, saith the Lord, thou art gone backward: therefore will I stretch out my hand against thee, and destroy thee; I am weary with repenting.

7 And I will fan them with a fan in the gates of the land; I will bereave them of children, I will destroy my people since they return not from their ways.

8 Their widows are increased to me above the sand of the seas: I have brought upon them against the mother of the young men a spoiler at noonday: I have caused him to fall upon it suddenly, and terrors upon the city.

9 She that hath borne seven languisheth: she hath given up the ghost; her sun is gone down while it was yet day: she hath been ashamed and confounded: and the residue of them will I deliver to the sword before their enemies, saith the Lord.

10 Woe is me, my mother, that thou hast borne me a man of strife and a man of contention to the whole earth! I have neither lent on usury, nor men have lent to me on usury; yet every one of them doth curse me.

11 The Lord said, Verily it shall be well with thy remnant; verily I will cause the enemy to entreat thee well in the time of evil and in the time of affliction.

12 Shall iron break the northern iron and the steel?

13 Thy substance and thy treasures will I give to the spoil without price, and that for all thy sins, even in all thy borders.

14 And I will make thee to pass with thine enemies into a land which thou knowest not: for a fire is kindled in mine anger, which shall burn upon you.

15 O Lord, thou knowest: remember me, and visit me, and revenge me of my persecutors; take me not away in thy longsuffering: know that for thy sake I have suffered rebuke.

16 Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O Lord God of hosts.

17 I sat not in the assembly of the mockers, nor rejoiced; I sat alone because of thy hand: for thou hast filled me with indignation.

18 Why is my pain perpetual, and my wound incurable, which refuseth to be healed? wilt thou be altogether unto me as a liar, and as waters that fail?

19 Therefore thus saith the Lord, If thou return, then will I bring thee again, and thou shalt stand before me: and if thou take forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth: let them return unto thee; but return not thou unto them.

20 And I will make thee unto this people a fenced brasen wall: and they shall fight against thee, but they shall not prevail against thee: for I am with thee to save thee and to deliver thee, saith the Lord.

21 And I will deliver thee out of the hand of the wicked, and I will redeem thee out of the hand of the terrible.

About

Kidist Paulos Asrat has studied film and photography at Ryerson University, and textile design in Ontario College of Art and Design. Her visual arts training also covers drawing and painting.

She has had her film and photography exhibited in Canada and Europe, and most recently in Mississauga, Ontario.

Her professional activity combines the graphic and textile arts. Her textile designs incorporate many of her photographs, drawings and paintings.

She has a broad theoretical and historical knowledge of the arts. Her vision of trying to understand and build upon this art history and theory has enabled her to write many articles on art, society and culture.

Her other artistic achievements include ballet training as a young girl, winning a regional prize, and more recently, as a performing member in a modern dance ensemble. She has studied the piano starting at the age of six, and has given many public performances.

"I will instruct thee and teach thee in the way which thou shalt go"

Riverdale Farm Path, Toronto
[Photo By: KPA]

Psalm 32

1 Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.

2 Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.

3 When I kept silence, my bones waxed old through my roaring all the day long.

4 For day and night thy hand was heavy upon me: my moisture is turned into the drought of summer. Selah.

5 I acknowledge my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah.

6 For this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee in a time when thou mayest be found: surely in the floods of great waters they shall not come nigh unto him.

7 Thou art my hiding place; thou shalt preserve me from trouble; thou shalt compass me about with songs of deliverance. Selah.

8 I will instruct thee and teach thee in the way which thou shalt go: I will guide thee with mine eye.

9 Be ye not as the horse, or as the mule, which have no understanding: whose mouth must be held in with bit and bridle, lest they come near unto thee.

10 Many sorrows shall be to the wicked: but he that trusteth in the Lord, mercy shall compass him about.

11 Be glad in the Lord, and rejoice, ye righteous: and shout for joy, all ye that are upright in heart.

DNA Absolution

Vox Day with the Bad Guys?

My brother recently did his DNA test and his sample came out:

Sub-Saharan African - 56.8%
Middle Eastern & North African - 31.6%
European - 8.5%
South Asian - 0.7%
East Asian & Native American - 0.2%
Unassigned - 2.2%

Everyone made a big deal about the "East Asian/South Asian/European" insignificant results. We all know that my mother's grandfather had some kind of British/European/Asiatic background and was probably the illegitimate son of a British officer stationed somewhere in Burma, who brought his son to England and raised him. He (the son) later came to Ethiopia and married my great grandmother.

That doesn't stop us from being Amhara. Identity is defined by birth, appearance, cultural inheritance, nationality, and yes genetic makeup. But genetics isn't the arbiter (or the sole arbiter) of one's identity. But "multiculturalism" is the way these days. And everyone is caught up in the fetish. So much so that people are ready to accept faulty information on their identity. The 23andMe DNA test kit has not met the standards of the FDA.

This is why I say this:

Here is Vox Day's (real name Theodore Beale) discussing his "multiracial" background in 2014.

I'm not of English-German descent on one side, but English-Irish.

I'm definitely Hispanic, but I'm not Asian after all. This was a little surprising at first, given the appearance of one of my brothers. But I'm still tri-racial because....

I'm Native American. And not in the Fauxcahontas manner either. We're talking about enough to qualify for membership in most Indian tribes. And, as it happens, more than enough to qualify for the relevant one.

His biography link on his website goes to his Wikipedia page, where it still exists (in 2017):

[Beale] is of English, Irish, Mexican, and Native American descent.

He seems to relish in a multiracial profile. I don't think it is in jest.

I think most people have now bought into the "multiracial" nature of people, which dilutes them into an amorphous, universal identity. No-one can say anymore: I am a White American, or an Amhara Ethiopian, because to reference these specific groups of people is to say that one is a racist. After all, Whites killed off Indians and enslaved blacks. And the Amhara killed off the negroid Oromo and fought off other ethnic groups.

Both have committed crimes against humanity. So tell us the popular myths and fabricated historical accounts which modern Whites and the Amhara now believe.

White Americans and the Amhara are racist. And that is the crime of the 21st century. To be racist is worse than being a murderer, or a rapist, or a thief.

And they must expiate this sin by denying or ignoring their "unsavory" racial/racist makeups, which Whites and the Amhara gladly do by jumping into the happy global salad bowl of the multiracial-sans-unattractive-elements. In other words, a salad bowl where everyone else tells you who he is and where you're not allowed to do so.

But without Whites there would be no America. Without the Amhara there would be no Ethiopia. Not even racist ones. These two groups are essentially the leaders in their lands, or at least have been. Without them there would be no Hispanics, no Blacks, no American Indians, no Oromo, no Tigray, no Muslims. No nations.

These Wihte and Amhara race deniers realize this during moments of crisis. In America for example, this awareness surfaces when Third World immigrants and Black Americans publicly display their hate of Whites. In Ethiopia (and among Ethiopians in the West), it is a fetid hatred of the Amhara by all other ethnic groups that brings on an existential crisis in the Amhara.

That is why otherwise intelligent people like Beale try to absolve this crime, this sin, by showing us they cannot possibly be racist because:

"I'm definitely Hispanic, but I'm not Asian after all. This was a little surprising at first, given the appearance of one of my brothers. But I'm still tri-racial...".

And in my own family, there is great urgency to find that Oromo (negroid) link in our mostly Semitic heritage.

Melania Trump: Flotus/Fashionista/Double Agent

Melania the Double Agent

In the photo above, Melania Trump, with her aviator glasses and leather jacket, looks like a Russia double agent.


Anna Vasil'yevna Kushchyenko: Russian Spy


This "fashion writer" writes:

“No, Melania Trump, You Cannot Wear Those Shoes to a Flood Zone”

This tweet is no-where to be found except for bloggers (tweeters?) who screen-captured it sensing some kind of WH meltdown.

Trump (Mr.), the ever-bully, issued a cease or desist news release via @flotus.

There must have been more than a flotus tweet because the writer recanted, with a clever but much less effective:

“Melania Trump’s Hurricane Stilettos, and the White House’s Continual Failure to Understand Optics”

This is the freaky woman who wrote those comments. Where are the normal people to call out Flotus (and Potus)?


Twitter photo of Lynn Yaeger, Fashion Editor at Vogue

It is hard to find any biographical information on Yaeger. Is she married (or was she)? Is she a lesbian? Where did she grow up (well she writes of her childhood in Long Island so, -is she Jewish?

She remains this amorphous freak, self-defined (so she believes), and tells millions of stupid women how they should dress.

No wonder gave up on Vogue a long time ago.

And Mrs. Trump continued to wear her special shoes once in Texas - white sneakers this time - on the ground and at strategy meetings - capping off her outfit with a Flotus logo.