When will serious journalists stop their idolization? Of course idols exist both as positive and negative references.
Those who positively idolize Trump think he can do no wrong (or his errors are someone else's fault, something else's fault).
Those who negatively idolize Trump think everything he does is nefarious and evil.
I am no fan of Trump. I wish he would just go away. I think sane people will actually get rid of him (impeachment, pressurized resignation, etc.). But I don't think he is all that he's made out to be. He somehow got into the limelight (of course he sought it and the presidency may have been a longer plan than the two or three years prior to his election) and people bought it. They made him president, partly because of that modern ailment of idolization, magnified even more because we have lost touch with our true God.
I think think this very likely what will happen. His presence will rejuvenate a new conservative movement, quietly, in the sidelines. Waiting for the right moment. There are many good intelligent responsible people, more alert and wiser.
So here is seasoned and mature journalist Diana West saying this, as a restrained idolater (she has to be, there are too many opinionated people reading her posts):
The Time magazine Trump Jr. cover prompts, however, are very different because there is to date scant more to the entire "red handed scandal hitting home" story. Sure, there are details to be noted (and a whole nest of anti-Trump Russian operatives to explore that Time won’t want to), but these elliptical cover lines go no further than the Trump family smear they recklessly, maliciously create.
Yes the Trump offspring who was caught red-handed conniving with the enemy!
This has been the approach of all "conservative" media, who would rather support their idol, even if some are lukewarm about it.
Are those the only options? Trump or Hillary (or Hillary's stooges, or more precisely her further left field enemies)?
Is that what sophisticated thinkers have come to - this or that and nothing else, or else?
"How is Hamilton?" I asked my brother, who's been living there for the past couple of years and where there has been a lot of "development." The last time I was there it looked lovely with a newly renovated waterfront just by the downtown. There had been some talk of industries and companies (with Hamilton as part of the Silicon Valley North in Ontario) coming in to fill in jobs lost to the disappearance of the steel mills, and the economy was looking good.
Hamilton is several miles south of Toronto, and is also becoming something of a "bedroom" city for Toronto workers.
"It's nice. There's not much of a mixture though. It's mostly whites."
There you have it.
"Whites not allowed" is going to be the new 21st century sign.
Below are photos of the waterfront I took about a year ago as the marina was being developed and part of the the steel mills' infrastructure was still in the background.
But the steel industry hasn't disappeared. In fact there is a resurgence that is occurring. Read about the North America Free Trade negotiations here.
And about the downtown redevelopment project here.
In the guise of "whites not allowed here" what this really means is leaving room for others to elbow their way in.
That is what the Chinese are doing by dumping cheap steel into the Canadian market. Various Canadian officials have stated that Canada needs to impose trade barriers to protect Canadian steel.
And with the continued collapse of the Chinese global strategy, I think Hamilton will have a resurgence, a revival, and as I told my brother, a renaissance.
Below is a dove I saw flying from tree to tree, and then it decided to stop by a small patch of grass, where it pecked at some seeds. I had drawn a portrait of one a couple of years ago, but the photo I used came from Wikipedia!
Confession: I have never seen a real-live mourning dove, although I have heard its lovely sound (in the Philadelphia area, last Spring).
Below is a photograph I managed to catch of this fleeting dove, and below that is my rendition of one perched on a branch.
I thought for a long time that it was "morning dove" but it is perhap apt that it be "mourning." Animal sounds often give us the mood of the times. A mourning dove, reminding us that we should be aware of what we are losing, and as my modest blog attempts to do, to reclaim it once again.
Jeff Thomas | A Necessary Fiction: My Conversation with George Hunter and Edward S. Curtis
Exhibition JUN 29 2017 - AUG 27 2017 Canadian Art
A Necessary Fiction extends Jeff Thomas’s engagement with image-makers who have used Indigenous people as the subjects of their work, interrogating the relevance of such work in light of today’s self-determination movement. Employing the work of both George Hunter and Edward S. Curtis as a catalyst, Thomas presents an alternative to the hegemonic and static narratives they both construct and reinforce.
Now why would an indigenous, and proud to be, photographer accept these awards:
In 1998, [Jeff Thomas] was awarded the Canada Council’s prestigious Duke and Duchess of York Award in Photography and was inducted into the Royal Canadian Academy of Art. In 2008, he received The Karsh Award in photography, and in 2017, Thomas received a REVAL Indigenous Art Award.
The source of the above excerpt is Canadian Art Magazine.
I looked up "REVAL Indigenous Art Award" (without quotes) and was given the options by google:
REVEAL Indigenous Art Award
Search only for REVAL Indigenous Art Award
And under REVAL Indigenous Art Award, the Art Gallery of Mississauga came up.
And sure enough the lazy editors at Canadian Art Magazine had quoted directly from the AGM's official announcement where:
in 2017, Thomas received a REVAL Indigenous Art Award.
So much for:
The Art Gallery of Mississauga (AGM) would like to acknowledge and give thanks to the land on which we work. The AGM has the privilege of operating in the territory of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation and traditional homeland of the Wendat, Anishinaabe and Haudenosaunee nations. We are thankful to the many First Nations, Inuit, Métis and global Indigenous peoples who call this region home.
The AGM is committed to recognizing and incorporating diverse Indigenous perspectives within exhibitions and programming, and highlighting the numerous Indigenous artists who have contributed to this gallery. The AGM is dedicated to providing a platform for contemporary Indigenous art and curatorial practices, and hosts events and programs that reflect various cultural topics and identities. (see statement at the bottom of the AGM's website under "Land Acknowledgement")
For an art gallery "committed to recognizing and incorporating diverse Indigenous perspectives," this is pretty much an inexcusable mistake.
And its even worse for a national art magazine not to fact check the brochure announcements of a local art gallery.
Or not to know about (oh the art crime) a national indigenous art award.
But on a subliminal level, who wants to support those which constantly berate you?!
What sane person (or group or ethnicity or country) will endlessly listen to such continuous derision?
But that is what "indigenous" peoples and artists do! All the time!
The AGM has this plaque on its website where it is announcing Thomas' exhibition. But it is illegible. Yet another gaffe! (Or is the subliminal, ever recurring, message: "We don't know any (about) Indians. We don't really care about Indians. We get a lot of money because of Indians. Therefore. We will put up all the shows and programs for Indians (as long as we get paid)).
Here is what Jeff Thomas writes on his fancy website ("urban" = code word for "poor"):
My study of Indian-ness seeks to create an image bank of my urban-Iroquois experience, as well as re-contextualize historical images of First Nations people for a contemporary audience.
.e.: All these white people told you lies. Now I tell you our truth.
In the Indian world there is only Indian truth. Everything else is lies or up for Indian Inquiry.
Jeffrey M. Thomas is an Iroquois/Onondaga photographer, curator, and cultural analyst, born in Buffalo, New York and now living in Ottawa
In the fluid world of Indians, where they disregard borders (really for opportunistic reasons getting the best of both native worlds), they will pass fluidly from one country to another, belligerently defining"territory" boundaries, and defying national ones. And they are permitted to do so. They are neither Canadian nor American, after all. They are natives.
I think Mulroney is the more sincere, and humble. A little like his witty (that Irish humor!) and musical father. Declaring oneself a conservative makes a difference.
David Yeagley, who calls himself a conservative American Indian, hosts Bad Eagle, a website with an open invitation to the world. It hosts a myriad of forum topics ranging from art to music to a subject simply entitled "Death," which is actually an interesting topic once one gets over the squeamish parts.
I found Yeagley's endless interests to be a great asset to the site, and few internet communities have such a wide range of discussions. But, it was actually an Indian site, with an Indian perspective.
Now, how can an Indian live an ethnocentric life while also living as a citizen of America (or Canada, for that matter)? Is there really an Indian who is at peace with America and willing to swallow the bitter pills of defeat? I thought so for a while at Bad Eagle, but I think I was asking for a superhuman feat [read more here].
My cousin was here the other day with her children as well as her brother and his wife.
It is interesting. She stopped her memoir as she entered Canada. I was right about her reticence to write about her Canadian "experience." There is nothing interesting there as far as the "third world" anti-Canadian perspective of most immigrants. Her children, whom she brought with her, will grow up in the open-arms of Canada's multicultural society. They can keep their "identities" while enjoying the benefits of a First World country.
She told me she is writing a "fiction" now.
She brought up "identity" as part of her concern in her book. Finally, I realized this was what it was about.
I told her that "identity" in Canada was always going to be an issue for her (...and people like her - although I didn't say that).
"Ethiopia is going through some kind of renaissance. Why don't you and your family figure out a way to return? To go "back home." You came here through the most difficult way possible [remember they crossed deserts and countries before reaching Djibouti and finally coming to Canada as "refugees.")
Don't worry about culture and language. Both, especially for Ethiopians here who live the culture daily, are easy to regain. Your children [they don't speak Amharic but understand it] will easily pick it up.
A country is a big thing. Everyone needs one."
She (and her brother) were listening to me intently.
I am glad I attended the dinner. I was curious to see what she would do after her "memoir." I imparted an important message. No-one can say now that I didn't. The rest is up to them.
Now, how can an Indian live an ethnocentric life while also living as a citizen of America (or Canada, for that matter)? Is there really an Indian who is at peace with America and willing to swallow the bitter pills of defeat?
I don't know how individuals acknowledge defeat, whether at work, play, love, and in the case of Indians, of their whole tribal ancestry. I think it requires a certain, perhaps saintly, humility, and a constant prayer for strength to accept what has happened.
Yeagley does this, to a certain extent. But, here starts the contradiction. Despite a professed love for America, I think Yeagley, naturally, loves Indians first – and best. So he has to find ways to incorporate the defeat of his people with their uncomfortable and humiliating lives in modern America. Hence, his strange, and constant, discussions of the subliminal effects of Indians on America, and even the world.
Now, I understand this. Yeagley wants non-Indians to see Indians as some supernatural – and perhaps in a more mundane world more of a subliminal psychological – presence, guiding people with the wisdom they have acquired through their suffering. He wants to give an honorable role to Indians who have survived this historic defeat. But, unfortunately, I think he goes to far.
For example, his position is that America, through treaties of many guises, is obligated to support Indians, like infants still feeding on their mothers' milk, for eternity. Where is the strength in that? How can the reality of the Indian reservations’dismal failures give Indians the licence to be the keepers of America? Where does a losing party suddenly become the winner?
I’m afraid that Yeagley, cleverly and sincerely, is using psychological tactics to give Indians the importance they don’t have. We have some magical properties, we can heal your ills, he says. Yet, he rarely talks about the dreadful ills his own people are going through; their weak and fallen positions. This is hard medicine to take, but it is better to face reality, then at least you can do something about it.
Unfortunately, Yeagley seems more interested in giving Indians a false sense of their position in the world based on feelings and emotions rather than provide recourse for actual achievements. He is acting like any other (leftist) Indian in this case, who professes magical, spiritual, qualities, which unfortunately have not been proven yet.
(Compiled from my various posts at Reclaiming Beauty and Camera Lucida).
Tiberge of Gallia Watchquotes this from the French publication Novopress:
The total of non-European immigrants who, per year, are either born or who come to settle in France is more than 500,00, which represents a supply of 15 to 20 million non-Europeans.
She then adds her commentary:
Note: Twenty million is the highest figure I have seen in a reliable blog article. I had seen fifteen million, a figure cited by Algerian politician Azouz Begag, and by Marine Le Pen. Twenty million is about one third of the entire population. And we know European births are not keeping up. Even if French women began having more children they could never overtake the foreign population. So "re-migration" is essential, in addition to a new policy favoring traditional families that should be rewarded for having children. In recent years socialist/progressive governments have cut the benefits to families in favor of benefits to foreigners. A recent article I read says that traditional families are "old hat", retrograde, obsolete...
There are many interesting factors here which I comment on below:
1. "A recent article I read says that traditional families are "old hat", retrograde, obsolete..."
Yes "traditional" is the key word.
That doesn't mean just French cultural traditions but religious traditions also.
We can all talk about the beautiful French architecture, its intellectual tradition, and the long artistic legacy. All these will continue for many decades to come, albeit with declines along the way (e.g. postmodernism hasn't destroyed such legacies, which and still continue behind the musty walls of arts and academic institutions).
But what is at the core of this modern (as in contemporary and not "modernist") legacy and tradition is the religious foundation of French culture, its Catholic Christian heritage.
2. "Even if French women began having more children they could never overtake the foreign population. So "re-migration" is essential..."
The problem with re-immigration is that it assumes that it is the "immigrants" who are the primary problem. In fact many of these "immigrants" are in one way or another "citizens" and the country's laws and institutions treat them as such.
3. "...a new policy favoring traditional families that should be rewarded for having children. In recent years socialist/progressive governments have cut the benefits to families in favor of benefits to foreigners."
Once again the words have to be carefully defined:
- Traditional families:
-- Families with a mother and a father, where the father is the head of the household and the primary (if not the main) income earner.
-- Which pledge a written (and law-binding) allegiance to specific French legacies - e.g. the religious, cultural and historical roots of French civilization as coming from France and Western Europe, via a Greco-Roman inheritance, and through its Catholic Christian foundation.
(For example, Muslims can have allegiances to traditions and cultures but which have nothing in common with this specifically defined French one, nor do they want to have one as demonstrated by conflicts and segregations now a common part of life in large French towns and cities. Even Paris, as beautiful is a segregated city).
And thus only such French families will be "rewarded" for having children as well as receiving the "benefits" of having children.
No more subsidization of immigrant children and families, who will later on denounce the French.
Under the "tolerant" regulations in France, Muslims can (and have in some local pockets) instate their own traditions, such as Halal foods (food blessed in the name of Allah) in public places, build mosques, instate bi-language laws in public institutions (in Arabic and French), demand legal procedures following Sharia law, require Arabic culture and history education in public schools etc.
They present a traditional adherence but not the French tradition. And this, as the years and decades progress, will eventually con-exist (which it has done so in certain areas of French life - e.g. the school system) and could dominate some parts of French life, politics and culture.
Many of these have already happened in various pockets (now no longer isolated) around France.
Definitions are important. And bold and forthright ones which leave very little room for reinterpretation.
- Foreigner:
The least generous and perhaps most honest explanation for "foreigner" comes from an online dictionary:
a person who comes from a foreign country; someone who does not owe allegiance to your country
How interesting to classify a foreigner as someone not owing allegiance to one's country.
No immigrant anywhere, - France or Canada or the US -, is now required to "owe allegiance" to a particular (Western) country. Instead accommodating multicultural laws and regulations allow for institutionalized non-allegiance by foreigners. In fact, opposing this can bring on a rash of lawsuits, based on various categories of discrimination. In Canada you could face the Human Rights Commission and potentially lose your job, your business, your money, and most certainly your reputation. You will be made to feel so uncomfortable you have two options: to capitulate (i.e. apologize with lots of hand wringing) or leave.
"White flight" has now become a phrase in the dictionary.
The Novepress article makes a similar definition about "foreigner, although it stops short:
...officiellement, un « immigré » est une personne, résidant en France, née à l’étranger et de nationalité étrangère à sa naissance. Ce qui évacue de ces statistiques tous les immigrés de la troisième génération et des générations suivantes… précisément celles où recrutent les djihadistes !-
...officially an immigrant is someone who lives in France, born in a foreign country and with a foreign nationality
[KPA: at birth although I think this is redundant.
- Translation KPA].
Western people have to start thinking like lawyers rather than cultural observers.
Finally, pessimism is dangerous. It leads to nihilism and self-destruction. Part of the West's crisis comes from this lack of (abandoning of) God and faith. It comes from a lack of spiritual strength. We don't know what God has ready for us. We don't know what tomorrow brings.
We have a battle to confront right now. It could determine be our very existence. It could be the difference between our resurgence and renaissance or our death as a civilization. But we cannot do it alone. We have to as forgiveness for all the errors we have committed, then we need to pray and ask for guidance.
1 Now after the death of Moses the servant of the Lord it came to pass, that the Lord spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' minister, saying,
2 Moses my servant is dead; now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, thou, and all this people, unto the land which I do give to them, even to the children of Israel.
3 Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, that have I given unto you, as I said unto Moses.
4 From the wilderness and this Lebanon even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and unto the great sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your coast.
5 There shall not any man be able to stand before thee all the days of thy life: as I was with Moses, so I will be with thee: I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.
6 Be strong and of a good courage: for unto this people shalt thou divide for an inheritance the land, which I sware unto their fathers to give them.
7 Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper withersoever thou goest.
8 This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.
9 Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest.
Prince Charles receives the Extraordinary Companion to the Order of Canada medal from Governor General David Johnston at Rideau Hall in Ottawa July 1, 2017
As a member of the Royal Family, Prince Charles has been made an extraordinary companion of the Order of Canada, the highest level of the order, for his global philanthropic work and support for Canada's Armed Forces members. [Source]
And
Companions of the Order of Canada, the highest level of the Order of Canada, have demonstrated the highest degree of merit to Canada and humanity, on the national or international scene. [Source]
Established in 1967 by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, the Order of Canada is the cornerstone of the Canadian Honours System, and recognizes outstanding achievement, dedication to the community and service to the nation. The Order recognizes people in all sectors of Canadian society. Their contributions are varied, yet they have all enriched the lives of others and made a difference to this country. Since its creation, more than 6 000 people from all sectors of society have been invested into the Order.
Desiderantes meliorem patriam: They desire a better country
The Order of Canada, the highest level of distinction in the Canadian honours system, was established on July 1, 1967, the 100th anniversary of Confederation. [Source]
Thank you Governor General David Johnston, for fawning over the adulterer Prince-in-Waiting Charles. And for continuing the archaic relationship we have with Britain. When will Canada finally grow up and separate from its sovereign Queen Elizabeth?
The Queen or sovereign is the head of state in Canada. The Governor General of Canada represents the sovereign, and most of the powers and authority of the sovereign have been delegated to the Governor General. The role of the Canadian Governor General is mostly symbolic and ceremonial.
The governor general acts within the principles of parliamentary democracy and responsible government as a guarantor of continuous and stable governance and as a nonpartisan safeguard against the abuse of power. For the most part, however, the powers of the Crown are exercised on a day-to-day basis by elected and appointed individuals, leaving the governor general to perform the various ceremonial duties the sovereign otherwise carries out when in the country; at such a moment, the governor general removes him or herself from public, though the presence of the monarch does not affect the governor general's ability to perform governmental roles.
But aside from all these roles and responsibilities, the Governor General's role "is mostly symbolic and ceremonial." So why don't we do something symbolic and remove this symbolic relationship!
"I'd like to acknowledge that we are on ancestral lands of the Algonquin people," starts off the Prime Minister at his speech on Parliament Hill this Canada Day.
"Today isn't really our 150th birthday. We're much older than that. Canada, and the idea of Canada, goes much further back than just 150 years. For thousands of years, in this place, people have met, traded, built, loved, lost, fought and grieved.
Canada is a country made strong not in spite of our differences, but because of them. We don't aspire to be a melting pot. Indeed we know true strength and resilience flows through Canadian diversity. Ours is a land of original peoples and of new comers. And our greatest pride is that you can come here from anywhere in the world, build a good life, and be part of our community. We don't care where you're from, what religion you practice, or whom you love, you are ALL WELCOME IN CANADA!!"
Here Trudeau resumes his speech in French (he had been making this dual-language speech as is officially required), and the irritating translator talks over his voice.
He talks about how this multicultural spirit came from the inclusion of the French language and French-Quebec culture into Canadian society, and how bilingualism has became a...
"...central and defining part of our identity and an official policy. Right across this country, Trudeau says, "we speak French and English, as well as hundreds of other languages."
Back in English:
And so, diversity has always been at the very core of Canada over the centuries. It's the foundation upon which our country was built. We may be of every color and creed, from every corner of the world. We may live in British Columbia, Yukon, the Northwest Territories, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nunavut, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia or Newfoundland and Labrador, we embrace that diversity while knowing in our hearts that we are all Canadian.
Etc.
But at this point while listing all the provinces and territories, Trudeau forgot Alberta. It was quite funny really (and I didn't notice, as probably didn't thousands of others - except of course for Albertans), a gaffe anyone could make while not reading off a list during an impassioned speech. The news media narrowed in on that gaffe.
But not on Trudeau's aggressive promotion of now cliched and failed multicultural experiment that keeps on unraveling as the "...central and defining part of our identity."
If even the French and English in Canada couldn't get along, how can he expect people who speak "hundreds of other languages" to do so?
And why in a country so "proud" to be bilingual do we need translators at every official speech?
Thank you Mr. Prime Minister Trudeau, for clouding the realty and playing with our emotions. Your words will be on the record in Canada's history books (should there be such a country).
Sandra Oh From the poster for the film Catfight (2016)
Thank you Sandra Oh for your multicultural/artist's presence at the Parliament Hill Canada 150 Celebration. But you don't even live in Canada so I don't know how you got onto that stage.
Thank you Sandra, for giving us such wonderful films, the only one which anyone might remembers being Under the Tuscan Sun where she played a lesbian (thank you for giving Canadians the chance to say: "Oh yes she's Canadian!"). This was surely a career move since her Grey's Anatomy role was leaving her stuck on television as someone who acts in a night-time soap opera.
And her entrance into the film world was in an "Indie" playing the daughter of Chinese immigrants whom she leaves for a white boyfriend (no matter that Oh herself is Korean but the Chinese screen writer couldn't find a suitable Chinese-Canadian actress to play her autobiographical character, I guess).
Oh's back again with another film. This time a "fight club" for housewives, and with at Turkish American as director (although he was born in Taylorsville, North Carolina).
Says Onur Tukel about his flm Catfight - starring Oh:
I wrote [a script ] in 2013 called Catfight. It was about women in their twenties fighting over a guy.
[...]
When I reread my original script, I hated it. I didn’t want to make a movie about young women fighting over a guy. The culture has shifted. I wanted to make something more relevant. I rewrote the script with more experienced actresses in mind, fighting over something radically different than a guy.[Source]
And more:
...a rivalry is revived, old wounds are torn open, and a Manhattan stairwell becomes home to a woman-on-woman brawl the likes of which are seldom seen outside of martial-arts epics. And now the gloves are off. Over the course of five years and three bloody, bone-crushing rounds, Catfight's formidable adversaries will lose everything they cherish, and rail furiously as their fortunes are subject to wild reversals.
"The culture has shifted." Says Tukel. "I wanted to make something more relevant."
Yes. Women bashing each other up in a movie which even men would walk out on.
