Stephen Harper's Quick Fix to the Obvious Dangers While Leaving Other Dangers Alone

I'm still trying to figure out Stephen Harper's bold move to close the Canadian embassy in Iran, and now his government's decision to strip over 3,000 immigrants off their fraudulently obtained Canadian citizenship. Most of these "immigrants" are from the Middle East, which is a euphemistic word for saying that they are Muslims.

I think Harper is trying to make Canada safer, and to remove dangerous enemies. But, he is doing it in a straightforward, almost clumsy manner.

Multiculturalism is now the norm for both liberal and conservative leaders. In fact, talking against multiculturalism, and evoking the differences in races, cultures and civilizational backgrounds of people would be tantamount to racism.

I think Harper really does believe in racial harmony, where as long as there are no immediate, violent, elements in an identifiable group of people (through religion, race, etc.) that such a group of people should be able to live without interference with the rest of Canadian society. After all, that is why they came to safe and stable Canada in the first place.

So, an increase in the Asian population in Canada, brought on mainly by immigration, and which will continue to grow over the foreseeable future since Harper is not showing any signs of reducing Asian immigration into Canada, is a good thing for Harper.

1) I don't think he believes that the Chinese will overwhelm Canadian society.

3). He believes that these Chinese immigrants will mix and integrate with the rest of Canadian society and adhere to the mainstream culture (which he would be hard-pressed to define if asked).

3). If there is some cross-over, and Chinese culture surfaces in some cases, that is a good since cultural variety is good for Canada.

4). He believes that the off-spring of these Chinese (whether Chinese, half-Chinese, or any combination), and all other immigrant offspring, will become "Canadian" first, and not refer to their countries of origin for self-identification, since "Canada" is all they know.

5). He believes that with constant "Canadian identity" references, pride in Canada, cultural and historical education of immigrants (and all Canadians), other identities will take the back-burner and will surface only at specially sanctioned cultural holidays and festivals.

6). And since people have the right to follow their cultural roots, then Muslims can be Muslims in Canada, as long as they don't show illegal behavior, like procuring false citizenship cards, or plotting to blow up buildings and people in the name of Allah.

So, it is much easier to close diplomatic missions to the Islamic, nuclear weapon acquiring, Israel-threatening Iran, and to deport criminal immigrants (criminal because of fraudulent behavior), rather than to address the long-term destruction of Canada through stealthy take over by alien cultural groups, who legally enter the country through an already established immigration system.

And here is more hot-of-the press news, from the September 7 Ottawa Citizen:

Stephen Harper’s five new senators [appointed last Friday] reflect ethnic diversity

Here are the two new "ethnic" senators:

A former Progressive Conservative politician from New Brunswick, a citizenship judge who fled Vietnam and the first Filipino-Canadian elected in Canada’s largest city are among the crop of new additions to the Senate with the...two making history as the first from their ethnic groups to sit in the Red Chamber.

The three others are:

Former Action Democratique du Quebec candidate and economist Diane Bellemare fills a vacant seat in Quebec, while former Nova Scotia Tory cabinet minister Thomas McInnis and New Brunswick lawyer Paul McIntyre fill vacancies in their home provinces.

Is This The Country That Canada Wants To Enter Trade Agreements With?

Image of Xi Jingping from Drudge

Here is a headline this morning over at Drudge:

MYSTERY ABSENCE OF CHINA LEADER FUELS RUMOR FRENZY...

Which is linked to an AP News article with the same heading:

Here is part of the article:

Where is president-in-waiting Xi Jingping?

Is he nursing a bad back after pulling a muscle in a pick-up soccer game (or maybe in the swimming pool)? Has he been convalescing after narrowly escaping a revenge killing by supporters of ousted local Communist Party boss Bo Xilai? Was he in a car accident? Or is he just really busy getting ready to lead the world's No. 2 economy ahead of an expected leadership transition next month?...

[V]ice president has gone unseen for more than a week. During that span, Xi canceled meetings with visiting foreign dignitaries including U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. On Monday, it was the Danish prime minister's turn.

Xi's whereabouts during this sudden absence from the spotlight may never be known. One thing, however, is certain: China may now be a linchpin of the global economy and a force in international diplomacy, but the lives of its leaders remain an utter mystery...

So when the presumptive head of that opaque leadership disappears from public view, rumor mills naturally go into a frenzy...

[T]he U.S.-based website Boxun.com cited an unidentified source inside Zhongnanhai as saying Xi was injured in a staged traffic accident that was part of a revenge plot by Bo's supporters in the security forces...

This year, China has seen an unusual amount of political intrigue, with the spectacular downfall of Politburo member Bo exposing divisions within the leadership and prompting rumors of nefarious activity ranging from the wiretapping of top leaders to an attempted coup.

And this is the country that Canada wants to enter trade agreements with, about which I wrote here, in my blog post Oh Canada! China's Stooge:

Harper would rather negotiate with a secretive, ex-Communist country, rather than place some long-term bet on his European westerners.

The Democratic National Circus

I meant to blog about this sooner, but it was fascinating to watch the big circus/carnival atmosphere that was going on at the DNC.

Obama's Mussolini Moment, And Other Moments At the DNC

There's a lot to say about Obama's astounding speech last night, with perhaps the most prescient analyses so far here, here, here, here and here (that's a lot of links, but the issue is very important) but I'm writing now about more mundane things like a snippet on Obama's "telling moments" and Michelle's fashion.

First Obama. Several minutes into his speech, Obama came up with this line:

"I am the President."

And here is the expression he held for several seconds after he made that declaration:

[I got the image from the video of Obama making his speech at the DNC last night]

Right after that declaration, he bounces into an exaggerated humility by evoking President Lincoln and directly quoting him:

"I have been driven to my knees many times by the overwhelming conviction that I had no place else to go."

Why couldn't he come up with a memorable phrase of his own? Why did he need to quote another man's anguish and transfer it into his speech? It rang false, strained and disingenuous. Lincoln was trying to connect to a higher calling for his actions. Obama is borrowing those famous words to convince people that he does have a higher calling for all these "actions" he's proposing.

Perhaps what sealed that impression for me was his lapses into a hardened expression as he looks into the crowd trying to gauge their reactions, convinced of his rightness, and with no humility to search further.

He presented a jumble of words, with little coherence, except for his ultimate point that:

everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules – from Main Street to Wall Street to Washington, DC.

He was still within the narrative of slavery, of the evilness of America, and unable to see clearly, and go "forward" as his socialist slogan tells us.

Socialist banners, with Obama's new election logo

And Michelle Obama was once again wearing a casual dress, hardly worthy of such an important political event (even Joe Biden's wife, Jill Biden came out as though she took this role seriously).

But, Michelle is promoting another "black" designer. Which in the end was what Obama's quote was all about - slavery, blacks, "inequality," spreading the wealth. Her dress was the perfect compliment to Obama's speech.

The patterns are hard to define, in this "pattern" dress, but there are shapes of aggressive clarity, such as the pineapple which dominates a badly drawn fleur-de-lys. Blackness (or Africanness) rules over classic western design, and even the dress designer is another one of those unimpressive "black" designers that Michelle has been promoting throughout her time in the white house, simply because she is black.

Sasha is wearing a classic black and white print dress,
with a yellow belt for a color accent.
Malia opts for a super-short dull purple dress,
which looks too small on her.

The belt on Sasha's dress,
which even the original design doesn't
call for. But this young girl knew better.
(By the way, Sasha's flats are gold,
not yellow, like her sister's.)

Ill-defined fleur-de-lys
compete with coarse but
easily decipherable
exotic pineapples

Barely visible floral
broach on Michelle Obama's
dress. Sasha had no say?
Also, muscular neck
and shoulders
will always be her
fashion statement.

Once again, as much as I dislike writing about their two daughters, Sasha, the younger one, is the one who is more alive, more interesting than her sullen sister. This came out in their behavior during Obama's speech, as well in the dresses they chose to wear.

Michelle Outmuscling Ann

The Body Builder with a Social Conscience, and a huggable moment

The collage above is what I put together of Michelle Obama at the DNC last night. What struck me most was her heavy physique, and her shoulder muscles.

I've written about this many times before. Michelle insists that her bulging muscles which she "earns" at the gym have to be flaunted in sleeveless dresses.


The other thing is her heavy make-up, where she looks that she's outlined her eyebrows for special (stern?) effect.

The grey nail polish is to go with the with the grey border on the dusty pink dress. This dedicated fashion follower informs us about the nail polish:

If you were digging the First Lady’s nails, you can get the look with Essie’s Chinchilly shade.

Google image shows us just how grey the color is.

The dress is by Tracy Reese, who has designed dresses for Michelle Obama for other occasions. Reese is a Sears (or Target) type designer, and does give Obama passable dresses, but something more formal and elegant (a Jackie Kennedy style) is more appropriate in the White House.

- Michelle Obama wears a Tom Ford
gown to Buckingham Palace in May 2011
- Jackie Kennedy's 1961 dress to Buckingham
Palace was by designed by Chez Chinon
- Queen Elizabeht wore a Hartnell gown

The dress is an odd mesh of patterns. It looks pretty because of the colors, but there is no clear pattern design. It takes off from brocade print and leaves us with a formless mesh.

Real brocade

Left: Michelle Obama's dress
Right: Brocade pattern super-imposed
on Michelle Obama's dress

The pumps are Everly Suede Pumps by J. Crew, another (proletariat) Obama favorite. There is a sordid story on the President of J. Crew Jenna Lyons, who recently abandoned her husband and young son for another...woman.

I find it astonishing that women who are important public figures would tell us about their love lives. That is what both Ann Romney and Michelle Obama have done while presenting their husbands.

I wrote here about Ann Romney speech at the Republican National Convention:

I didn't watch her speech at the Republican National Convention last night, but I read the transcript this morning.

It is a painful jumble of many things. She comes off as a loving wife, yet her love she declares is better suited for their private interaction, rather than a public avowal at a political event (and for political gains).

Well, Michelle Obama has done the same, and I think she has done it even better.

I won't go into detail about her leftist world view, take (from the rich) to give (to the ....); men who don't support feminists (and women's various rights) are evil; Barack and I earned our college degrees (through various government grants, scholarships and entitlements - i.e. affirmative action) message of her speech - leftists are REALLY hard to take, even if they're depressingly predictable. Their hard-coreness is to be expected. But I don't know why I was surprised that she spent so long on "Barack Obama" who "is still the same man I fell in love with all those years ago."

But Michelle neatly tied together this "love story" with her leftist ideology. At least, I cannot fault Ann Romney for that.

Here is a particularly clever phrase" that Michelle (or more precisely, her writers) pulled out:

We were so young, so in love, and so in debt.

Michelle gave us a symphony of all those undeserved bills they had to pay as a newly married couple "so in love" which they had amassed through years of college and post-graduate education that they couldn't afford. Who's fault is that, Michelle (if I wish to be nice, I could say "who's responsibility is that, Michelle")? Isn't there a point in someone's life when he realizes that the debt incurred is not worth the goods that is being bought? But, probably (certainly) the Obamas knew better, since they planned part of their lives through government handouts.

But, this is the arrogance of the likes of the Obamas, who really do consider themselves special specimens. Most people "dream" realistic dreams. $20,000 of unpaid education fees for fluffy post-graduate degrees is not realistic, and isn't even a dream. It is a nightmare. Again, this is where the Obamas figure they're the untouchables: the black upper class which will get its "equality" which really means more and better than even those who deserve the kinds of goods such figures as the Obamas are after.

Barack Obama is still the same man I fell in love with all those years ago.

This should tell us that Obama hasn't wavered from his radical past, since, as I've said before, Michelle's love for Barack is intricately tied with his, and her, ideology.

So a little bit of shameful exhibitionism is worth the ultimate purpose of her declaration.

Hands On Dad

I watched the whole one hour and a half program "Obama Revealed: The Man, The President" on CNN last night. It was a great piece of propaganda, a well-crafted narrative of Obama through the years, with well-placed images and interviews of Barack-sympathizers. I'm sure we'll be getting a lot more of these docudramas of various lengths during the next few months.

I wanted to see how Obama behaved during his interview (it was interspersed throughout the program) with CNN journalist Jessica Yellin. Most of the time, Yellin had an adoring look on her face, even when she was getting "tough" on the President.

Obama had an odd expression of submissiveness and joviality, with a hint of uncertainty during one segment. I think none of these expressions are suitable for a president, and especially a president the rest of the world constantly has on its radar. The topic is his daughters and dinner with his family, after all, which is all the more reason he shouldn't be talking about "dinner at home."

Then, as though to make up for this "softness," he occasionally gets a hard glint in his eyes, which I've observed in other appearances. This is not the determined look of a world leader, but an strange, fascistic glint, with a thrust of his chin, which I call his "Mussolini chin," borrowing from another observer.


The above image is from a blog post I wrote on Obama's hard glint which becomes all the more apparent next to Eli Wiesel's suffering expression. I also add about Obama:

Yet, there is the vacant, frightened look in Obama's eyes on the picture on the left that I've often observed.

I found this part of the CNN interview fascinating (the link is a two minute clip from the interview). Most of the blogosphere seems to concur, although most likely for different reasons (i.e. what a great dad Obama is to find time out for his daughters at dinner time). The transcript follows below:

OBAMA: When we're in town here in Washington, in the evenings, 6:30, we want to be at the dinner table with our kids and I want to be helping with their homework. I think that's sometimes interpreted as me not wanting to, you know, be out there slapping back, and wheeling and dealing. It really is more to do with the stage we are in our lives.

YELLIN (on camera): If you're re-elected, your girls will be older. They'll probably have their own weekend plans. They might not want to hang out with mom and dad.

OBAMA: It's already starting to happen, yes.

YELLIN: Do you think you might do more outreach, what you call back slapping, with members of Congress?

Imagine the CEO of a company, or the principal of a school being asked "Do you think you might do more outreach when your daughters are older, and you don't have to be at the dinner table to hear about their day?"

Embarrassing, and embarrassing that Obama takes this question seriously.

I'm not sure what Obama is trying to convey with his statement "When we're in town here in Washington, in the evenings, 6:30, we want to be at the dinner table with our kids and I want to be helping with their homework." I don't believe that he really does show up for every dinner (even when he's not on an official trip or meeting) to be with his daughters at 6:30pm. Note his clever wording:

When we're in town here in Washington, in the evenings, 6:30, we want to be at the dinner table with our kids and I want to be helping with their homework.

Wanting to be there and being there are two different things.

And here is Yellin with Valerie Jarrett, who was also interviewed for the program:

YELLIN: Though being a family man isn't always an asset in office, it is a priority for the president.

JARRETT: Well, you have to remember, this is someone who grew up raised by a single mom and his grant parents whose family abandoned him and he's lived with that kind of missing piece in him. And at a very young age, he decided he wasn't going to be the kind of father he had. He wanted to be a present father.

Jarrett also says:

His father abandoned him, and he's lived with that kind of missing piece in him. At a very young age, he decided he wasn't going to be the kind of father he had. He wanted to be a present father.

I have a feeling that Michelle Obama tries to have a large say in "the family eating dinner together," which Obama then deftly overrules.

Joint Forces For Women

Lawrence Auster at the View From the Right has written a post on the initials RNC and DNC (C=Convention or Committee? Go over to his site to find out his argument).

But regarding the RNC, he does conclude:

So it looks as though the Republican Party is reserving the initials RNC to mean Republican National Committee.

And he adds this bit of information:

They [The Republican Party] are resisting fashion, and holding on a useful distinction. If only they had showed the same mettle in opposing other fashionable developments, such as the homosexualization of the U.S. military, the acceptance of (democratically elected) jihadists, and the idea that women can have it all.

I wrote saying:

You wrote:

“If only [the Republican] party had showed the same mettle in opposing other fashionable developments, such as … the idea that women can have it all.”

Will you get with the program and accept that women CAN have it all?

LOL.

If he's not careful, he will have the wrath of both the Democrats and the Republicans (and Mrs. Romney might be the one leading the joint assault).

Mitt Romney's Acquiescing and Submissive Jaw Line

My post yesterday was about the confidence that Ann Romney exuded as she appeared at the Republican National Convention. I titled the post The Aggressive Ann Romney since I was struck by her (feminine) boldness as she stood on the stage, apparently to introduce her husband, but actually to proclaim some kind of feminist solidarity with the women at the convention and beyond.

Above is an image I received via email with the comment:

The woman is the dominant figure, the man is recessive, weak, childish looking. Look at the decisive set of the woman's mouth and jaw line. Then look at the lower part of the man's face--it's girlish and passive.

The image is from an ad for some kind of spa.

I've juxtaposed the image with that of Mitt and Ann Romney at the RNC convention from yesterday, where Ann Romney spoke. I have it in my collage of images I posted at my blog post yesterday.


The Romney image could just as well have the caption:

The woman is the dominant figure, the man is recessive, weak, childish looking. Look at the decisive set of the woman's mouth and jaw line. Then look at the lower part of the man's face--it's girlish and passive [or I could add here, "it is acquiescing and submissive].

The Aggressive Ann Romney

Collage of Ann and Mitt at the 2012 Republican National Convention

Ann is a mixture of the exalted female, the hen-pecking wife (at a public, national convention!), an over-emotional presenter, the overwhelming wife ready to hug some sense into her husband, and the demure and pretty housewife.

Mitt isn't any better. Clutching at his wife in a prolonged hug is embarrassing for a world leader, and he seems to have a slightly apprehensive (frighted) look when next to his wife, as though he doesn't know what she'll do next. Holding hands has now become standard for politicians and their wives, but this is again a degradation of a public political event, where husbands clutch at their wives' hands at any occasion.

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

I liked Ann Romney at her first appearances. She looked pretty and reserved, and seemed to let her husband lead. I'm sure they had private discussions about his leadership (in business and in politics), but I didn't think she was the type of spouse who would take a prominent role in his work. I defended her in this post where nasty bloggers were tearing apart a shirt she wore for a CBS This Morning interview with her husband. I said that she looked supportive of her husband, and was wearing a silk shirt with the design of the American naturalist and painter James Aududon. But, I should have read the signs even then, where Ann is clutching at Mitt Romney, who looks a little overwhelmed by his wife in this photo from that interview.

Mitt and Ann Romney at a CBS This Morning
interview in May 2012

I didn't watch her speech at the Republican National Convention last night, but I read the transcript this morning.

It is a painful jumble of many things. She comes off as a loving wife, yet her love she declares is better suited for their private interaction, rather than a public avowal at a political event (and for political gains).

I have broken down the speech and into these categories:

- "Soppy" love, better suited for private interaction

- A leftist comradeship with her "brothers and sisters" inclusion

- An aggressive feminist on single fathers, working mothers, and "stay-at-home moms" who wish to leave their homes and start their careers

- Sympathizing with the "career-house-keeper" mom, who generally chooses to have such a chaotic family life, and berating Romney by extension as a lounging dad, who doesn't help with household chores

- Demeaning her husband when they first started to go out, and yet disappointed that he didn't act "like a man"

Below are some direct quotes from her speech, and I have written short commentary on the quotes in bold:

- "Tonight I want to talk to you about love." Soppy love

- "Tonight I want to talk to you from my heart about our hearts." Soppy love

- "I want to talk to you about the deep and abiding love I have for a man." Soppy personal (private) love which doesn't need to be publicized

- "love we all share for those Americans, our brothers and sisters" A leftist comradeship

- "the single dad who’s working extra hours tonight" An aggressive feminist outlook with sympathy for broken families. And how many single dads are there really out there?)

- "working moms who love their jobs but would like to work just a little less." Again, an aggressive feminist outlook. Ann Romney stayed home to take care of her kids. So her secret dream was to have a job and a career?!

- "if we were all silent for just a few moments and listened carefully, we could hear a great collective sigh from the moms and dads across America. And if you listen carefully, you’ll hear the women sighing a little bit more than the men." All these over-worked women, who love their jobs, and can't quit to take care of their families, feeling sorry for themselves!

- "It’s the moms who always have to work a little harder, to make everything right." Again, overworked (home and office) saintly career women/mother

-"You know what it’s like to work a little harder during the day to earn the respect you deserve at work and then come home to help with that book report which just has to be done." Yes, again the overworked mother who is the one who helps with the kids' homework, while the husband lounges around.

- "I’m not sure if men really understand this, but I don’t think there’s a woman in America who really expects her life to be easy." Ditto as above

- "he was tall, laughed a lot, was nervous -- girls like that, it shows the guy’s a little intimidated" Yes, anything for the female power

- "I know this good and decent man for what he is — warm and loving and patient."
This is not what political conventions are about, to say what a lovely person the competitor is. This is about competition, and this kind of "niceness" doesn't cut it.

- "He loves America. He will take us to a better place, just as he took me home safely from that dance." Ditto as above, plus back to her personal story, which cannot be extrapolated into political life

- "As a mom of five boys" Back to the "female power" again and the power of being a mom!

-He built it. An aggressive jab at Obama

Portrait d'Une Négresse

Michelle Obama Nude Portrait
[This is one title I can find for the work.
Another is simply First Lady Michelle Obama]
By: Karine Percheron-Daniels

[I cannot find a date for this work, and even Percheron-Daniels doesn't give a date on her site. I would assume it is from midway into Obamas presidency, which could make it between 2011-2012]

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

A Spanish magazine has a crude portrayal of Michelle Obama on its recent cover (see above image). It is after a nineteenth century painting of a slave woman titled Portrait d'Une Négresse by which is on display at the Louvre in Paris. The painter of Portrait d'Une Négresse is Marie-Guillemine Benoist, whose paintings are mostly of female, and feminine, figures both domestic and political. The famous characters she paints are related to prominent male figures, and their prestigious positions are often due to these associations.

Marie-Guilhelmine Benoist
Portrait d'Une Négresse, 1800
Oil on canvas
Paris, Musée du Louvre

Benoist also paints many domestic scenes, mostly of mothers with their young children. So, although a female painter, her subjects were very much feminine (and not feminist).

Benoist's painting is "interpreted" by Karine Percheron-Daniels, another female artist, although a 21st century post-modern one, whose repertoire is re-interpretations of paintings and works of famous figures whom she unclothes in various levels of nudity.

I thought that perhaps Percheron-Daniels actually paints her "parodies" but true to the mediocrity of post-modern artists, she is described in many sites as a "mixed-media" artist. Wherever I find works of hers that look like they were drawn (or painted), it is clear that she is a mediocre painter and drawer.

Here is how this site describes her technique:

The photo was created by photo-shopping or super-imposing Mrs. Obama’s face onto a black female drawing from 1800 entitled “Portrait d’une negresse” by Marie-Guillemine Benoist who was a French artist. The combination of altered artwork and cover photo is part of a “Famous Nudes” series created by artist Karine Percheron-Daniels.

Is it surprising that this "artist" (albeit one whose repertoire is unclothing famous personalities) might some day be tempted to paint Mrs. Obama with her upper body exposed? Although Obama has never shown us any crude, half-exposed breasts as some kind of fashion statement, she has given us plenty of shots of her bare shoulders with intimidatingly large muscles. Perhaps that is one of the reasons Percheron-Daniels chose Michelle Obama as her subject, and in that particular pose (notwithstanding the "blacks and slavery" angle, which she uses to demonize America, and particularly white America).


Perhaps this is the model that allowed Percheron-Daniels to depict the First Lady in semi-nudity. The photo above is from a post I did on Michelle Obama's "off-one-shoulder" style which she wore at the State Dinner for Chinese President Hu Jintao in 2011 (I describe the gown as "some kind of modern tied-dye African costume" so there's another angle Percheron-Daniels might be following). Mrs. Obama has no qualms about pulling down her bodice as far as possible without causing a national scandal to show us her toned muscles which she cultivates in the gym.

So far, there's no news on how the First Lady is taking this depiction of her.

China Love

Stephen Harper with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao

Canada's esteemed Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, is visiting the "Far North" to:

address the issue of China’s state-owned enterprises buying stakes in Canadian resource companies.

The Gulf News, hardly a main stream publication whose article I've quoted above, continues in detail about China's "investments" in Canada.

Harper’s government is reviewing Beijing-based Cnooc [China National Offshore Oil Corp] Ltd’s $15.1 billion offer for Calgary-based oil and gas producer Nexen Inc under the country’s foreign-takeover law. The government in 2010 rejected BHP Billiton Ltd’s $40 billion hostile bid for Potash Corp, only the second time Canada had blocked a foreign takeover in 25 years

The Gulf News continues:

Investment from Chinese companies helped push exploration spending in the Yukon to a record last year....Asian companies have made seven “significant” investments in Yukon-based companies since 2007.

Now, what I don't understand is why Chinese companies have to be the ones who make investments in Canadian companies. And why Harper is so eagerly courting their investments.

My simple (not simplistic) question is based on the fact (we know this) that the Chinese government is running on a corrupt system, that it has a large, Third World level work force that it exploits, that the stories of the rising Chinese middle class may be true, but this tiny middle class is rising at the expense of the country's vast underclass, and that the model the Chinese government has adopted is not true capitalism but a form of coerced capitalism, with lots of government intrusions and regulations.

China is NOT a free country, and is fact is cleverly straddling between pleasing the West with specific, few and well-designed "open" market policies, while maintaining a stringently controlling government.

Even Harper's political base agrees with me. According to the Sault Star, another way off-main stream media newspaper:

...rock-ribbed Conservatives in Harper's political base...object to the deal because they don't like the idea that Communist China should have such influence in one of Canada's most important industries.

Commenter #1 at the National Post's article Oil sales, human rights (and pandas) on Stephen Harper’s China agenda writes in:

Let's be very clear about something from the start. China is a communist country. Communism is all about world domination. What the hell are we doing pandering to them? This is a huge mistake. China wants to buy more and more of Canada for one reason.......so they can pull the political and economic strings of this country.

And the #1 comment on the leftist CBC's online article Canada and China next steps could include free trade deal is:

The price Canadians will pay for "free trade" with China is lost jobs and closed businesses.

Courting Chinese business and development ventures in Canada also means courting Chinese "experts" to Canada. Chinese immigration into Canada will of course increase, as Harper's government is doing all it can to reduce overall immigration into Canada. On his February visit, the National Post reported that Harper took with him:

Chinese-Canadian community leaders and the president of the University of Western Ontario...to attract China’s best and brightest to Canada.

The ordinary readers and commentators quoted above have a much better understanding of why Harper should not be playing trade games with China.

Major publications, left and right, are not reporting honestly on this mission, and are not covering the social, political and economic impacts they can have on Canadians. But it is good to know that ordinary people are so insightful. But, this is probably insight brought on by suffering. Off the beaten path newspapers are also taking on the challenge of reporting this "hidden" news. And the internet becomes an active hub for all this information.

Finally, here's an interesting tidbit, from the Windsor Star, hardly a publication that the majority of Canadians read:

According to the World Bank, the GDP per capita in China last year [2011] was nearly $8,500, as compared to $40,500 in Canada.

So much for Chinese wealth and development.

The only reason I can think of why Harper would court a communist government to assist him with his country's development, instead of going across to the much friendlier nation, and sure ally, to the south, is a pervasive anti-Americanism in the world these days. Perhaps the key information for his decision is in this Wall Street Journal article:

The trip is part of a broader strategic push by Canada to more closely align itself with China and reduce its reliance on the U.S. Mr. Harper aims to increase Canada's capacity to export oil and other resources to China, an effort that has intensified following the Obama administration's decision to reject for now TransCanada Corp.'s Keystone XL pipeline, which would have shipped oil-sands crude from Alberta to the U.S. Gulf Coast

The operative word is "for now." The Obama administration may have closed off the oil sands venture, but business men and oil companies continue to think it is a good idea. There is no reason why the venture cannot resume, and soon.

Black Slang For a Black President

This may show my own lack of deeper knowledge of black American culture, but Niall Ferguson's "Obama's Gotta Go" Newsweek article title, which I wrote about here, reminded me of Spike Lee's movie She's Gotta Have It.

I will venture to say that Ferguson took his title from this relatively well-known black cultural reference, which shows that his knowledge of American blacks is shallow and superficial.

Ferguson in America

I'm the last one to talk about non-Americans talking/writing about American affairs, but I think (I know) I have much more sympathy and admiration for America than many who spend a lot of their time dissecting the country.

As I mentioned earlier, I was recently there for about two weeks, and felt much more at home there than I do here in Toronto. One could say that New York is different, but as I have written before, I spent my formative adult years in the U.S. I went to undergraduate in a small college in Pennsylvania (Lock Haven University), and went on to get a masters at Rutgers University, with a some time in Connecticut before my parents sponsored me to come and immigrate to Canada. I have always been a reluctant Canadian, and I am not being ungrateful, since I am sure that my presence here "benefits" the multi-culti ethos that pervades the country. Of course, Canadians are always shocked when they find out that I don't believe in, nor participate in, multiculturalism. In fact, most of my activities denounce it.

So, having said that, I think I have more clout to talk about America than does Niall Ferguson, who is the mentioned in Lawrence Auster's discussion on the Newsweek article which Ferguson wrote.

I agree that only someone scornful of America would head his article with: "Obama's Gotta Go" which is some kind of American slang which Ferguson uses to make his title rhythmically interesting. The rhythm is in black style, another jab at Obama, who is black, but doesn't "act" black. So, this scornful Ferguson even mocks one of the cultural elements of America - black slang and swagger, which at its best is entertaining and charming. Ferguson could have just left off those references.

But, who is Ferguson to talk? He is married to a black woman, a Somali foreigner who lives in America. She is not there for the love of America, but for the convenience of being in America (and being American). In fact, she recently had a child with Ferguson, whose tawdry personal life involves several bouts of adultery during his first marriage, including with Ali. The child they have together is illegitimate. In a Globe and Mail interview, the "devout" atheist, anti-Christian Ali says that she doesn't mind if her child, at adulthood, comes to her and declares he's a Muslim. "Alright, go for it" will be her response.

Ali is also involved in "helping" Muslim women escape Muslim countries through her foundation the AHA Foundation, which means that she will simply increase the number of Muslims (albeit female only) into the West without any considerations for their assimilation, change of religion to fit with the West's Christian culture, or any other such matters. Her idea is not to help the West, as she keeps repeating like a parrot, but to ultimately help those like her, who have semi-denounced their cultural and religious upbringings, but who can also be part (of families, of groups) who haven't. Letting in one Muslim woman also is some guarantee that the "abusive" husband, or sister with a family of five, etc. will make it into the West, increasing the Muslim population in the West.

So, when her grown son encounters one of these Muslim women's daughters, whom she helped to immigrate to America, and declares his intentions to marry her, Ali's response would be: "Go for it."

Finally, Ferguson himself has a website where he posts some of his articles. One that caught my attention, but I didn't know how to bring it up in a previous blog post, is his eulogy for China. Of course, like all clever neoconists, he words his article well. But it is an article with a message of submission to Chinese power, and a wry belief in the fall of American power. I, as a mere cultural observer, do not believe that America will succumb to China, whether militarily, economically or culturally. Or that the Chinese will reach the level of American greatness, with their corrupt system and third world-like conditions which they try hard to hide from the world. Barack Obama may try to speed up the process, and Ferguson may continue his rap of Barack attack, but the American people will realize how much they have to lose if they relinquish their position to a Chinese hegemony.

I doubt Ferguson believes, or wants to believe, this. His convoluted position, of submission coupled with sporadic aggression, doesn't have the principles to reveal to him America's strength and beauty.

$10,000 To Go Back Home

The famous Canadian mosaic, falling apart at its seams

A few days ago, I posted a blog rather dramatically titled Thieves and Hypocrites on nonwhite immigrants that have settled in Canada with no intention of becoming Canadians. I still stand by that title, although I might also add liars to the mix, despite a hypocrite being a kind of liar.

I keep using those words a lot in conversations. Recently I said the following, after shootings at a block party in the northern part of Toronto. The guests and shooters were all immigrants, or immigrants turned "citizens," from nonwhite countries.

I said something like:

"Harper's government should start the process of sending back nonwhite immigrants back to their countries of origin. All (this really is without exception) the nonwhite immigrants I encounter, either superficially or through longer interactions, when discussing their place and presence in Canada, ALWAYS talk about their dissatisfaction with Canada, where they expected to advance further in their lives, in terms of wealth or career or feelings of "acceptance." Almost all their conversations revolve around this country of origin, which some have never even seen. Many second generation immigrants (those born in Canada) spend a considerable amount of their time thinking about and discussing a country they have never seen, and re-inventing their cultural background on that mythical country. They say they feel alienated from the main stream Canadian culture. They spend all their time with like-minded immigrants, and not just nonwhites, but those from their specific cultural and national background.

Let Harper give each "family" a one-off $10,000 check for its members to relinquish their Canadian citizenship or landed immigrant status (the same as a green card in the U.S.). And a one way plane ticket back to their countries of origin for each family member. This sounds unfeasible, and many would probably not accept it. All kinds of organizations will scream "racism" etc. Politicians will use it as bait for the next elections. But some immigrants will go back. They can then use this money, large by Third World standards, to improve their own countries, building small businesses, schools, hospitals or clinics, pharmacies, hotels, factories, and so on, from all they have learned through their years in Canadian schools, universities, and their various employments. Even the governments they return to will benefit, since not only are they getting aid (this could be considered a form of international aid) but they'd get the best manpower possible: people who would financially invest in the country, and also who have strong cultural, social, psychological and emotional attachments to the country.

These immigrant-returnees can then start pulling back all the unhappy immigrant youth, some who terrorize Canadian cities with guns and violence. These immigrant-returnees can start the proud work of rebuilding their countries, which have reached terrible states partly because there is NO-ONE to build and sustain them! Younger generations can then spend their time, energy, education and smarts doing useful, even honorable, things, instead of shooting each other (and others) up. This is the gift that immigrant-returnees can give to their alienated children.

Why $10,000? This is about what the average amount a person gets from Canadian welfare checks over the span of a year (it is probably more with many other amenities that are not directly attached to the actual check). Rather than hand out this free $10,000, year after year, to immigrant (which includes naturalized citizens - the criteria for whom can be worked out later) welfare recipients, the Canadian government can simply give these $10,000 to a certain number of "eligible" immigrants every year. The checks would be handed out in one installment to each eligible immigrant family. This would be the last check that such immigrants would receive from the Canadian government.

This would continue until immigrant numbers have been considerably reduced. It could be a five to ten year plan.

At the same time, the government should follow a strict policy of reducing immigration into the country. This also includes reducing the number of "refugees" who enter into Canada. People fleeing war torn countries can be provided with special countries of refuge near, even adjacent to, their countries of origin. Since wars and droughts are always temporary, as are even fascist governments, their refuge will be considered temporary. If that's not the case, then they can slowly be assimilated into the country of refuge, which should be a relatively easy task since these refuge countries are similar to their own. International bodies such as the UN, and countries like the U.S. and Canada can also help establish these protocols."

I often met with a shocked silence. But no-one has come out and condemned my suggestions.

The Mayor of Toronto, Rob Ford, said something very similar. Except his was based on crime prevention. After the shooting at the "block party" he said the shooters, and their affiliates, should all be deported. Uproar ensued. "These are Canadians!" "They were born in Canada!" "What will they do back in a country they know nothing about?"

This is what Ford said:

"I’m going to sit down with the prime minister and find out how our immigration laws work...Obviously I have an idea, but whatever I can do to get ’em out of the city, I’m going to. Regardless of if they have family or friends, I don’t want these people, if they’re convicted of a gun crime, to have anything to do with the city of Toronto."

I agreed with him.

Zimmerman's Innocence and Opposition to the Lawless Regime

Lawrence Auster, at the View From the Right, has posted the links for donations for George Zimmerman. He writes:

If you believe, with me, that Zimmerman is innocent and that the American media and the Florida authorities have treated him monstrously, I urge you to do the same.

Here is the link for the George Zimmerman Legal Defense Fund.

Lawrence Auster continues:

The fact-free, lying Murder 2 indictment, the fact that prosecutor Angela Corey in announcing the indictment openly presented herself as an emotional partisan of Trayvon Martin’s parents, yet was not dismissed from her position or even criticized for this, in addition to the national media lynch mob, aided and abetted by conservatives, that preceded the indictment, all prove, as I said on April 12, that America is now—in key respects, and certainly with respect to this case—not a country under the rule of law, but a leftist ideological state. America to George Zimmerman is as a Communist regime to a “class enemy.”

As I wrote in my entry on the Fourth of July Fireworks Spectacular and Dismantling of Society:

Perhaps Macy's planned this spectacle [of fireworks] to quieten (however temporarily) the agitated mood in American politics, to distract the people, and to let Obama proceed with his dismantling of the fundamentals of the society.

I compare this spectacle of fireworks to the strategy of leftist and Communist governments who appease their people :

...through huge processions, displays of might with military marches, and various mind-numbing techniques like action packed films and streams of empty television shows. It is a strategy to wipe out people's thinking processes by a constant barrage of noise.

with the aim of:

...dismantling of the fundamentals of the society.

In an earlier entry, (June 28, 2012) Auster has written:

[T]he only meaningful form that conservatism can now take is counterrevolution, which means: opposition to the lawless regime that America now is, and the declared intent to dismantle it. Any “conservatism” short of counterrevolution is simply subscription to, loyalty to, patriotism to, subservience to, a leftist unlimited state.

Many comments by VFR readers follow this entry.

Silence In Front Of an Atrocity Is Worse Than the Atrocity

I took the photo above in a subway station. It is right there, in our face, two lesbians having a moment. A match.com ad for gays and lesbians, right next to a run-of-the-mill ad for a bank (National Bank of Canada, to be exact). Actually, a run-of-the-mill bank ad for gays and lesbians - "Visit us and find your savings" it beckons. I sat down to contemplate this. Gays are boldly going where they've never gone before: into our daily lives, along our main streets, in schools, churches, television shows. A woman was sitting on the other side of the bench, and I said to her, "Can you believe that we have to look at this, on a subway ad?" I took a risk, but I decided that being quiet in front of this atrocity was worse than the atrocity.

Surprisingly (this is multi-culti Toronto after all) she agreed with me. "I keep my eyes averted, and try not to stand too close to the poster," she said. That looks like it could be difficult, since, unlike me, it sounded as if this was a regular subway stop for the woman.

The aggressive homosexual movement will never become mainstream. Toronto had the "Gay Pride" parade this past week-end, which takes over the whole downtown. As he had announced, Toronto's Mayor Ford did not attend. He "planned" his trip to coincide with his family holiday in the lake regions of Ontario.

Mayor Ford "homophobe." What else can he be?

Recently, the pathetic CNN "reporter" Anderson Cooper, with his adolescent giggle and "danger zone" reporting, melodramatically announced: "The fact is, I am gay." Who didn't know that? He never made a secret of his "orientation," talking about his boyfriend like a giddy girl. I think this "outing" is his paranoia, where he can sense the negative mood against homosexuals, and like a spoilt and stubborn adolescent (the mental state of all homosexuals?) insists that "this is what I am."

Anderson Cooper, Hero

The useless Main Stream Media (via the Daily Mail) puts its arm around his shoulder with:

Cooper's sexuality has long been an open secret in TV circles, but for him to state it publicly is a brave and bold move.

What chutzpah he has!

Other useless "journalists" are saying that he "came out" for the ratings. Why would he do that? It will probably bring down his ratings, since ordinary people are not sympathetic to open homosexuals, unless they are the semi-funny sitcom actors on Will and Grace (and it is not "the gays" who make that show but the two ditzy straight women Grace and Karen, with their perennial gaffes).

Grace and Karen, from the sitcom Will and Grace. Ditzy straight women,
just the right kind of female friends for gays, and the right kind of
characters to take the attention off the gays so that straight viewers,
mostly female, can watch a "gay" show.

The Allure of Heads of Department

Clockwise from top:
- Culture minister Aurelie Filippetti
- Small and Medium Enterprises junior minister Fleur Pellerin
- Minister for Ecology, Delphine Batho
- Minister for Women's Rights Najat Vallaud-Belkacem

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

Lawrence Auster, at the View From the Right, has posted a photo of portfolio carrying, casual white jeans wearing, French Culture minister Aurelie Filippetti (via the Daily Mail). He of course, and rightly, is writing a commentary on the unprofessional attire of the minister. But, as he continues, she is very much aware of her "allure":

But see, I’m using the word “allure” in relation to heads of government departments. Which returns us to the realization that Western society has become a joke.

Yes, Filippetti is very much aware of her allure, and is dressed to convey that, however casual she may appear. Her tight white jeans, her silky blouse, and her beige heels were all carefully selected for the ensemble to look alluring.

And the other women are no different. Pellerin has on especially high heels with large bows at the back, and a short mini skirt. Vallaud-Belkacem has on a tight knit dress with a zipper that goes from top to bottom, without as much as worrying about a wardrobe malfunction (her smile is too broad for any worries). And Batho has on an extra long fuchsia scarf that flaps around her form-fitting navy dress. Each woman has chosen some focal point to accentuate her allure. Pellerin's extra short mini skirt, Vallaud-Belkacem's daring zipper, Batho's bright flapping scarf, and Filippetti's sleeveless silk shirt (although her tight jeans also compete with the shirt) are all carefully chosen to convey this allure.

Yet seriousness is also cherished. Large, colorful portfolios and overstuffed handbags, full of important-looking documents, are carried like badges of honor.

Sumpreme Court Justice as a Feminist Trophy

Supreme Court Justices

Here is a much larger photo, to better view
the facial expressions I write about below.
[Click on the image for an even bigger version]

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

Laura Wood, over at the Thinking Housewife, has posted a 2012 photo of the Supreme Court Justices. One outstanding thing, by the standards of our feminist era, is that only three of the six, or 33%, are female. Shouldn't that be 50% female by now, if not more? The other outstanding thing is the wide grins (it doesn't look like smiles to me) of Sotomayer and Kagan compared to the tortured half-smile and body language of the other female justice, Ginsburg, who is leaning away from the group. Perhaps Ginsburg is the most realistic of the three women, realizing that our feminist era still hasn't made men subservient to women, despite the benign-looking smiles of the men. She looks like one of those tough grandmothers, who is realistic about her family's dynamics, and who gets things done. Interestingly, she is also the only one married of the three women, and is a widow after fifty-six years of marriage. She has two children and four grandchildren. Sotomayer divorced her husband in 1983 after seven years of marriage and no children. Kagan never married.

None of the men have the wide grins of the two women. Even Breyer's smile is more jovial (it goes into his eyes), rather than the plastic grin of Kagan, or the exuberance of Sotomayer - she looks like she's mockingly laughing. Scalia is downright sinister. Thomas simply has a scowl, which bookends well with Ginsburg's tortured half (quarter) smile. Supreme Court Justice isn't some (feminist) trophy to hang up. The men realize that more than the women.

The Existential Terror of Non-Christians

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who forgave
his Russian Communist torturers

Two Indian commentators at the View From the Right, Indian Living in the West (ILW) and Aditya B., wrote scathing, even vicious, posts on Indians and India.

ILW writes:

I don’t know if Aditya B. has ever mentioned this to you, but Indians are very vain and think they are smart.

He later writes:

Indians, even when very bright, cannot seem to think outside set formulas.

Aditya B. writes:

I don’t know enough about Freudianism to analyze this, but a few group traits of these miserable people [Indians] could be illuminating...

He then proceeds to write quite a list.

Later on, Gintas, another commentator at VFR writes:

Solzhenitsyn told the truth, it was clear he loved his people and his land even as they wallowed in the depths of Soviet depravity. Also, he always pointed the way back to good health. Perhaps I make Solzhenitsyn out to be a saint; but he was a Christian, and he knew Russia had once been Christian and could become that again. Aditya’s comments about India are rancorous, whatever their truth.

Aditya B.'s torrent caused me to reflect on why, and how, people turn on their own people. I came to the same conclusion as Gintas. I can never turn against the people I originate from, the Amhara people, although I have no direct physical or psychological link with them anymore. I admire their history and, most specifically, the fact that they embraced Christianity when it was hard and dangerous (the Amharas were a northern African Island of Christians surrounded by Islam or pagan Africans), with very little support to convince them of the rightness of their ways other than their unquestioning belief in God - true Christians, in short.

So perhaps it is this Christian element (mine and the Amharas) that allows me to see them in this light, as does Solzhenitsyn his Russian people, despite the suffering he went through under these same Russians. But, his breed of torturers had thrown out Christianity, which made them the monsters they were. And Solzhenitsyn remembers the originals, and believes that his Russia will return to what it once was.

Aditya B. and ILW do not have this historic and religious ideal to turn to. Theirs is a civilization with no Christianity, with no forgiveness (as we know it), and with no hope of salvation, unless they accept the ever-embracing, and forgiving Christian God. No wonder they are so vicious. They react through existential terror.

"There He Bows Again"

Drudge is putting his usual humor on our political world. He has a photo of Obama inclining his head and body toward Mexicos's President Calderon as he greets him at the G20 Summit, and Drudge headlines it: "There he bows again." (The post is now off his front page, but here is the link to the original article with the bow).

Of course, Drudge is referring to the pop tune "There She Goes Again," a pleasant, catchy, trippy, tune by the Velvet Underground. The song has been given many kinds of attributes, from a lewd song to a song on heroin (not a heroine :-), but I think it is more innocent than that, and is about a woman begging for another chance with a guy, and she's also being coy saying she won't beg again.

I personally don't think Obama is bowing (begging). He's inclining his head in a friendly, almost conspiratory, manner toward Calderon as he greets him at the G20. And he vacillates between affection (for Merkel) and cautious friendliness (with Putin), to strict Alpha Male posture (with Meles Zenawi). He's being like the coy, aggressive girl in the song. One is never sure what one's going to get.

It must be confusing to be near, and to work with, Obama (and liberals), but I think that is their modus operandi: destablize the opponent with an unexpected behavior, but resume the strict liberal/fascist mandates once the way is cleared. It seems, though, he is more upfront with nonwhites and women: he will show his superiority through an aggressive stance (for the male leaders) and condescending affection (for the female leaders), showing that he is the boss all the way.

Here is commentary (with photos) of Obama's bowing style, and to whom he reserves the deep bow, by Larry Auster from the View From the Right. One deep bow was for the Muslim King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, as I wrote here.

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

Below are the lyrics to "There She Goes Again" with a video of the Velvet Underground's performance.

There She Goes Again
Velvet Underground

There she goes again
She's out on the streets again
She's down on her knees, my friend
But you know she'll never ask you please again

Now take a look, there's no tears in her eyes
She won't take it from just any guy, what can you do
You see her walkin' on down the street
Look at all your friends she's gonna meet
You better hit her

There she goes again
She's knocked out on her feet again
She's down on her knees, my friend
But you know she'll never ask you please again

Now take a look, there's no tears in her eyes
Like a bird, you know she would fly, what can you do
You see her walkin' on down the street
Look at all your friends that she's gonna meet
You better hit her

Now take a look, there's no tears in her eyes
Like a bird, you know she will fly, fly, fly away
See her walking on down the street
Look at all your friends that she's gonna meet

She's gonna bawl and shout
She's gonna work it
She's gonna work it out, bye bye
Bye bye baby
All right