Feeds:
Posts
Comments

I understand the context of their cheering and clapping when Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commissioner said that Canada had participated in a period of “cultural genocide” — not in support of the purported government program of cultural genocide against Native Canadians, as it was termed to have taken place in Canada from the period of 1867 (its founding) to 1969 — but it betrays the radical and warped agenda of those non-Native Radical Leftist audience members who were hoping for such strong language in order to fuel their radical social and historical revisionist agenda on Canadians.

From the description of the May 27, 2015 show posted on TVO’s The Agenda with Steve Paikin’s YouTube channel:

Perry Bellegarde was elected National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations in December 2014. Nearly half a year into his term, The Agenda checks in to see what issues he’s prioritized and what progress he’s made on longstanding concerns such as land claims, education and missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls.

Five minutes into the interview, I noticed his accent markedly change, from speaking to an audience of Canadians (almost all non-Native), to his Native audience.

So much for the notion of a departure from business as usual for a Native leader, in acting differently than a typical politician with regard to appealing to his particular audience.

He followed in the footsteps of President Obama and Hillary Clinton, who adopted a foreign accent specifically to appeal to their audience.

I understand the idea of appealing to one’s audience, but unless you’re immigrating to another nation or speaking a completely different language, for me, it’s a type of deception to markedly change your accent from one audience to the next, just to appeal to them. When I attended the 2009 Rethinking AIDS Conference in Oakland, California, I remember an American attendee point out my Canadian accent, and I realize that he was somewhat making fun of it for its distinctiveness and stereotypical Canadianness, but for me it is a symbol of my personal identity, and I don’t intend to change it just to curry better favour with an audience whose accents may be significantly different than mine.

On the June 27, 2015 episode of Exposing Faux Capitalism, I discussed the following issues:

Full analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court decision on same sex marriage that you won’t hear anywhere else, including the legal, historical, political, religious, biological and pop culture aspects.

On June 25, 2015, from the article, ‘Words no longer have meaning': U.S. justice Scalia apoplectic on ‘pure applesauce’ Obamacare ruling, I pointed out Justice Scalia’s Obamacare wording hypocrisy, where he said that “words no longer have meaning” in reference to the majority 6-3 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on whether “the State” referred only to the 13 U.S. States that have set up health care exchanges, or whether it also includes the U.S. federal government.

Scalia’s hypocrisy relates to him saying that the Second Amendment pertaining to the right to keep and bear arms allows for reasonable restrictions when it clearly says that right “shall not be infringed.”

So who is he to claim that “words no longer have meaning” in the context of this case, and given the scathing nature of his dissenting opinion, I find it appropriate to call him out on his hypocrisy in this regard.

From an intensive layman’s study of the U.S. Constitution over the years, I tend to suspect he’s right with his decision in this case, as the words “the United States” is used in both the Constitution and the United States Code to refer to the U.S. federal government, whereas “States” are used to the several states.

Check out the comments section for my various comments and responses, including from someone who chastised me for allegedly using hyperbole in saying:

Scalia has no credibility in taking exception with the Court’s interpretation of words, since he misinterprets the Second Amendment, which clearly says the right of the people to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed,” in saying that reasonable gun control limits are allowed.

For more on Justice Scalia, see my article, Charlie Rose’s interview with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

On the June 6, 2015 episode of Exposing Faux Capitalism, I discussed the following issues:

First anniversary of the Council of European Canadians, the immigration poll “they” don’t want you to know about, multiculturalism designed to conceal Canada’s European identity, weaponized language and going toe-to-toe with a Zionist chauvinist in the comments section of a major Canadian newspaper.

20 years later, the Ontario Ministry of Health finally caught up with me about my old health card

First introduced in 1995 by the unpopular Ontario NDP government as a fraud reduction measure, all eligible Ontarians became subject to eventually being required to obtain a new photo ID health card, as a replacement for the old red-and-white cards.

The government laughably claimed that they would phase out all old cards by the year 2000. Fifteen years after that “deadline,” they finally caught up with me. I received a letter in the mail, asking me to obtain a photo ID card in order to retain my taxpayer-funded health care.

Some people originally thought a photo ID card was a preferred option, until they were warned that it wasn’t a good idea, because they’d have to renew it every five years and pay money for it (of course).

The funny thing is that I knew someone who, around 2006, got one of these letters in the mail and ignored it at first, thinking they would go away, only to later get a final notice of his health care being cut off if he didn’t comply. Meanwhile, he knew others who still had their cards — highlighting the seeming absolute arbitrary nature of the process. I feel somewhat special that I managed to avoid these letters for nine more years than him, despite no apparent reason for deserving such luck.

Another odd thing is how plain Social Insurance cards are still being issued by the federal government, which are required for income tax reporting and to have most jobs, unless they are under-the-table, yet the federal government still hasn’t found the need to eliminate that even bigger potential of fraud

The slackness of the replacement of these cards is typical for such a government program. It’s like the provincially-funded and operated GO Transit trains, of which I have taken two recent trips on, and they never bothered to verify whether I had purchased a ticket, and had I been the dishonest type, could’ve ridden for free. No privately-owned business would do business in this way, nor would any private business take 20 years to replace their customers’ authentication documents if fraud really was an issue that tangibly affected their bottom line.

The health card replacement plan, pitched as a way of combating fraud, was a fraud of its own sort from the beginning, since it was implemented as a feel-good measure by an unpopular government that was flagging in the opinion polls and was defeated so badly that originally lost official party recognition in the legislature after the 1995 election.

Instead of reforming the system, such as joining every other country in the world except for Cuba and North Korea, in allowing for private funds to be used to pay for primary health care, as a supplement to the taxpayer-funded system, the government decided to take the easy way out and pretend they cared about fraud when they had already wasted money on the Skydome white elephant in Toronto just so the province’s capital city could say it had the latest in stadium technology with a fully retractable roof and a Jumbotron, and go over budget by hundreds of millions of dollars.

As for that notice, I’ll be responding, soon enough. Apparently I get two more notices before they will cut me off, but even if I am in need of services, I can later apply and get reimbursed for the costs. It seems that is ironically one of the few ways to have transparency in the system, of knowing exactly how much health care costs us — aside from looking up obscure line items in a billing table — and privately fund your primary health care — but without getting reimbursed with your taxes.

On May 21, 2015, I came across this March 2015 scientific poll by Ekos on immigration to Canada.

No surprise, since a Google search shows no mention in Canada’s largest mass media sources: The CBC, The Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail and the National Post.

The Huffington Post Canada, Metronews.ca and the Winnipeg Free Press are the only mid-sized Canadian sites that mention it in the first page of results.

And with the results, we can see why.

The updated headline on the Metronews.ca article reads: “Forty-one per cent say ‘too many’ minorities immigrating to Canada: survey.

For a country that was founded by Europeans (primarily British and French), and was 96% European Canadian as recently as 1971, and whose population was 76% European Canadian as of the latest census in 2011, Canada’s corporate-controlled mass media is absolutely intent on covering up the results of such a survey in their biggest publications, and engaging in trash journalism in their mid-tier publications in order to promote the false notion that Canada is both a democracy and has fully embraced multiculturalism.

The original title of the article, still preserved in the URL, was “Survey reveals Canadians’ racist leanings,” but they realized that was over the top, and had to modify it, because you can’t so easily dismiss the concerns of 41% of surveyed Canadians, which is relatively representative of the Canadian population at large, because it is a scientific poll with a sizable sample size.

The trash journalism first starts with the accusation of racism, then, as is common parlance, then takes the case of a single Sikh immigrant who is unrepresentative of all immigrants, let alone non-European immigrants to Canada, as he became a highly successful businessman, presumably having millions of dollars in net worth by now.

It quotes him as saying that Canada is like heaven on Earth to him, and has him asking how those Canadians would deal with so many visible minorities in heaven. Indeed Canada is a heaven to many immigrants, and the reason for that is because of the culture and institutions and the European people who created and founded them and this country.

There are so many different conceptions of “heaven,” and the mass media is generally duplicitous in invoking religion to further their agenda, due to being at the forefront of destroying any significant religious involvement in political and social life.

Heaven may indeed be intended as a place of universal brotherhood and sisterhood, without racial, ethnic or cultural distinction, but for the time being, in this life, those are very much part of the human experience, history and in the case of race and ethnicity — in our very DNA.

If it’s just a matter of universal principles that any society adopt, then why can’t India, and particularly the state of Punjab in India, create the conditions for a heaven on Earth? Perhaps they someday can, according to the standards of the person they quoted, but for the time being, Canada is his heaven.

Later, the article perpetrates the common and false notion of equating race simply with skin colour, by quoting a Toronto city councillor, in saying: “I think that we were welcomed to this county. I would hate to think that the attitudes of Canadians are going to change simply because my skin colour is not white and my mother speaks with an accent.

If race is simply about skin colour, then why is it that the different races have statistically significant risk profiles for certain diseases, and have to be given different dosages of certain drugs, and why do IQ scores consistently differ between the races over time across the world?

In addition, the article is duplicitous for perpetrating the misperception that the 41% of Canadians surveyed are against the immigration of most or nearly all visible minorities, without regard to any economic considerations, whereas most of them may just only want to cut immigration of visible minorities by half, and a large portion may even want to significantly cut or even halt immigration of all people, including Europeans.

If we had an objective mass media, intent on getting to the bottom of the story, they would’ve balanced it by interviewing some of those who expressed the same opinion as those surveyed, and found out why they say that, and presented the case for why too much immigration by non-Europeans into a country with European culture, institutions and laws would be fundamentally detrimental to the country in the long-run.

hatrickpenry

AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE ALTERNATIVE MEDIA

Recovering Austrians

Supporting recovering Austrian Economics addicts and their families

Real Currencies

Supporting People and the Commonwealth and resisting the Money Power by defeating Usury

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 776 other followers