July 24, 1959: Richard Nixon and Nikita Krushchev tangle on the merits of capitalism vs. communism in the “Kitchen Debate.” Visiting Moscow to open a national exhibition promoting American culture, vice-president Nixon joined Soviet leader Krushchev on a tour of displays of modern American homes. Krushchev dismissed the American wares as no better than their Soviet counterparts, and turned the conversation to politics when he slammed the U.S. Congress’s Captive Nations Resolution condemning Soviet influence in Eastern Europe. By the time they arrived at a model kitchen, the volume of the debate had spiked, with Nixon criticizing Krushchev’s constant threats about his nuclear arsenal, and Krushchev ominously warning of “very bad consequences.” As a rare outburst of genuine animosity in front of the world press, the debate made front-page news back home. [Image Source]
What I find revealing about this photograph is that Nixon is really debating Krushchev, while Krushchev is standing pugnaciously, eventually to warn of "very bad consequences."
It is the West which is always ready to "debate" and "negotiate." The rest of the world, if given the chance, simply wants to dominate.
And Brezhnev is in the background, watching, assessing, figuring out his American adversary.
The last time went to the Fraunces Tavern Museum website (only about a week ago), I didn't notice this new acquisition:
Fraunces Tavern Museum is proud to announce the most recent acquisition, a terra cotta bust of George Washington. This bust is a 19th century draped a l ‘antique unsigned copy of the original bust made by Jean-Antoine Houdon in 1785.
I've written about this bust here and here. And, Larry Auster, whose admiration of the bust I shared, wrote about the bust, and made a post here on my commentary on the sculpture.
Although Larry Auster didn't directly write about beauty, his work is infused with the desire to bring beauty back into our world.
One of the most memorable posts he did on art (and beauty) was his reaction to a bust of George Washington. The image of the bust he has posted is huge and takes up the whole screen, so that we, like him, can have as close a look at it as possible. [the rest of my post is here]
So, it is a nice surprise that a museum is bringing this piece into its collections.
Tiberge's post at Gallia Watch reminded me that I have seen:
...a fair copy (clean, full-text version without corrections or alterations) of the Declaration of Independence in Thomas Jefferson's hand.
Here is information from the exhibition brochure, which took place at the New York Public Library's Celest Bartos Forum from June 27 to July 3, 2014:
The Declaration of Independence At the New York Public Library Thomas Jefferson’s Autograph Copy
The New York Public Library holds in its vast collections one of the rarest and most important documents in American history:an original copy of the Declaration of Independence handwritten by Founding Father Thomas Jefferson. In addition to being a cornerstone of American civilization, the Declaration of Independence is one of the great documents of the human intellect and has formed the foundation of democratic movements that have transformed the world for more than two centuries.
On June 28, 1776, the finished draft of the Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson was submitted to the Continental Congress. Before it was ratified on July 4, a number of changes were made, the most significant of which was the removal of Jefferson’s lengthy condemnation of the slave trade, an excision intended to appease delegates from Georgia and South Carolina. Jefferson was distressed by these alterations, and in the days immediately following July 4, he handwrote several copies of the original text, underlining passages to which changes had been made. He then sent these documents to five or six friends. The New York Public Library is privileged to safeguard one of just two copies of this renowned historical document that remain intact.
I took photographs of the exhibition, one of which I've posted here, and the rest can be viewed here, at my blog New York Reflections.
Here is a closer, legible view of the first paragraph:
And here is Larry Auster's commentary from July 3, 2012:
On every July Fourth since I was in my twenties I have read aloud the Declaration of Independence, no matter where or with whom I was, whether people shared the reading or I read it by myself. How can I—how can anyone—read the Declaration aloud this year in honor of American existence and American liberty? The colonies that were acting in unison as “one people,” and in the act named themselves the United States of America, the free country that brought itself into existence with that Declaration on the basis of God-ordained limits on government power, has, as of June 28, 2012, officially come to an end. As a commenter at Lucianne.com has put it, “Think of Obamacare as the Declaration of Dependence.”
The Declaration of Independence no longer represents what our country actually is. It represents our past country, and, perhaps, a future country. If we are to read the Declaration together, it can only be in that spirit, as patriotism to a non-existent country. As I said on the morning of June 28, patriotism to the United States as it now actually exists “is simply subscription to, loyalty to, patriotism to, obedience to, a leftist unlimited state.”
When I travel into the US, on my long but wonderful bus ride across New York state, I often see the American flag hanging at the front porches of people's homes. It is wonderful to see that Americans still value their flag, and display it, paying no attention to those who try to vilify them with "far right racists" commentary.
Americans are becoming more and more apologetic about their wonderful flag, but here is a painting I posted in 2011 by an American painter, Hassam Childe, who titled this particular flag painting (he did several) he painted in 1916:
The Fourth of July, 1916 (The Greatest Display of the American Flag Ever Seen in New York, Climax of the Preparedness Parade in May)
I hope that Americans return to that bold, courageous, unapologatic love of their flag and their country.
Happy Fourth of July!
Childe Hassam (American, 1859–1935)
The Fourth of July, 1916 (The Greatest Display of the American Flag Ever Seen in New York, Climax of the Preparedness Parade in May), 1916
In 1916 Hassam embarked upon the Flag series, based on the nationalistic displays of flags, banners, and bunting on the buildings that lined Manhattan streets in response to World War I. During an unusual summer visit to the city, Hassam created this exceptional canvas, one of only two sunny summer flag scenes. While he denoted the site as Fifth Avenue by showing its tall buildings and a green double-decker bus, he obscured the precise location, perhaps to imply that the entire length of the great boulevard was bedecked with flags.
The links I provided in 2011 for the painting are no longer valid at the Metropolitan Museum's website.
Searching on-line, I found that the painting is actually from a private collection. The best explanation I can find is that the painting was on loan for a Childe exhibition at the Metropolitan in 2004. Here is some more information from the Met's website:
Childe Hassam: American Impressionist June 10–September 12, 2004
This spring [2004], The Metropolitan Museum of Art will offer Childe Hassam, American Impressionist, an unprecedented exhibition of about 120 of Hassam's finest oil paintings, watercolors, and pastels, and some 30 prints. Opening on June 10, the retrospective -- the first to appear in a museum since 1972 -- will celebrate Hassam's brilliant handling of color and light and will examine his responses to the advent of the modern era in view of his credo that "the man who will go down to posterity is the man who paints his own time and the scenes of every-day life around him."
And the painting is listed as one of the pieces to be exhibited.
[Notes By KPA] This letter below is from a correspondent, who describes the Toronto of the 1970s (and into the early 80s).
The history of the Loyalists shows how different Canada and the United States are, which is how it should be despite all this Free Trade lingo, which puts us together with Third World Mexico! The anti-Americanism which the Canadian media (aka CBC), the stooge of the liberals and the Liberal Party, loves to spout is taken on in a healthy way by the ordinary Canadians, who love their flag, their foods (however few there are that are different from the Americans'), their holidays (next week is Canada Day, yes a reaction to Fourth of July, but still celebrated with gusto), and so on.
But, there is a unity with the US when it comes to the European heritage. And I strongly believe that this multicultural fetish is a "white guilt" thing.
He is very astutely observes that this "hate" or rather this identification of difference is projected into Quebec, and the endless wrangles we have with that Province. And I am actually a proponent of "freeing" Quebec. Let them deal with NAFTA, terrorism, the vaccillating currency, maintaining a First World way of life, WITHOUT dipping into the Canadian coffers. Let them do it alone. Cut off ALL the strings. VIVE LE QUEBEC LIBRE!
One more thing.
Question: Who are the HAPBS?!! (Confession: Sin of all Canadian Sins. I don't watch hockey!!)
Answer: Habs is an abbreviation of "les habitants," the informal name given to the original settlers of New France, dating back to the 17th Century. So it's a natural fit for the The Montreal Canadiens, established in 1909 and marketed as a French-Canadian hockey team.
Yep, even in hockey, there is the Quebec Narrative. So, my correspondent is insightful to view these hockey games as war-like rivalry to release those ancestral tensions.
Here is the email/letter:
Dear Kidist,
Good luck with the Hildebrand project. You're doing good work, even (especially) if the thought-police don't approve!
Mississauga really has changed. My father spent the last 10+ years of his career in Toronto (living in the City of Toronto itself from 1972 to 1983), and -- as a landed immigrant, not an illegal alien --I worked a lot of temp jobs in Toronto during school and university days. I got to know greater Toronto pretty well.
At the time Mississauga was a blue-collar to white-collar Canadian suburb, which is the say the inhabitants were Canadians. Friends of ours who lived there had been in Ontario from its beginnings: United Empire Loyalists who went north from New York after the American Revolution made New York an uncomfortable place for loyalists to live. We haven't been in touch with them for many years, but I suspect they have long since white-flown Mississauga for somewhere much farther out.
Toronto proper at that time had immigrant pockets, some (European; I remember particularly a Portuguese enclave) of fairly long standing, but was still preeminently a Canadian city, united by belief in the Leafs and hatred of the Habs. There was, however, a growing West Indian area which, perhaps coincidentally, was considered the most sketchy part of town.
I hope the Canadians wake up in time to salvage some Canadian Canada. But when I look at what Americans are accepting, and remember it was a Canadian government (Trudeau's Liberals from 1968 through the early '80s; not that Mulroney's Tories did anything to undo Liberal sabotage when they got in) that introduced the world to official multiculturalism and mandated racial and sexual diversity, it's hard to be too hopeful. So far, from what I see, Canadians have swallowed almost all of it without a peep, and tell themselves it's all a Good Thing. The only outlet English Canadians allow themselves is to be annoyed at the Quebecois - to go any further would be racist...
Please keep up your good work in the Great no-longer-so-White North!
Kevin Jackson from the website The Black Sphere said the following on the Charleston Shooter while on Fox News, on June 20, 2015:
JACKSON: It had nothing to do with any of the things that Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or Todd Rutherford said. And the fact of the matter is what it has to do with is kids like (Roof) are based on liberals creating them. What they do is they tell these kids – and, by the way, these millennials are supposed to be the least racist people in the history of mankind. And you create these kids because Todd Rutherford (sic) is told – by people like Saida Grundy, that “You’re a bad kid, young white man.” They emasculate ‘em, they tell them “You’re nothing,” and when they get to college and start looking at their opportunities in life, are told, “You know what? You’re white, you get a privilege over blacks. If you’re born white, you get white privilege” and so on and so forth and it’s liberalism that creates him.
George Washington, 1780 Charles Willson Peale (American, 1741–1827) Oil on canvas; 95 x 61 3/4 in. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
Part of what makes his live story so gripping is that he shaped himself into the world-historical figure he became, in the quintessentially American tradition of men who spring, as F. Scott Fitzgerald famously wrote, from their own Platonic conception of themselves. But his self-conception was extraordinary: it began as a worthy ideal and evolved into a magnificent one. In his fiercely ambitious youth, he sought to win acclaim for his for his heroism and savoir faire. In his maturity, he strove to be, in his own conscience even more than in the eyes of others, virtuous, public-spirited, and (although his ethic wouldn't allow him to claim the word (noble). He did hope, however, that posterity would recognize and honor the purity of his motives; and Americans, who owe him so much, do him but justice in understanding not only what he did for them but also what greatness of soul he achieved to do it.
From: Kidist Paulos Asrat To: "rose.vespa@mississauga.ca" Cc: Marian Kutarna Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 9:30 AM Subject: Author's program IN the Canadiana Room
Dear Ms. Vespa,
I am lodging a formal complaint regarding Marian Kutarna, who oversees bookings and events in the Canadiana Room [of the Mississauga Central Library].
Ms. Kutarna gave me no reason why she and the staff of the Canadiana Room were not willing to hold an event I proposed, which was to hold a conference for the book My Battle Against Hitler by Dietrich von Hildebrand, edited by John H. Crosby and John F. Crosby, who established a literary and cultural organization,The Hildebrand Project, and who would be the guest speakers. The book is already in the Mississauga Library system, which I had submitted several months ago.
1. Ms. Kutarna's interaction with me was rude and unprofessional.
She never responded to my numerous emails about my request to plan this event (I have copies of these emails for your reference).
I had to find her in person during her working hours at the Canadiana Room to get a response from her, which was a brief "The Canadiana Room has decided not to sponsor this event."
Still, I asked via email why the research room was not able to hold my event.
She gave no detailed response, but sent me an email to repeat what she said in person: That projects are taken on by the staff of the Canadiana Room, and that is the way events are planned.
This still didn't give me any explanation as to why the project I proposed was inadequate or incompatible with the room's policies.
As a taxpaying citizen of Mississauga, I believe I require more explanation for the use of the Canadiana Room, a facility which is run by my contributions, and for the benefit of citizens of the city, like me.
Therefore, after researching Ms. Kutarna's programs in the Central Library I have come to the following conclusion:
2. Ms. Kutarna is racially choosing the events that will take place in the room.
Literary and cultural occasions that involve non-white, non-Canadian, and non-Western persons take precedence over events that benefit white, Western, Canadian and European patrons.
I am therefore reporting Ms. Kutarna as racist towards these latter groups (white, Western, Canadian and European patrons). And I will bring this to the attention of the library's heads, as well as beyond. I will also write articles in the various city and regional papers to report on these biases by the Mississauga Central Library.
2. Because of Ms. Kutarna's decision, the Mississauga Central Library has lost the visit of an important contemporary historian, who has a wide influence in intellectual, academic, historical and religious spheres, both here and in the United States, and of course for the Mississauga Library system as a whole.
3. The topic of the conference, and the presentation in the Canadiana Room would have included World War II, and how an astute German citizen was able to discern Hitler's maneuvers before many others realized Hitler's gotterdammerung aims, and how that is relevant in our era where Christianity and the West is being undermined by another remorseless enemy, Islam. Such discussion is of paramount importance to all patrons of the library who wish to preserve the West and its sophisticated culture and civilization.
Hildebrand also realized the vicious anti-Semitism of Hitler and the Nazis, and as a parallel behavior by Muslims, we are seeing a frightening rise in anti-Semitism and anti-Israel movements amongst Muslims and Islamic countries.
Here is my perspective on the contemporary lessons we can learn from Hildebrand: The Dangers of Quietism: A Contemporary View
4. This conference is going on ahead the assistance of the University of Toronto. The Hildebrand team will be coming to Canada, but all the doors have been closed off for the Mississauga Library system, and I will make sure that they will remain so.
This will deprive your library's patrons of the insights, intellect and vast amount of information that the Crosbys would have brought to Mississauga and its citizens.
If Ms. Kutarna wishes to hold her events for isolated, narrow, ethnic groups, who have no desire to attend each others' events (do Hindu Indians really attend events by Muslim Indians, and do Somalis have any interest in what Ethiopians present?), she is welcome to do so. But her "multicultural" agenda is fragmentary and exclusive. I am sure some time in the future, an angry Somali or Muslim Indian will question the methods of her "community" education.
True Canadians are interested in the depth and breadth of their history, even it it reveals some unsavory moments. The Hildebrand Project and its leaders are unafraid to tackle such issues, and I will assist them to do so to the best of my ability.
Sincerely,
Kidist Paulos Asrat
nb: I received the exact same email a few days ago. I believe Ms. Kutarna simply forgot that she had sent me the first email, and just simply re-sent the second one. She had already established that she wouldn't assist me in planning and holding the conference in the Candadiana Room.
Working in the patio of the C-Cafe (The Library is just ahead, behind the fountains)
I wrote a post last week on Ann Coulter's new book without having read the book, started reading it, bought it, or had any other physical contact with the book.
That is a minor crime.
To rid my self of the "hypocrite" label, I bought the book two days ago from my local Chapters/Indigo bookstore. It was the only copy in the store, and I assume it really was the only copy in the store. Coulter's label of "racist" goes a long way here in Canada.
In any case, I am already into the third chapter, and it is a pleasure to read a book by a witty, intelligent, and normal human being, who hasn't caught the liberal bug of distorting words, information and reality.
Here are a few quotes (only a few, I don't want to give away the book!) that are especially Coulteresque, and I am only in the third chapter!
--------------------------------------
Chapter 1, Page 9:
Americans ought to be suspicious about being incessantly told fences "don't work." It's like being told wheels don't work...The NEw YOrk Times explains, for example: "Would be immigrants still find ways over, under, through and around [fences]." Wheels still find ways to bend, break, or spring leaks.
[...]
Even Republicans who pretend to want a secure border are always telling us fences won't work. The NEW WAY of stopping tubs from overflowing is to use mops and blow-dryers. Sure, we can always turn to water off, but that won't work because it could always spring a leak. Let's just keep mopping.
--------------------------------------
Chapter 2, p. 13:
Why not take in immigrants who are better than us, instead of immigrants who are worse than us?
--------------------------------------
Chapter 2, p. 22
Leftists have no trouble adopting the persona of an oppressed Third World person. The only identity they have difficulty assuming is: "American."
--------------------------------------
Chapter 2, p. 23:
At least liberals have a clear mission and know what they're fighting for: Their plan is to turn America into another Third World hellhole, where the two parties are the Chuck Schumer Democratic Party and the Nancy Pelosi Democratic Party. Republicans can't think past the next election. They need campaign cash, and their big donors want cheap workers now. We're lucky if we can get Republicans to think past their kids' summer jobs. Karl Rove praises illegal immigration, saying: "I don;t want my 17-year-old son to have to pick tomatoes or make beds in Las Vegas. How about one illegal alien gets to stay if Karl Rove goes?
--------------------------------------
Chapter 2, p. 23:
Democrats love the "browning of America" because they need the votes; liberals want it because they seek the destruction of America; and certain business interests support it because they want the cheap labor.
--------------------------------------
Chapter 2, p. 28-29:
In the section: Nowhere Left to Go:
The Third World invasion being aggressively hidden by the media will never make it to Park Avenue or Nob Hill. The price is being paid exclusively by ordinary Americans. Almost alone in the world, white, Protestant, Anglo-Saxon America has been a haven for minorities, women, children, plants, and animals. None have fared so well in any other culture. As the lawyer for two Iraqi men charged with child rape in Nebraska said, America's views about women and children "put us in the minority position in the world." Once America is gone, there won't be anyplace left to go.
--------------------------------------
Chapter 3, p. 31:
With immigration, the most powerful forces in our culture are all on the same page - the Democrats, the rich, Washington lobbyists, Republican consultants, and money-grubbing churches. Even stalwarts on other conservative issues, like the Wall Street Journal, are with the Left on mass immigration from the Third World. When it comes to society's rich and powerful, immigration is the great unifier. The only ones opposed to fundamentally transforming this country into some other country are the American people.
--------------------------------------
I found a piece by Larry Auster on Ann Coulter published at VDare, where he writes:
I acknowledged that [Coulter] had written several articles on immigration, but pointed out that they were all on illegal immigration and amnesty:
“Note, March 28, 2010: I just came upon this entry, and saw my prediction that Coulter would not revisit the [legal immigration] issue again. So I did a search of her articles at AnnCoulter.com. There were a few columns, almost all from 2006-2007, criticizing amnesty. There was no further column mentioning America’s existing immigration law—particularly the 1965 Immigration Act which opened America’s borders to the world—and how it is transforming America racially, culturally, politically, and economically. So my prediction in June 2007 was correct. After coming out of the immigration closet for one second, after 13 years of stone cold silence, Coulter went back into it again and has never re-emerged. In her entire career as a prominent conservative commentator who is known for saying whatever she wants to say, no matter how outrageous or politically incorrect, her sole contribution to the immigration debate (as distinct from the no-brainer illegal immigration debate) has been a single column.” [end of March 2010 note.]
--------------------------------------
Coulter's book, as she says in the Fox News interview below, is almost exclusively about legal immigration, and how that is changing America. She goes through one chapter, the first chapter, outlining illegal immigration, but talks about the adverse effects of legal immigration for the rest of the book. Here is what Coulter says about the change of focus, although it sounds like a change in topic:
I found out, which is why this book became this book -- I wasn't going write a book about immigration. I was going to have a few chapters on immigration, and I had already written two chapters for the book I was planning on writing. Then I go to look up some basic, obvious facts that most Americans will be shocked the government refuses to tell us, like how many foreign born are in our prisons? How many are in state prison, how many are in federal prison, and what crimes are they in for, and what countries do they come from? Oh, no, no, no, no, read chapter seven and you will see it was written through tears of frustration and rage. That was when I called my publisher and said this is going to be a different book. You can't believe what I'm finding here.
Ann Coulter was on Hannity of Fox News recently, where she discusses her new book:
The subtitle is: The Left's Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole.
Coulter is her usual, feisty, self, but she will always get her battle slightly wrong, since she is fighting primarily with those "evil liberals" rather than the issues at hand. I think that is the curse of conservatives, who, rather than sticking to their principles, and setting the agenda for the battle, are sucked in to confronting liberal ideas, and perennially fighting to straighten those lopsided views rather than presenting their own.
Nonetheless, she has made, from the interview, a good and noble effort to uncover the underbelly of immigration, and specifcially the un-American nature of this immigration agenda.
Below is the video of her interview with Hannity.
Hannity starts off by telling her right at the beginning that immigration isn't a "partisan" issue, nor a liberal issue, but, says Hannity, "We have two parties that don't want to solve the problem, otherwise the fence that works at the White House and in gated communities, as you point out, would be built."
Coulter: Right, not only that, but there would be a change to the legal immigration...My book is about legal immigration. The Somalis leaving to fight with ISIS, those are legal immigrants. The Mali immigrants raping little girls, those are legal immigrants. The immigrants going on welfare, at rates far above the native rates, committing crimes at what appears to be far above the native rate - the government won't tell us.
Never has a country been transformed like this. Never in world history. And it has been done as a express plan by the left, because they want voters more favorable to liberal policies.
It is striking how all of the most avid immigration activists, and there are hundreds, probably thousands of groups, just working overtime to bring in the poorest of the poor to live in America. They're always the people who don't particularly like America. They call us racist, sexist, homophobic.
Why are they bringing these poor Third Worldists here? It's because they want to transform America, because they hate America, and Republicans aren't stopping them because the big donors want the cheap labor.
So, it boils down to greed.
But, liberals are far more "principled" than that. Yes, one effect of immigration my be cheap labor, but the essence of immigration is equality.
America is open to all. It is a country which prides itself on equality of peoples. Its original population is made of immigrants too! Remember all those whites who fled, immigrated, to a new land to find new opportunities?
Since Coulter clings on to (however subconsciously) the primarily economic and materialistic view of immigration, her conclusions will always be partially wrong (or partially right).
All cultural and social ideas, for them to take hold and germinate, have to hold more than economic and materialistic bases, and even liberals follow that premise. In their cases, it is equality that trumps everything.
Everyone is equal in immigrating to America. Everyone is equal in being free in America. Everyone is equal in living in America.
If people fall short, then the rules can be changed. If they don't qualify for legal immigration, then they can get special political or ethnic considerations. If they cannot live upto the standards of middle class Americans, then they can get special government benefits. If they don't feel "free," then the regulations and laws of America can be changed to accommodate them.
Coulter understands the deep and dire implications of this decades-long immigration policy, and especially that which brings people in from the Third World. But, she hasn't yet realized that this has become an American - Democrats or Republicans - issue, and that attacking liberals (Democrats) isn't the way to solve it.
Here is another insight by Coulter. If she goes on in this line, she might be able to make the correct conclusions, unless she capitulates as various groups wear her down with their accusations of "hate."
Coulter: First World countries, developed countries, countries where the immigrants do not go on welfare and commit crimes, they are specifically being discriminated against. So we can drag in the poorest of the poor to instantly go on welfare.
Hannity: You know you will be called racist.
Coulter: Well as I say, that's the only argument they have. But they'd prefer not to debate me at all, but if they have to they'll call me a racist.
Coulter finishes off the interview citing her final chapter where she provides solutions to the problem, which starts with closing off the borders, literal (physically closing off the Mexican border) or political (withholding or denying visas and other travel permits to America).
I don't want to be too harsh on Coulter. She is doing the best she can with the data that she has managed to discover, and about which she is shocked. She changed the original topic of her book (she didn't specify what that was) to this one as she discovered more about immigration during her research. As she goes on more speaking tours, and as she starts getting the wrath of the un-American, anti-American groups, be they white, Third World, Hispanic, black, immigrants (there are many), she will fine-tune, I am sure, her discussion of the book.
