I’m going to show you a thundering herd of links. In a very deep sense, Oxford University is the compleat brain of the United Kingdom. If you’re to understand this post, you’re going to have to read, to look at long lists and deep piles of evidence. Their impact is simply too big to summarize in a neat way. Oxford is the intellectual culture of Britain, and its impact on the United States is not calculable so much as huge and inevitable.
FTA: <<In 1946 the English novelist Evelyn Waugh infamously proclaimed that he did not write satire. Satire, Waugh wrote, “presupposes homogeneous moral standards” which, he suggested, did not exist in the twentieth-century West:
Satire […] exposes polite cruelty and folly by exaggerating them. It seeks to produce shame. All this has no place in the Century of the Common Man where vice no longer pays lip service to virtue.[1]
Like much of what Waugh wrote, this statement is a sophisticated satirical performance that seeks to produce the very feeling it denies the twentieth century is capable of: shame. Waugh’s use of this word recalls the unforgettable entry of the feeling (or its signifier) sixteen years earlier, in the second chapter of 1930’s Vile Bodies. Upon entry to England, party girl Agatha Runcible is mistaken for a jewel smuggler and strip-searched by Dover customs officers: “too, too shaming” says Agatha of her abuse by the customs officials, before relating all to the evening newspapers. .
Vile Bodies has disturbed readers and critics alike since its publication. Particularly troubling is the novel’s abrupt shift in tone, from delight in the Bright Young People’s “too, too shaming” scandals to the unsettling pitch of the final chapters as their giddy world descends into total war. Waugh, though long seen as a conservative moralist, has increasingly come to occupy a position at the fringes of modernism; certainly he is a major satirist of modernity. Vile Bodies in particular is frequently read as modernist in feeling and construction, particularly in its rejection of sentimentality and emotion. Waugh ruthlessly expunges all interiority from his characters; they become as Rebecca West remarked in a contemporary review of the novel, like a deck of cards shuffled and spread out. In this flat world, intimacy or emotion is rendered illegible; it is effaced and replaced with mere talk.
The hardest thing in comparisons is getting some sense of scale. Do numbers matter? Some. On the first landing of Harvard’s Hasty Pudding Society (otherwise known as The Institute of 1770) there’s a row of portraits called ‘From the Pudding to the Presidency’. There were in my day, six pictures on the wall: John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, and John Kennedy. Six out of 40+ presidents in 200 years. A creditable performance, no?
Imposing, yeah? Where CHYOS Club comes in. The only presidents with Harvard credentials who didn’t belong to the Pudding were George W. Bush and Barack Obama. They never went to Harvard College. They belonged to CHYOS grad schools instead. We should remember that this is actually a significant percentage of all U.S. Presidents. 8 out of 45. Harvard is 150 years older than the nation. Big deal, huh?
No. Small potatoes, in fact. Oxford University has produced no fewer than 28 Prime Ministers of Great Britain, many Tory but mostly Labour. We could end right here. But there’s far more to the story. Why Evelyn Waugh chose to blow the whistle on the whole scam. We’ll begin with Monty Python.
Oh, wait. There’s an aside here that turns out not to be minor. Harvard has 8 presidents, but Yale by hook or crook has 5 (2 Bushes, one Clinton, one Ford, and 350 lbs of William Howard Taft). The two together account for almost 20 percent of U.S. Presidents (okay, 17.7 %). But Oxford also has a sidekick, called Cambridge, which has done half as well as Oxford, almost, in the prime minister department with a total of 12. Why, these days, the two universities are lumped together under the sobriquet Oxbridge, which I probably should have used in my original CHYOS post. Oxbridge has produced 40 of Britain’s 55 prime ministers, which amounts to nearly 90 percent of the total. In business terms, that would be called a monopoly. The Harvard-Yale connection doesn’t have a name because the linguistic alternatives are crap: Haryale? No. Harvale? No again. But if you doubt the connection, look at the current Supreme Court: 8 of 9, which is 88.8 percent. What do the Brits have to compare? The Archbishop of Canterbury, self-admitted atheist and nominal direct report to the Queen as head of the Church of England, went to Cambridge. (And let me tell you, you have to search to find this out. His official bios don’t mention it.)
Where were we? Monty Python. The Brit counterculture of the 1970s and 1980s. All of whom went to Oxford or Cambridge (except for the lone American, graphic genius Terry Gilliam, who went to Obama’s undergrad alma mater, Occidental.) So Oxford and Cambridge presided over the creation of the Brit colonial empire and then the ridicule and destruction of same with a post-sixties irreverence cribbed from American political, musical, and pharmaceutical behaviors.
There’s a thing called a constant feedback loop. America and Britain have been in one of those for 50 years now. It has utterly destroyed Britain, and it’s about to destroy us as well.
Monty Python was the vehicle for completing a circle that first began in the 19th century with an Oxford essay arguing for the inevitability of atheism. It was at first denounced but slowly captured the university after the horrific trauma of WWI, until it came to dominate all British intellectual endeavors and had, finally, to be delivered to the masses in the form of popular culture, specifically entertainment.
Monty Python is symbolic more than instrumental. We’ll get to instrumental later. Python in the U.S. was largely a function of PBS, a brand of intellectual superiority for the elites through the mechanism of humor. Whatever they were making fun of was also a means of declaring their fundamental identities as elites who could see through it all. The challenge they posed was getting the joke, whatever it was and however obliquely it related to the lives of their audience. You get the joke, you’re in the club.
The dead parrot sketch. Dead is dead. The aristocratic twit competition. No, we weren’t born with titles, we’re just smarter… because Oxbridge. Are you? The old ladies in kerchiefs, Pythons in drag, hilarious and easily translatable to dim Midwestern moms across the pond. Just a joke. Did you get it? BBC presenters with their manicured west London accents and dully pompous questions. They know nothing. Why listen? The Ministry of Silly Walks. What your government is spending your taxes on. Lumberjacks who are secretly gay cross-dressers. Manliness is not a thing anymore in the Oxbridge scheme of things.
What were they up to? I don’t believe their intentions were bad. Comics are allowed to be funny, whatever Will Smith thinks. My own favorite Python sketch was a lampoon of The Scottish, of which I am one. Loved this:
But, you see, I am also a member of CHYOS Club, no longer in good standing, but I still get the joke. Whatever they intended, Monty Python was definitely in the business of reinforcing the British Caste System. Which has not changed in any material way for 300 years, including the last 100 years under mostly Labour governments. Caste in Britain is a function of language, accents, which never change at any level of society. You talk the way your parents talk, and it doesn’t matter how high you rise; even if you can, everyone will always know whether you are of the quality or of the trash who maybe got lucky.
The Python sketches use language to define people, just by the way they talk. They’re not impressed. They don’t think you should be impressed. But here they are. They’re the smart ones. From Oxford and Cambridge. You should be too. It’s the only way out of the damning, degrading, downward cultural spiral.
They didn’t stop with sketches either. They demolished King Arthur and Christianity in movies, almost in passing. It’s so easy when you’re Oxbridge. Critics loved them for it.
Still, Monty Python was only a sideshow. Count back the years to the British Invasion. John Lennon didn’t go to Oxford. But he grew up in the Brit caste system, and he was pissed. At authority, at religion, at his home country, and he came HERE to express what he couldn’t get away with saying at home. What did he believe in? I can’t believe so many people still love this suicidal, nihilistic song…
But here’s what he was really saying. Working Class Hero Didn’t sell quite as well, but it was his truth.
Long long while back. Whence it finally seeped down to Lennon, who finally said, “We’re more important than Jesus Christ.” As it turns out, he was probably right.
More Oxford. Harvard’s had a lot of poets, Yale a few. Oxbridge has more. It took the French to kill architecture (Le Corbusier), but it took the English — and Oxford — to kill God and Western Civilization and print literature.
The Brits have been crushed by their elites. We are staring down the barrel of the same fate. Who’s in charge? The CHYOS Club.
This is what I call an omnibus post. That is, it will contain many links to what I have published here and elsewhere previously. Not going to apologize for that. I don’t mind asking you to read a variety of approaches to the same gigantic topic. It’s a topic so big we’ve all become accustomed (or trained ourselves) to deal with it only in pieces. But the pieces are all part of a larger whole that has grave consequences for the culture as a whole. A great many people aren’t going to like what I have to say here, but it’s time it was said. I won’t be mincing words. If you feel like contending with specific points I am making, you’re well advised to read what’s at the links before you cut yourself the easy break of dismissing this post as irrational or wrongheaded or over-generalized. It isn’t. It just won’t be popular. A word about the word ‘general’ as it used in vernacular expressions like ”in general” or “generally speaking.” We all do generalize, mostly without acknowledging that whe...
Conflicted identity and media image woes By now we know if you’re a Democrat, getting elected isn’t about who you are, what you’ve done or haven’t done. It’s about how people see you. The factors that can do in a candidate are often more subtle than the pundits of the professional wrestling circuit called the mainstream media. Why we think it’s time to help the world’s most uninformed voters about who to elect as their next nominee for President. We’re not going to get all racist and sexist about it. The decision points we’ve discovered are all based on the individuals involved, not the immaterial fluff like experience or political philosophies. We’ll start right at the top and give you one simple thing to bear in mind before you try to pick a winner for 2028. Kamala Harris Not about the word salads or the escort thing. Too Desperate. Gavin Newsom Too Lyle Waggoner. Times change. Bernie Sanders Too ‘Little Big Man’ AOC Too prematurely passé Gretchen Whitmer Too Lily-White J...
Did the District Attorney of Philadelphia propose blowing up Trump’s White House Ballroom and auctioning off pieces of the rubble to cut the deficit? The Answer Provided by Google’s AI Assistant: Yes . Our topic today is Larry Krasner and his record as the District Attorney of Philadelphia and apparent higher political aspirations. Our purpose, though, is not purely political. It is to provide a demonstration of how Artificial Intelligence applications can be used in personal research that goes deeper than the media ever do. It is also to show the pitfalls of relying on such applications without a dogged determination to be thorough. The programmers behind the computer “intelligence” are always there, and they are just as human and political as, well, the elitist geeks who write the code. There are always two big questions to answer before undertaking what will be a long and complicated post on a complicated topic. First, Can I do it? And second, Do I really want to do it? This t...
Invocation of Nemesis by the Summoners Click on Rosie. Thought I’d get this part out of the way right up front. I’m reminded of Oscar Wilde’s famous quip about the upper class British sport of fox hunting: “The unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible.” As it happens, I’m working on two different posts at the same time this morning. This one and another one about the sad PR plight afflicting the unfortunate middle child of the three worst First Ladies in American history. . What the posts have in common is that the dominating element of both stories is a function of female psychology and can only be understood in those terms. There’s also the irony that Wilde’s jibe can be applied with some justice to both predator and prey in the two posts. Because I’m going to admit at the outset what most of the MAGA faithful won’t. You are right that Donald Trump is responsible for much of the imminent danger we are facing as a nation. Without his arrival on the political scene 11 years ...
Yeah. Click on the blue headlines. There are two precursor posts to this, both still in-process. I’ll finish and link them later. One is about the death of the historical novel, which mirrors a lot of other deaths in our culture. The other is about divorce, an absolutely transformative and deadly factor in what has become of us as a nation. What does that leave us with? The end result of our progressive devolution, largely invisible to all, because it is a function of the variable we tend to think of as a constant, human consciousness. Which it isn’t. I’ve written quite a lot about the consciousness problem over the years, and Instapunk Returns, as well as a couple other of my blogs, contain 5+++ years worth of thoughts on the topic. I’ll be sending you to those posts here, providing you with an excerpt, usually the lede, a sample graphic or two, and a link. The order is roughly chronological. I’m not going to give you any particular setup from piece to piece. The relevance to the main...
I accidentally discovered an apt new term to describe what’s going on right now. I was having fun with a recent Breitbart post referencing one of CNN’s duller voices. Atheocracy. Kind of perfect. Nailed home by the sudden leftist welcome of support from the Satanists in opposing the Texas Abortion law. Not to mention Cher’s redefinition of democracy as anything which enables a woman to get her way in every way she desires. A simple definition of Atheocracry. Every belief system involving the divine is non-scientific, worthless, and necessarily to be crushed out of existence. So we can all always do whatever we want, no matter who gets hurt. What happened? Dr. Doolittle’s Pushmi-Pullyu. Often Characterized as a sexual stalemate. Men and women have battled for control of society forever. Both sexes (there are exactly two) have competed for power for over thousands of generations. Thurber’s War Between Men and Women. Jeez. That’s been a while ago. Feminists believe ...
Happy Independence Day No. 250! I’m planning to do my part for the year-long celebration of the still remarkable birth of the United States of America. Just starting to realize that the number of us who remember the last big anniversary in 1976 is getting smaller every day. Why I have some special ideas about focusing on the moment of transition, that is the tick of the clock last night when the 249th year became the 250th. A kind of time capsule that may be buried now but dug up later to see who were way back when you were still as young as you think you are now. My credentials for the job. Quite a few actually, but the most important one today is that I was a working participant in the official Bicentennial celebrations back when I was still young. I wrote a post about it almost 10 years ago, ancient history in today’s 24/7 chronometer dial. In honor of the ones no longer with us from that time, I dug up the old post from the Wayback Machine and put it back together here a...
Mad Max as you’re supposed to want her Having finished my Mad Max post yesterday, I realized I had confined my discussion of the ‘Instant Gratification’ problem to the MAGA fainthearts. Their inability to look far enough forward to envision consequences is far less than that of the whole half country full of Democrat apologists and Trump haters. Shouldn’t I address that fact in some comparable terms to what I just wrote? I guess so. The easy answer is referencing the two recent Mad Max sequels provided to us by Woke Hollywood. But I haven’t seen them. I had no interest in paying to see them in a theater. At one point I did put one of them, Furiosa I think, on my IMDB watch list. I received a notification that it would be briefly available on one of the streaming services and I did tune in to watch. Lost interest about 15 minutes in, by which time the old rules had it a good movie should have you hooked. I was not hooked. It was just the same cinematic backdrop as the Road W...
RAV’s Frank Gaffney discussing existential crisis of AI with statecraft guru Sam Faddish. What could go wrong? This, for one thing: He has his own gaggle of Chicken Little AI experts. And, inevitably, this: Me, when I’m not hiding my true self behind a photograph They’re all worried about AI. Terrified in fact. For different reasons. Bannon has some apocalyptic seer who’s worried about meta-humans replacing Homo sapiens. Gaffney and Faddis are fixated on the latest AI hot topic, “The Singularity,” that magic moment when a supercomputer becomes self aware and decides to exterminate mankind. How did we get here? The usual way. The movies. First, there was HAL: Then, just a quarter century later, after a decades-long detour through a dead-end time paradox called The Terminator , there came the monstrous harpy HAL, a transgendered terminator in a box, like we’d been brought up to believe in, including Gaffney and Faddis: Worried yet? Here’s her resumé and mission statement. C...
Comments