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.
How this post came to be. Saw this promo from the wrecked icon called the New Yorker and was reminded of a post put up here some months ago: Why didn’t I crop out the squatting woman? Truth in advertising. That’s not true, actually. In fact, it’s a lie. I wouldn’t have stumbled on this lovely screenshot if it weren’t for an image I’d used in a Facebook post some days before: You won’t believe this, but while Iwas posting the pic just above, my wife showed me her ROFL pic from the The Babylon Bee… …Which is obviously directly relevant to the rantings of the Glasser person who thinks everything Trump has ever done or will do is a mortal sin against the Manhattan scripture called The New Yorker. Don’t get me wrong. I used to love The New Yorker. Then they surrendered it to the Smart Women, under the subscription-shrinking stewardship of Tina Brown, whose legacy has led gradually to the dollar-a-copy pitch shown in the first graphic above. Today’s mag looks a like the old one, but tha...
We, of course, were as offended as anyone by the President’s evident pleasure in being depicted as Creator of the Universe. His later insistence that it was just a plate of food that happened to have blond hair was disingenuous to say the least. There. That’s out of the way. Putting aside all the bluster about blasphemy by secular observers whose relation to religion is probably a checkbox item, I believe there is a real story lurking in all the feigned outrage. a neon flash of double standards. It’s a media story, probably meaningless to those who aren’t ancient enough to have witnessed Obama’s first year in office. He was kind of everywhere, on every news interview program, every newspaper headline, and every magazine cover. (For the youngsters in the audience, there used to be things called magazines with words and pictures in them. It was a big deal to be featured on their covers.) If you weren’t a big Obama fan — and maybe even if you were — this got to be kind of sickening a...
Lewis Hamilton wins Seventh World Championship at Formula 1 Grand Prix in Turkey: A stunning drive from Mercedes’ Lewis Hamilton in the Turkish Grand Prix gave him his 10th victory of the season – and, more crucially, saw him claim the seventh drivers’ title of his career, to equal the record of Michael Schumacher, as Racing Point’s Sergio Perez and Ferrari’s Sebastian Vettel completed the podium after a thrilling race in Istanbul. Hamilton had started the race in sixth, risen to third midway through the first lap and then dropped back to sixth by the end of Lap 1 after an error at Turn 9. But a decision to change his intermediate tyres just once saw Hamilton drive a masterful race to claim victory by over 25 seconds from Perez. The win alone was enough to claim championship #7, but it was even more assured after a disastrous race for Valtteri Bottas - the only man who could have stopped Hamilton winning the title today - who spun six times en route to a P14 finish.
Haven’t been here for a while. Cooling my heels on maybe half a dozen posts for which I have content materials assembled and the writing just awaiting the typing I don’t feel like doing against the relentless pass rush of AutoCorrect/AI. Stranded, I guess. My principal emotion is akin to what I felt back in 2019, when I took a year off from this site because who can write about dread every day? Like then, my mind is telling me the Dark Age is upon us because we don’t deserve to be saved from the fate our enemies intend for us. They’re brain-damaged sociopaths; a near majority of us are just brain-damaged. Good guys and bad guys both done in by appalling lack of education and undeveloped consciousness skills at foreseeing consequences from a Universe-of-One perspective. I don’t like gas prices at the pump, I don’t like the way Trump talks so mean, and the Iran thing I just don’t get, so I won’t vote this time. Fine. We get what we deserve as a nation. That’s the real American Way. No ot...
I’ve been at sixes and sevens about this post since I knew I had to do it. Even had a hard time picking the leadoff graphic. This one does convey the idea of questioning the decision by a great man of senior years. But this one introduces the notion that Philip Glass’s principled stand is one that has been sponsored by indolent dilettantes who didn’t give a fig about the Kennedy Center during the decades in which it has been literally falling down. Falling down. Along with all the forms of high art the Kennedy’s were trying to inspire with a facility for culturally significant performances by the nation’s most gifted artists. Interesting and ironic that they choose the 87 years Philip Glass to deliver their most stinging blow against the unspeakable privately financed renovation of the crumbling building and its wayward preoccupation with niche artistes. Am I getting ahead of myself here? Did you miss the story when it broke? Lawrence O’Donnell, the left’s fantasy Dean of Jeffersonian ...
HINT: It’s more than flashy hair. President John F. Kennedy now resides in a curious limbo. He was briefly the face of the Democrat Party as it wanted to see itself in the post-WWII era. In hindsight he was an anomaly in the party’s history. Before JFK, the most prominent Democrat Presidential contenders teetered between the crude (Andrew Jackson, William Jennings Bryan, Harry Truman, Al Smith) and the unashamedly elite (Stephen Douglas, Jefferson Davis, Rutherford B. Hayes, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Adlai Stevenson). JFK was an interesting hybrid of both. Like Al Smith, he was a Roman Catholic, like FDR a graduate of Harvard College. His lineage also had its disreputable side, with a family fortune reputedly acquired by bootlegging during the Great Depression. Backed by that fortune, he became famous and successful at an early age but was criticized as callow and rumored to be a philanderer in his first years in the Senate. When he became a presidential candidate, he was a clear brea...
The Mark Hamill thing. A matter of puzzlement to many people. I have an idea about what’s going on with him, which I’ll explain because I’m thinking most people are just chalking it up to projected career disappointments. Which is part of it but not all of it. I know that the language issues surrounding the topics I’ll be touching on are prohibitive, since words no longer mean what they used to, but I’m just laying it out here and everyone is free to take it or leave it as they choose. There’s an easy answer and a deeper answer. The easy answer is just scratching the surface but should show the value of common sense in a long-distance analysis like this. Easy? For Hamill, Trump is a stand-in for Harrison Ford. Looked them up. Ford is 6’1”. Hamill’s bio claims 5’9” or 5’10” though the claim is challenged by those who say he’s more like 5’7” give or take. It’s not political, the Trump hatred. Not really. The TDS mania that pervades Hollywood was an attractive nuisance just waiting f...
Judge Tiffany Baker-Carper Why would I lead off a story about a controversial judge with a picture of her all dolled up for a social occasion? To get it out of the way. Yes, she’s a good-looking, shapely young woman. That’s not the issue, which is not personal but systemic on the face of it. If she made a grave misjudgment because the situation was over her head, the first appropriate question is not what kind of terrible person is she, but rather why was she on the bench in the first place? Here’s the story as reported yesterday by the Gateway Pundit: FTA: <<The pedophile, Daniel Spencer, was convicted in April 2025 of traveling to meet a minor for sex following an undercover sting operation. Despite the State Attorney’s Office recommending he be held without bond pending sentencing, Judge Baker-Carper allowed Spencer to remain free, citing his lack of violent criminal history and prior compliance while on bond. Weeks later, on May 19, 2025, Spencer and his wife, Chloe Spen...
Comments