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.
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.[2]
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. Didn’t sell quite as well, but it was the 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 post was last updated at 10:45 AM., Sunday, September 21. Latest entries are “A Comparison Not made,“ “An American Turning Point,” “A Mission from Gahd,” and “For Those in Hell,” The Instapunk Times is hot off the presses. .. Undernet Black was updated September 21. This will be a pinned post in perpetuity, but it will be updated continuously, just like all of our lives. The title — “My World and Welcome to It” — is stolen happily from James Thurber, who is known as a humorist, unabashedly untrained cartoonist, and dog lover. He was also subject to melancholy, a drinker of note, and something of an outsider (in his own damaged eyes at least) as an Ohioan, born and educated, who became a fixture in the glamorous Algonquin Roundtable of Manhattan writers and playwrights. I can relate to all of that but the fame and the lifelong journey to blindness. I believe he was likely the best writer of the gang that gathered in the Algonquin Hotel in the 1930s, and I m...
Yes, I’m writing this because of the assassination of Charlie Kirk. He was a good and brave man and I admired him. He was 31. Now he’s eternal. Since I am Christian and do believe in an afterlife, I am confident Charlie’s life has entered a new realm with new opportunities awaiting him. It is this to which I subscribe, as I believe many faithful do, not as susceptible as children to a constant heaven made of clouds and angels and long trumpets and hosannas to the One who cannot really be seen. If this makes me a blasphemer to some, I don’t care. Heaven as a gated community with a good view seems a limited and boring retirement from the excitements of life. To me anyway. Most of the problems people have with the concept of divinity are similarly small-minded and short-sighted. It’s human to keep trying to cut God and his domain down to size in ways that make him open to dealmaking or derision if that’s your preference. Imagine that Heaven might be a roll your own kind of tr...
You know, that age-old phenomenon of a sudden resurgence of hot weather after school starts… Yes, it’s been a hot week at home and abroad. Something(s) incendiary but instructive every single day. Not so unusual really. When you take the long view, every week brings us stuff that is hot and scary but also dumb as a Jimmy Kimmel joke. You know what I mean. You got to take time out to just laugh at some things. Like this past week. As bad as a lot of the news was, the silly still bubbles to the surface like a rueful chuckle. Our humor highlights this week come from reliable topics like religion, politics, race, money, and hats. That’s a combination that’s hard to beat. Most of the references are derived from FB posts, but reconfigured as convenient to be less informative than funny here. The weekend’s upon us. Who needs informative? Saturday, Sept 27 Bill Maher had an up and down week. He’s still torn between the divided religious household he grew up in and the secular solipsism he has ...
This is not a subject we’ll be talking about every day. That’s why this post today. It’s a marker. You can come back here later to remember where things stood before Charlie Kirk was laid to rest. Everything will be different from now on, and this moment will be part of the subtext of what happens in other arenas where it’s not mentioned or regarded as relevant. As needed there will be Parts 2, 3, etc, but we’ll go on doing what we’ve always done here, talk about whatever we feel like talking about, by turns seriously and satirically, and when this particular subtext is relevant it will be noted by hyperlink, not renewed sermonizing. Yesterday, I posted the following at Facebook: The one big question that matters now... where exactly is the faultline in American conscience? How many to the left of the crack in our national soul and how many to the right? It was never going to be the case that the assassination of a major conservative political figure would meet with universal c...
This is the follow-on to Monday’s post about the dire straits the Democrat Party now finds itself in. We were at pains to point out that the only hands capable of seizing the horns of the bull charging at the Progressive movement belong to Rachel Maddow. That bull is wearing the mantle of what used to be called “that old-time religion,” now revitalized with a heroic cape of youthful energy. Some facts that should be very concerning about the impact of the Kirk Memorial Service. Why somebody needed to take the reins and assert some visionary leadership over a Democrat Party that has been scoring nothing but fouls and foul-mouthed tantrums at the referees. Unlike most of her lefty colleagues, she was a star athlete in high school (and could have been in college if she hadn’t been outed as a Lesbian by the Stanford newspaper when she was a freshman). She knows about playing with pain. One of many reasons why Rachel Maddow was the best choice for assuming a strong, defining position o...
The big historical questions of “What will happen?” are usually best settled in hindsight. The biggest questions generally concern whether or not some historical catastrophe was inevitable or not. The American Civil War. World War I. World War II. Meticulous historians, back when we had them, have given us answers to those three in particular. Yes, yes, and yes. The one that bears the strongest resemblance to our current turning point is our own American Civil War. The young constitutional republic had been born with a deadly contradiction at the heart of its founding documents, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. The reason for the contradiction was political compromise needed to secure sufficient nationwide support for the adoption of the Constitution. Slavery was a ticking time bomb from 1789 on. Eventually there would have to be a reckoning. Was actual warfare inevitable though? Yes. North and South were unified by their shar...
People say the left has no heart. This is very far from the truth. They are full of love and empathy for everybody but the evil ones among us, and they are very Old Testament in their conceptions of Justice. They believe absolutely in the Death Penalty and Hell forever after, except for the ones who get oppressed by the evil ones for their color, ethnicity, gender choices, sexual promiscuity and perversity, body odors, excretory preferences, criminal propensities and other mental illnesses, and every form of weakness except being too small to live anywhere but inside a woman’s body, to which they have no right at all. With the exceptions noted, they love absolutely everybody equally, especially people who work for the government and famous rich people who agree with them about all of the above. Everybody acts like this is so hard to understand. It isn’t. It’s simple. You just have to have an eye for it. Know how to look for their heart and when they’re wearing it prominently on t...
This is only a thought starter, because there are still a lot of balls in the air on this thing, but time’s a’wasting. The funeral is today, but the Memorial Event yesterday at Arizona U. Stadium is simply not something the out-of-power party can ignore or pretend never happened. This is what it looked like: This wasn’t a Trump campaign rally at some basketball arena. This was a double decker football stadium, every seat filled, plus an arena across the street watching the proceedings on a Jumbotron, with still others lined up outside. Many speakers and one brand new star in the firmament, Charlie Kirk’s widow, who is no retiring house mouse. Except that she brought down the house in Phoenix and promised to keep going from here on forever. No two ways about it. She stole the show, and the thunder, from everyone, including Donald Trump. Which makes people believe, maybe for the first time, that MAGA won’t end with him. That should scare Dems from here to Ireland ...
I chopped off the top of the graphic because it featured the name of the author and is irrelevant here. His name is H. Paul Jeffers. You can buy the book at Amazon. Might be a good read or reference. This was going to be longer. It was longer. Until Blogger ate about 2,000 words of my draft. I try to trust the universe when painful losses in writing occur. So I’m going to trust that not Blogger but the universe was telling me to present you with an idea that can be returned to late and amplified if I see that readers are seeking out this post as a topic of interest. I had a few main points. History is almost a dead discipline. Along with other studies in humanities it has been captured by ideologues and turned into a kind of political propaganda, not a search for truth and helpful perspective. All these historians who are building lists Best and Worst Presidents aren’t interested in examining the past with a fair and analyptical eye. They’re looking to use the past to promot...
It’s a long story that’s been through many vicissitudes, and only recently has reached a crisis point in the nation’s emotional stability. In the early days of the mass media age, women’s quest for respect from men led them to pursue intellectual accomplishment with lots of reading and whatnot. This led, understandably, to more women who needed glasses to be competitive at work and general mixed company. Sadly, one of the longest lived memes (before people knew they were memes) of that era was the Dorothy Parker quip above. As women invaded television news in the media explosion of the late Twentieth Century, the invention of contact lenses made it possible for the biggest female stars of journalism to appear elegantly finished without attraction-diminishing spectacles. Nancy Dickerson, Barbara Walters, and Diane Sawyer managed to look both smart and glamorous. All eyes were upon them, even to the point of siring the term ‘nipslip.’ Why the incidence of women wearing eyegla...
Comments