Category Archives: Pop-Culture

IS Prince Harry Losing The Crown Jewels? Dah!

Britain, Christianity, Critique, Etiquette, Pop-Culture

Already Meghan Markle is making political statements against age-old English traditions. The head of the US Episcopal Church, not head of the Church of England, will officiate at the Royal Wedding ceremony, this week-end.

I did not notice the race card Mr. and Mrs. Markle are playing so crudely. Naively, I looked at the break in tradition this American woman has clearly forced, in smuggling an American man-of-the-cloth, when monarchic tradition calls for an english clergyman to officiator at a Royal Wedding.

In any event, whoever ends up wearing the crown jewels (or the pants) in Britain’s new royal family (I’m already betting the American Woman will); future royal babies born to Mr. and Mrs Meghan Markle are bound to be … nosy, if to judge from their parents’ probosces.

Texas Vs. The Pacific Coast: Explaining The Yankee Mindset

America, Environmentalism & Animal Rights, Fascism, History, Left-Liberalism, Pop-Culture, Pseudo-history, States' Rights, The South

NEW COLUMN IS “Texas Vs. The Pacific Coast: Explaining The Yankee Mindset.”
A slightly abridged version is now on Townhall.com.

Unabridged, “Texas Vs. The Pacific Coast” appears on Unz Review, WND.com, Constitution.com, and other discerning outlets.

Excerpt:

I recently traveled to Texas to speak about South Africa, at the Free Speech Forum of  the Texas A & M University.

To travel from the Pacific Northwest all the way to College Station, Texas, without experiencing more of the “Lone Star State” was not an option.

So, after driving from Austin eastward to College Station (where I was hosted by two exceptional young, Southern gentlemen), I headed south-west to San Antonio. There I lingered long enough to conclude:

The Republic of Texas is a civilization apart.

Ordinary Texans—from my brief travels—tend to be sunny, kind and warmhearted. Not once did I encounter rude on my Texas junket.

On the Pacific Coast, however, kindness and congeniality don’t come naturally. State-of-Washington-statists are generally aloof, opprobrious, insular. And, frankly, dour.

Southern historian Dr. Clyde N. Wilson tells of receiving “a package containing a chamber pot labeled ‘Robert E. Lee’s Soup Tureen.'”

It came from … Portland, Maine.

Unkind cuts are an everyday occurrence around here, where the busybody mentality prevails.

Stand still long enough, and they’ll tell you how to live. They’ll even give chase to deliver that “corrective” sermon. A helmeted cyclist once chased me down along a suburban running trail.

My sin? I had fed the poor juncos in the dead of winter. (Still do. Bite me, you bully.)

Having caught up with me, SS Cyclist got on his soap box and in my face about my unforgivable, rule-bending. Wasn’t I familiar with the laws governing his pristine environmental utopia?

Didn’t I know that only the fittest deserved to survive? That’s the natural world, according to these ruthless, radical progressive puritans.

Yes, mea culpa for having an exceedingly soft spot for God’s plucky little creatures.

When a Washington statist gets wind of your core beliefs—why, even if your use of the English language irks His Highness—he will take it upon himself to fix your “flaws,” try to make you over in his sorry image.

For the distinct cluster of characteristics just described, Dr.  Wilson aforementioned uses the term Yankee. …

… READ THE REST. The column is  “Texas Vs. The Pacific Coast: Explaining The Yankee Mindset”.

Or, unabridged. 

Oh, Clyde Wilson adds this: “Telling other people not to feed God’s creatures according to some supposed scientific official plan is simply fascism.”

The Fake Sanctimony Over A ‘Barnyard’ Word In A Filth-Drenched Culture

Africa, Crime, Cultural Marxism, Democrats, Donald Trump, IMMIGRATION, Pop-Culture

By Dr. Boyd Cathey

Leave it up to South Carolina’s US Senator Lindsey Graham to make anything “rough”—any off-color language—that President Trump uses, sound totally justified. That’s exactly what happened yesterday that has the entirety of the mainstream media, including Fox News, all atwitter about one barnyard word that the president supposedly used (in what was ostensibly a private meeting with a small group of pro-amnesty senators, including Graham).

Yes, the media would have us believe that it was the president’s reported use of that word—“s—hole”—as applied to certain countries that illustrates how uncouth, how “tone deaf,” how “unfit” the president is. Confronted in the meeting by a “bipartisan” group of three Democrat (notably Dick Durbin) and three GOP senators (Graham, Jeff Flake, and Cory Gardner of Colorado)—all of whom are pro-amnesty, open border zealots—who presented to him a “compromise” on illegal immigration that basically would wave a magic wand and “normalize” the DACA recipients and other illegals, including providing a “pathway to citizenship,” and open the doors to immigration from Latin America and Africa (including citizenship)—given these rehashed, warmed over snake-oil proposals (that Graham, Flake and Durbin have been selling since the infamous and abortive “gang of eight” proposals years ago), President Trump reacted very negatively and with both frustration and legitimate disgust. He flatly rejected the Graham-Flake-Durbin “compromise.”

“Why do we always favor immigration from ‘s—hole’ countries,” he fumed. “Why can’t we have more immigrants from countries like, say, Norway?”

It was a private meeting, a meeting between Trump and those six pro-amnesty senators. It was, to be precise, off the record. But no sooner had he vented his frustration in language that none of us probably would have used publicly or at a church meeting, than one of the senators (or senator’s aides) had, of course, “leaked” it to the avariciously anti-Trump media. You would have thought that those media announcers and pundits had just returned from an Evangelical revival meeting where they had all been “saved” and “washed in the Blood.” Or, that they were burnishing their memberships in the Womens’ Christian Temperance Union! The shock—the disgust—the horror—of hearing such a word uttered by the president! You just know that they have never heard such words before, that they’ve never watched HBO or Showtime or tuned into primetime television, or listened to the lyrics of many of the top rap songs playing incessantly on our radio stations…. None those pure-as-the-driven-snow pundits would ever do that!

But it was not just that: no, for the media, the Democrats, and all sorts of bawling and scaredy-cat Republicans always on guard to avoid the fearsome charge of “racism,” it was the explicit and odious comparison between very successful countries (such as mostly white Norway) and failed states (such as mostly black Haiti) that revealed, once again for all to see, that deep, dark and dank “racist” mentality of Donald J. Trump! How dare he compare a Norway to a Haiti!

All the Social Justice Warriors (SJW) and professional anti-hate and anti-racist organizations jumped into the fray and into immediate action furiously releasing press releases and going on CNN, MSNBC and NBC to denounce in dripping scorn the president’s “racist sin.” Overseas, craven politically-correct, brain-dead leaders—our supposed allies—joined the mob. Saddiq Khan, mayor of the Peoples’ Democratic Socialist Commune of Londonistan (AKA, London), excoriated the president in his strongest, puffed up anti-racist “moralizing” terms.

Once again, just as after Charlottesville, President Trump had rubbed a nerve and stated a truth—a truth that even the most enmeshed-in-Marxist-muck SJWs would have to admit, were that SJW to be truly honest: while Norway is a successful constitutional monarchy, a nation where public order and law govern, where most citizens are gainfully employed and the social and political fabric is stable—countries like Haiti (and various countries in Africa that the “group of six” wanted the president to favor) are failed and dysfunctional states, wracked by intense poverty, characterized by social and political disorder, with raging and unchecked criminality and an almost total lack of the necessary infrastructure necessary to succeed.

That is what the president was saying. It just so happens that it has been the nations of Europe historically, countries traditionally populated by Caucasians and civilized by them and by the historic Christian faith that gave birth to the American nation and to our basic institutions. That is not to say that other countries could not have provided a basis. Indeed, although President Trump did not use them as examples, he could have very well made a comparison between, say, Japan or the Republic of China-Taiwan. He could have said, for example:

“Why do we always favor immigration from ‘s—hole’ countries….Why can’t we have more immigrants from countries like, say, Taiwan or Japan?”

Would that have made a difference? Probably not that much, for the main contention here from the SJWs and the ostentatiously politically correct politicians revolves around that first group of nations, which are in Latin America and Africa, and which are mostly inhabited by blacks and mixed race Latinos. Those are the very ethnic groups that have received in our modern Marxist-dominated Progressivist culture the special status of “most favored peoples” (MFP). And against whom, even with complete and total justification, any invidious comparison, any criticism, even with a huge body of statistics and data to back it up, is ipso facto “racism.”

Thus, the essential truth of Donald Trump’s privately expressed statement is passed over. His use of the locker-room expletive, when all the harrumph and false and hypocritical shock dissolves as those media and political personalities return home to catch the latest episode of filth-drenched primetime shows and movies, also recedes into the background.

The issue—the only real issue here for our dominant cultural Marxists and infected politicians—is racism and “white oppression” (one of two major societal narratives, other being “sexism”). That President Trump spoke the truth, and spoke it with the same kind of language that practically all the elites, whether in Hollywood or in DC, employ daily and delight in using (and imposing on our children from the earliest school grades), that he vented the same beliefs and understanding that millions of us know to be patently true and right, well, that has them all aghast, from the huffy Neocons on Fox (“I don’t believe he should have used that word,” “I believe he should apologize to Haitians,” said Republican Congresswoman Mia Love), to the outraged Democrats, demanding redress, that he grovel and ask for forgiveness for his grievous sin…of racism.

Representative Love, it wasn’t your overly expanded idea of racism that governed the president’s frustrated remark; it was the simple and undeniable fact countries like Haiti are dysfunctional, failed states, that countries like Mexico and Guatemala are crime-ridden and wracked by poverty, that immigrants from those countries are uniformly uneducated, unskilled and unassimilable, that public order and respect for the rule of law—such as it is—is notably lacking in those countries, and that the kinds of traditions, culture and beliefs that helped create the United States are not generally present in those populations.

No; I would not use that locker-room word at a church meeting, nor with my nephews. And, yes, I wish the president had not used it (especially with such “culture traitors” as Graham and Flake lurking in the same room). But back in November of 2016, American voters elected a street-fighter, perhaps the only kind of fighter who could make a dent in the putrid and fetid political (and cultural) swamp that is defiling and destroying what is left of this historic nation.

Perhaps we figured out, after we had tried all the polite, pass-the-tea-and-donuts candidates (who had only enabled the rot), that to fight back it would take such a man who knew all about those dominant players who seek to control our lives and snuff out our history and pervert our traditions. After all he had lived in their midst for decades—and he knew how to combat them: go for the jugular, hit them hard in the gut where it hurts, and don’t apologize!

==========================================

~ DR. BOYD D. CATHEY, who blogs at  “My Corner By Boyd Cathey, is an Unz Review columnist, as well as a Barely a Blog contributor, whose work is easily located on this site under the “BAB’s A List” search category. Dr. Cathey earned an MA in history at the University of Virginia (as a Thomas Jefferson Fellow), and as a Richard M Weaver Fellow earned his doctorate in history and political philosophy at the University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain. After additional studies in theology and philosophy in Switzerland, he taught in Argentina and Connecticut before returning to North Carolina. He was State Registrar of the North Carolina State Archives before retiring in 2011. He writes for The Unz Review, The Abbeville Institute, Confederate Veteran magazine, The Remnant, and other publications in the United States and Europe on a variety of topics, including politics, social and religious questions, film, and music.

A Traditionalist Lesson For Laura Ingraham About Rap (Hint: It’s Not Music)

Art, Music, Objectivism, Pop-Culture, The West, The Zeitgeist

Is Laura Ingraham always a loud, boorish, boilerplate Republican?

I caught The Ingraham Angle last night, for the first time, and was appalled. First, Ms. Ingraham appeared a little loopy, as though she were, well, high.

The woman was loud, shouting over her guests in an unedifying manner, just because she could; just because she had the microphone. Not once did Ms. Ingraham puncture a Guest’s attempts to speak with meaningful argument, as the great Tucker Carlson does.

Tucker listens, he doesn’t talk over someone unless that someone is babbling. And Tucker, flaws and all (for he’s not pure Old Right, but he’s the best we have), is very sharp. He pierces a Guest’s case with good argument. (And his spontaneous laugh is adorable.)

Ms. Ingraham, on the other hand, is all wrong. Unconservative, unthinking, and yesterday, plain dopey, grinning inanely.

In particular, during the segment about rap lyrics, Ingraham declared, un-conservatively, that she loved all music. A serious conservative might have distinguished music (based on objective elements of composition) from rap.

And a methodical thinker—there are none on Fox News—would understand that while in older, contemporary American music, popular composers were smart enough to write gorgeous lyrics—lyrics are not music.

Put it this way, if the greatest composer ever, Johann Sebastian Bach, set his divine, godly cantatas to the naught lyrics of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, would I decry these sublime compositions as immoral? Of course not. The music would still be sublime.

Rap is BAD, and not only because of the filthy lyrics. Rap, simply put, is not music.

Conservative emphasis on lyrics is confused. First, separate music from lyrics. Then, make the conservative case that you cannot endorse rap qua music, because it isn’t music. Rap might be street theater, but music it isn’t. Then, as a side issue, add that rap theater and dance is set to filthy grunts and coitus-like movements.

That’s my own traditionalist case against rap. Ms. Ingraham, on the other hand, is a multiculturalist who loves all “music,” including some rap. And being a broadminded broad, she errs in considering rap to be music.