The Musical ‘HAIR’ Is Not Anti-White; IT’S Quintessentially WHITE And Western

Art, Culture, Film, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Music, Race, The West, War

In mentioning Milos Forman’s formidable musical in “The Kiss,” my latest column,” an Unz Review reader alleges I was promoting an anti-White film.

“Hair” is a magnificent antiwar movie, featuring Western ideas, music and dance at their most triumphant.  This musical is an achievement (and I don’t much like musicals).

Who do you think That War killed? Poor white boys (and millions of Vietnamese).

What kind of music does it feature? Quality Western music. Western dance at its best, too. (No matter the color of the choreographers, I see the great Martha Graham’s influence in there).

What kind of black-Americans does “Hair” the movie showcase? Blacks singing in the Western tradition, dancing in the same tradition (no twerking) and signing-up to the tradition of anti-state war protest.

What kind of Left was featured in “Hair”? The Old Left, the anti-war Left, before “liberal brains became pickled in the formaldehyde of wicked woke, identity politics.”

As I wrote, “At its most effective and substantive, the left once protested against gratuitous wars.” Now, “’the new liberal brand’ amounts to nothing more than ‘commodified and market-tested ‘diversity.’”

Hair is not anti-white; it instantiates Western culture in every respect.

THAT KISS

Feminism, Gender, Political Correctness, Pop-Culture, Sex

NEW COLUMN with video is up at American Greatness. Read “how a spontaneous kiss momentarily reminded us of a saner, happier reality—beyond COVID-19 and beyond the #MeToo mercenaries.”

What with American society fast descending into “the horror, the horror” of Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness,” we can all do with the respite of a … KISS. No Supreme Court ruling can erase that man-woman magic. Here it is, free of the MeToo moral panic and the COVID19 contagion:

“That Kiss” first appeared on The Unz review and at WND.COM.

YouTube, too.

“The Kiss” is currently featured on American Greatness, where  fans  of the site can read it NOW.

How Dramatically Did Women’s Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?

Democracy, Elections, Feminism, Gender, Political Economy, The State

In 2007, I ventured that, “I’d give up my vote if that would guarantee that all women were denied the vote.”—ILANA Mercer (August 8, 2007)

Coming from the anti-statist stance, the sentiment is a solid one. It’s anchored in data.

One only has to trace the statistically significant correlation between women’s suffrage and the change in the size and scope of the state, as did John R. Lott, Jr. (Yale University) and Lawrence W. Kenny (University of Florida), to realize that the female suffrage has undermined the small-government project.

“How Dramatically Did Women’s Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?” is in the Journal of Political Economy (Vol. 107, Number 6, Part 1, pp. 1163-1198, December 1999).

Of course, the tipping point has long been reached, so my altruistic gesture would be in vain.

Naturally, some will laud the growth of government under female tutelage; others will lament it.

Abstract

This paper examines the growth of government during this century as a result of giving women the right to vote. Using cross-sectional time-series data for 1870 to 1940, we examine state government expenditures and revenue as well as voting by U.S. House and Senate state delegations and the passage of a wide range of different state laws. Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patterns for federal representatives, and these effects continued growing over time as more women took advantage of the franchise. Contrary to many recent suggestions, the gender gap is not something that has arisen since the 1970s, and it helps explain why American government started growing when it did.

And look at these excerpts with their bold deductions. The following writers would have been “canceled” by the bumper crops of cretins who control the American intelligentsia (that is not very intelligent).

It  is  not  really  surprising  that  this   welfare  state  should   breed   a politics  not  of  “justice”  or  “fairness”  but  of  “compassion,”  which contemporary  liberalism  has  elevated  into   the  most   important  civic virtue.  Women  tend  to  be  more  sentimental,   more  risk-averse   and less  competitive  than  men—yes,   it’s   Mars   vs.   Venus—and   therefore are  less  inclined   to   be  appreciative   of  free-market  economics,   in which   there   are   losers   as   well   as   winners.   College-educated women—the  kind  who  attend  Democratic  conventions—are   also more   “permissive”    and   less    “judgmental”    on    such    issues    as homosexuality,  capital  punishment,  even  pornography.

—Irving  Kristol,  “The  Feminization  of  the  Democrats,” The Wall Street Journal (September 9, 1996): p. A16

Citing   marriage   as   “a   very   important   financial   divider,”   the American   Enterprise   Institute’s   Doug   Besharov    suggests    more married women did not  vote  for  Dole because of a widespread sense of societal insecurity: “It is not that  they  distrust  their  husband,  but they  have  seen  divorce  all  around  them  and  know  they  could  be next.”  The  Polling  Company’s  Kellyanne  Fitzpatrick  is  categorical: “Women  see  government  as  their  insurance.”  (Perhaps  significantly,  of the  24 million  individuals  working  in  government  and  in  semi-governmental  non-profit  jobs,  14  million—58  percent—are  women.)

—The Richmond Times Dispatch, December 5, 1996

THE REST.

 

UPDATED (7/9): RIP, GOP: Tucker Has Officially Canceled The Republican Party

Conservatism, Crime, Elections, Law, Republicans

Fox News’ Tucker Carlson has just gone and canceled the Republican Party in a monologue, in front of one very large TV audience indeed. He’s made it safe for all those who’ve gotten impaled for doing so over the years. CANCEL the GOP can now go mainstream. It may just become a reality.

“RIP, GOP.”

In last week’s June 11 column, “The Barbarians Are In Charge: Scenes From The Sacking of America,“ I concluded:

Across the United States, the message to law-abiding Americans, from city, town, county council members and other legislators came loud and clear: You’re on your own. Neither police nor politicians are coming to protect what’s left of your businesses or your banal, bourgeoisie little life.

In his June 20 monologue, Tucker inveighed:

You vote for Republicans to protect you from this. But when the moment of crisis came, Republicans ran away.

Property was looted, people were beaten and killed and Republicans joined the side doing the looting, beating and killing. President of the Heritage Foundation and think tanks on the right climbed into … law enforcement and ordinary Americans, calling them racists, ignoring the damage done to their property and person.

TREASON?

“Republicans refused even to defend the principle of equality under the law, the foundation of this country, the most important thing we have. Not defend it. Really, in the end, the only people who gave anything in the revolution were the ones waging it. Our leaders, very much including a Republican leaders, shamefully, were focused on meeting their demands. So what should we conclude from what we just saw? The message unfortunately could not be clearer. Voting is for fools. You vote, you put these people into office with their votes, and in return they patronize you and when it matters, they abandon you. They have contempt for you, you know they do, you can smell it, it’s obvious. Voting doesn’t work. But when you riot and you burn things and you hurt people, you get a very different response.”

“Republicans have let millions of Americans down.”

MORE: “Tucker Carlson Goes Off on Republicans for ‘Abandoning’ People in ‘Moment of Crisis’: Now ‘We Know Who They Are.’”

UPDATED (7/9): To Destroy respectfully.