Another RCOB?

Oh, why not:

Conservative French politicians expressed concern Thursday about the prospect of modern architecture being added to Notre-Dame cathedral after the government invited design proposals for a new roof and spire.
Politicians from France’s right-wing Republicans and far-right National Rally (RN) party called on the government to restore the cathedral exactly as it was before the devastating fire broke out on Monday evening.
French President Emmanuel Macron has set a five-year target for the reconstruction to be completed and has said ‘an element of modern architecture could be imagined.’

Of course  it could be imagined… in FrogPres Macron’s own tiny little Tranzi-modernist brain.  Amongst normal-thinking people, however, it would be a disgusting insult.

Towards the end of the linked article, there’s this thought:

One of the most controversial additions to Paris in recent times was the glass pyramid built in front of the Louvre palace in central Paris.
Hated by many Parisians when it was unveiled by Chinese-American architect I. M. Pei, it has celebrated its 30th birthday and has become an attraction in its own right.

I remember standing outside the Louvre in (I think) 2005, chatting to an older French man who’d stepped outside for a cigarette.  I pointed at the pyramid and asked him what he and his friends thought of it.  He snorted.

“I tell you, mon ami,” he said, “if those Arab terrorists had flown an airliner into this  foul thing [cette chose répugnante], in France they would have been considered heroes and not terrorists.”

Here’s another take.

And from Michael Brendan Dougherty comes this exquisite sentiment:

“I promise right now. If you try to rebuild it as a ‘secular’ Notre Dame, reflecting the political priorities of 2019, I will do my damndest to see that the next fire takes it all down. I won’t come alone.”

Sign me up, Mike.

And Another Institution Burns To The Ground

Hardly had the smoke dissipated from the Notre Dame fire when this catastrophe befell us:

Classical masterpieces, orchestral prowess and sense of occasion have come to define the Proms over the years.
But purists may raise an eyebrow this time around – as the BBC plan to feature hip hop and break dancing.
This year, the concert series will include ‘The Breaks’ – a prom designed to ‘honour the global phenomenon of hip hop and breakbeat culture’. The concert – on September 6 – is likely to spark criticism from traditionalists.
But yesterday, Proms director David Pickard insisted the time was ripe for it as the divisions between musical genres are ‘being broken down’.
He said: ‘I think the Proms needs to reflect what is happening to music in 2019. DJing and concertos for turntables are now part of the classical world.’ But he warned the BBC would not ‘necessarily’ edit foul language if it is there in ‘a good artistic context’.

As an exercise in “artistic context”, I’d like to tie this little modernist milquetoast to a chair and beat him with heavy chains.

FFS, we don’t need more exposure to modern music — it assails our ears in shops, restaurants, malls, from passing teenagers’ inadequate headphones as they walk by us in the street, and from stereo speakers more valuable than the cars which encase them as they stand next to us at the traffic light.  And it is not repeat NOT “part of the classical world”, unless your idea of “classical” includes lyrics which refer to women as bitches and whores in every other line, and four times during the chorus.  It’s fucking jungle music — all beat and little melody — and if someone takes offense at the word “jungle”, I invite you to visit any part of the African wilderness and listen to the kind of music that is performed there, and explain to me the difference.  And now this swill is going to be featured at the Proms… and isn’t that  special?

What the Proms used to give the public was exposure to some of the greatest music ever created, music of exquisite beauty, unparalleled technical expertise and sophistication born of an unmatched cultural heritage — and boy, are we ever in need of more of that, these days.  Instead, we’re going to hear “songs” from some asswipe called N’Jiggy featuring overpowering bass, over-loud drums and underwhelming artistic value other than (you heard it here first) a few “sampled” fragments of Beethoven’s Ninth scatted around like diamonds in a pigsty.

Fuck that, I’m going to the range.  I may or may not affix a picture of David Pickard to the target.

What’s In A Name?

It’s a good thing that the Bard is no longer with us, or else his question might instead read:  “WTF is it with all these stupid names?” 

I’m not just talking about nicknames, where anything goes (e.g. Mike “The Situation” Sorrentino from Jersey Shores  — note:  unless you’re in the Mafia, the word “The” in your name is an infallible indicator of douchebaggery, see below).  Mostly, they’re a play on names — “Elizabeth” becomes “Biffy” and “Edward” becomes “Ned” — or else, in the case of men, they’re affectionate insults:  Booger, Shitbrain, Nostrils, Hairball etc.

First names, especially in the Afro-American community, seem to be in a tacit competition for grotesquery — Jamarcus, Al’iyaa, D’Ante, Shaniquita etc. — but even amongst the Lily-Whites, things have been getting out of hand.  Try to see how many variations you find, just in the ancient and beautiful name “Brittany”, for example;  I ran out of inspiration at six, after — I swear — “Bryttenee”.  (Rough guess is that neither of her parents are in possession of a PhD.)

The latest seems to be inside the rapper fraternity (not the brightest bulbs in the make-up mirror to begin with) who have names like Offset, The Weeknd [sic], 50 Cent and (my favorite name) 6ix9ine, and more.

In the old days — say, in the 1970s — first names actually meant something.  Girls were named after flowers (Rose, Daisy, Alison, Lily etc.), for example, and old names actually had a heritage (“Gwendolyn” means “beloved”).  My own name, Kim, was not even a name, but a title  (“Chieftain” in early Anglo-Saxon) which is why it can apply to both men and women.

These new naming “conventions” (if one could call them that) drive me scatty — literally, I sometimes feel like flinging poo off the balcony at random passersby — because they seem to be just random groupings of letters out of a Scrabble set;  but at the same time, I’m not suggesting some kind of control over name selection.  Just remember that it took the French until the 1970s to drop their restriction on first names — you could have any first name you wanted, provided that it was on the State-approved list of first names — and I’m certainly not supporting that silliness.

Know, however, that naming your little precious Tre’esha Taniqua will have an effect on her future career prospects.  And if all she knows is Ebonics, the “glass ceiling” will turn to concrete unless she becomes a groupie in 6ix9ine’s retinue.  Not that I care.  Someone  has to do that kind of work.

Quite Right

All sorts of trouble has come out of this:

A Danish politician claimed she was told her baby daughter was ‘not welcome’ in the parliament’s main chamber.
Far-right speaker Pia Kjaersgaard allegedly ordered Conservative politician Mette Abildgaard to remove her five-month-old baby from the room.
The mother, who is in her 30s, said she had never brought her daughter to work before, but she had to so that day because her father could not take care of her.

And Mr. Speaker is absolutely right.  When did it become acceptable for mommies to bring their brats into everywhere?  (I don’t even like seeing young children in bars, and the thought of a baby in the Parliament building… good grief.)

And the mommy in question had the absolute gall to say this:

Mrs Abildgaard also added she is entitled to a year’s maternity leave with full salary from the Parliament.

And you didn’t take it… why?  Surely the whole point of maternity leave is so that by the time it ends, the parent is capable of leaving the child in the care of someone not its parent.

This is total bullshit.  Maternity is a wonderful thing — but it’s not everything, and proud parents need to get a grip on that fact and realize that the world doesn’t revolve around them and their offspring.

Is it too early for gin?

Quote Of The Day

“We no longer glorify heroic deeds, we glorify heroic suffering.” — Greg Cochran

Yup.  To be a member of a “victimized” class (women, Blacks, LGBTOSHTFU, etc.) is the sine qua non of modern heroism.  But the holder of a Medal of Honor or Victoria Cross?  War criminal.

All of which reminds me:  it’s Range Day at this address.

Working Towards A Conservative Democracy

We are constantly being reminded that the United States is a representative republic (which it is) as well as being a liberal democracy (which is also true).  For the longest time, I’ve had the gnawing suspicion that the two concepts may be antithetical, nay even contradictory, and recent events have proven me correct.

The standard-bearers of the modern liberal democracy have tended towards the “liberal” part of the description, and their modernism has turned liberalism away from its classical roots (the Enlightenment) towards a more baleful and statist, ergo illiberal  ethos.  It is small wonder, therefore, that this modern liberalism is attacking both the “representative” and even “republic” towards a full democracy, into a government created by a national popular vote instead of a democracy limited by proportional representation.  (The sudden popularity of socialism — one of the more repressive governmental systems, is simply indicative of this intent, and the “democratic” prefix attached thereto is, like most of socialism, a figleaf to mask its true purpose.)

It seems clear that if we are to reverse this trend, we need to try to implement an antithetical alternative to the liberal democracy — that antithesis being a conservative democracy, as explained here by Yoram Hazony. I’m pretty sure that few if any conservative small-r republicans will take issue with this principle, for example:

Liberals regard the laws of a nation as emerging from the tension between positive law and the pronouncements of universal reason, as expressed by the courts. Conservatives reject the supposed universal reason of judges, which often amounts to little more than acceding to passing fashion. But conservatives also oppose an excessive regard for isolated written documents, which leads, for example, to the liberal mythology of America as a “creedal nation” (or a “propositional nation”), defined solely by certain abstractions found in the American Declaration of Independence or the Gettysburg Address. Important though these documents are, they cannot substitute for the Anglo-American political tradition as a whole—with its roots in Scripture and the English common law—which alone offers a complete picture of the English and American legal inheritance.

Yes.  The famous expression on the Statue of Liberty “Give me your tired, your huddled masses…” etc. is a lovely sentiment, but it is not policy  which allows untrammeled immigration, nor does it confer a “right to immigrate to the United States” upon the rest of the world’s populace.

Read the whole thing.  It’s really long, but it has to be — overturning a liberal democracy and reverting to a conservative one does not lend itself to bumper-sticker aphorisms so beloved by the Left.

And overturn it we must, in order to return to the proud Anglo-Saxon heritage that is the foundation of our Western civilization.


Afterthought:  note the emphasis placed on religion — most specifically, Christian religion — by Hazony.  I should point out that I, an atheist, have absolutely no issue with it.  I am a conservative first, an atheist second, and I treasure the Christian values of our heritage and their foundation of our culture.  That said, the values I treasure are also the traditional  aspects of Christianity and not the modern-day travesty they have become.  My conservatism is all-embracing.