August 22, 2011

Starkey strikes back

English historian David Starkey writes in The Telegraph:
Instead, I was trying to point out the very different patterns of integration at the top and bottom of the social scale. At the top, successful blacks, like David Lammy and Diane Abbot, have merged effortlessly into what continues to be a largely white elite: they have studied at Oxbridge and gone on to Oxbridge-style careers, such as that of an MP. 
But they have done so at the cost of losing much of their credibility with blacks on the street and in the ghettos. And here, at the bottom of the heap, the story of integration is the opposite: it is the white lumpen proletariat, cruelly known as the “chavs”, who have integrated into the pervasive black “gangsta” culture: they wear the same clothes; they talk and text in the same Jafaican patois; and, as their participation in recent events shows, they have become as disaffected and riotous. 
Trying to explain why, led me to what all my friends agree was my greatest error: to mention Enoch Powell. Tactically, of course, they are right, as the “Rivers of Blood” speech remains, even 40-odd years after its delivery, an unhealed wound. 
Unfortunately, the speech and still more the reaction to it, are also central to any proper understanding of our present discontents. For Powell’s views were popular at the time and the London dockers marched in his support. The reaction of the liberal elites in both the Labour and Tory parties, who had just driven Powell into the wilderness, was unanimous: the white working class could never be trusted on race again. The result was a systematic attack over several decades: on their perceived xenophobic patriotism, on symbols like the flag of St George, even – and increasingly – on the very idea of England itself. 
The attack was astonishingly successful. But it left a void where a sense of common identity should be. And, for too many, the void has been filled with the values of “gangsta” culture.

Read the whole thing.

There's an odd scene in the comic novel Bridget Jones, where to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Britain's victory over Nazi Germany in May 1995, Bridget and her media friends want to throw a party. But when Bridget suggests using flags in the party decor, her pals are shocked by her sudden outbreak of hooligan racism and the party is called off.

You have to be pretty well indoctrinated to be revolted by your country's flag on the 50th anniversary of your victory over Hitler.

114 comments:

Aaron in Israel said...

A very good article by Starkey. He did what he should have done in the TV discussion: he clarified his argument in response to misunderstandings. I hope it's not too late for the dialog - and it was a dialog, no matter how garbled - to move forward.

I especially liked his call for a multiracial English nationalism. I think that's the only hope for America as well, at this point. It's extremely significant that he said nationalism and not patriotism. I hope that point doesn't get lost.

Anyway, the ball is in his opponents' court. Before, they misunderstood his badly phrased argument. Now there's no excuse for them not to give a charitable, substantive response. I'll be pleasantly surprised if that happens.

Anonymous said...

There is an England-shaped hole in the middle of Starkey's white Congolese.
Gilbert P.

RS said...

I didn't read the whole response by Starkey, but it seems really quite excellent.

Oik said...

Wow!

Your link to Starkey's article is the first time I've read it and he is spot on in so many places.

However, when he states: But an English nationalism we must have. And it must be one that includes all our people: white and black and mixed race alike. he seems to be advocating a French model of integration over the multi-culturalist policies we've all grown to know and love.

First of all, it'll be difficult to turn this monster around and secondly, how is the French model of integration working out?

Carol said...

How sad to have neither religion nor pride in country. If I were English I would be terribly proud, but as it is my mother was born a British citizen in China and that's my only connection.

I noticed that the Beatles and other rockers born during the war always seemed rather diffident? or indifferent? about the ordeal, maybe picking up on their parents' weariness and loss. If they referred to it at all, it was the "the war, and all that.." And their lyrics were at best mocking of the old spirit. This may be more of the Powell effect.

Marlowe said...

It may be true of the kind of metropolitan media luvvies described in the Jones' book but the ordinary folk of Britain have no objection to the flag. Indeed, from the late 90s to today it has become ever more prominent although the St. George flag of England has been displayed far more, largely because of its association with the English national football team. The secession movements of Scotland and Wales, endorsed & encouraged by political devolution to their own national assemblies, a policy carried through by Tony Blair & the otherwise anti-nationalist, pro-EU Labour Party, widely fly their own national flags too. The real bugaboo of the British left is English nationalism, stoked by the rise of its Scottish rival and the coming referendum on the Union (which may result in the Scots succeeding from it) has London lefties quivering in their boots. The left will find it almost impossible to defend the Union (and its flag) given their revulsion at its history.

Marlowe said...

Blair also came to power on a strange wave of patriotic fervour, encouraged by his campaign managers, during the 1997 election which ended 17 years of Tory rule. A notorious picture exists of Mr Blair & his wife arriving at the door of no. 10 Downing Street before a large crowd of well-wishers all waving tiny Union flags. The crowd comprised specially selected Labour party members & supporters only and yet was presented to the media & public as a spontaneous demonstration. Downing St. is sealed off by bomb proof security barriers at both ends and armed police so no natural crowd could have reached the front door without prior arrangement. It demonstrates how Blair strove to use a national sentiment to his own ends while enacting policies conducive to the dismantling of the country as a sovereign state.

Anonymous said...

Scotland has been inoculated against the gangster culture and it's attendant violence? Or is gangster only spelled "gangsta?"

green mamba said...

Very heartening to see the guy stand up for himself and defend his statements - not by hedging by expounding upon them.

Also heartening to see that most of the Telegraph commenters agree with him. This would not be possible at any mainstream American publication.

Svigor said...

Instead, Miliband – the son of a refugee who fled from Nazi Europe to preserve his life and freedom of thought – agreed enthusiastically with the questioner. Mine were “racist comments”, he said, “[and] there should be condemnation from every politician, from every political party of those sorts of comments.”

See, that's how it's done, boys and girls. Bloody your opponent's nose first thing.

Odd, isn’t it, that Waterstone’s bookshop was the only business unlooted in the Ealing riots?

I shall take this opportunity to note that in the time I lived on the gentrification-ghetto border, books, unlike anything else, were always safe from theft. Eventually we took to leaving our cars unlocked and devoid of valuables to prevent breaking and theft, if not entering, but we left a pile of books in one for at least a month and it was never moved, much less stolen. We probably could have left a stack of bills hidden between their covers.

Trying to explain why, led me to what all my friends agree was my greatest error: to mention Enoch Powell. Tactically, of course, they are right, as the “Rivers of Blood” speech remains, even 40-odd years after its delivery, an unhealed wound.

This is how it's done, too. Use your opponent's demand for an apology to continue discussing the issue on your terms.

If all the people of this country, black and white alike, are to enter fully into our national story, as I desperately hope they will, they must do so on terms of reciprocity. In other words, I must be as free to comment on problems in the black community as blacks are to point the finger at whites, which they do frequently, often with justice, and with impunity.

Reciprocity is Kryptonite to leftoids. Hell, equality is Kryptonite to leftoids, but they mothballed it and substituted their own perverted doppelganger for it long ago.

As the hysterical reaction to my remarks shows, the witch-finders already have their sights on me, led by that pillar of probity and public rectitude, Piers Morgan, who called on Twitter for the ending of my television career within moments of the Newsnight broadcast.

Reciprocity, "witch-finders"...how many White Nationalist talking points is this guy going to borrow?

We are tired of being cheated and lied to by bankers and MPs and some sections of the press.

We will not continue, I think, to tolerate being lied to and cheated in the matter of race. Instead of “not in front of the children”, we want honesty.


"Not in front of the children"? He wasn't done borrowing, apparently.

Anonymous said...

What sense would it have made to have celebrated the most pyrrhic victory of modern times?

The only reason Churchill did not preside over the dissolution of the British Empire was that he was thrown out of office by the voters.

Robert in Arabia

Anonymous said...

Bridget Jones is a satiric comically-exagerated novel, not a naturalistic representation of British life.

Anonymous said...

All I know is Britain would have been a hundred times better off if it had stayed a mono-racial society after WW2.

Kylie said...

"You have to be pretty well indoctrinated to be revolted by your country's flag on the 50th anniversary of your victory over Hitler."

Or, as an officer of the law, to refuse to uphold the law and arrest rioting mobs attacking citizens your government has disarmed.

eh said...

It's a reasonably nice effort.

But one might ask: Since when has a rational, even eloquent, essay on the subject availed against racially sensitive political correctness? Typically, he mentions failed "integration" as the main problem, and the prescription for that is usually more public spending to help them 'integrate'; in that sense, the powers-that-be in the UK would probably be happy if they'd just continue to accept the generous handouts on offer and not riot in the future -- it'd be cheaper than paying extra for more 'integration'.

I guess going near HBD as the reason for this failure is too third-railish. Better to allow more of the UK to become third-worldish than risk mentioning that.

hyperhystorian said...

I've spent the past couple hours reading Enoch Powell's speeches, thanks to your mention of him. If only the USA had a comparable gutsy orator ...

The contemporary distinction between "interculturalism" -- essentially the old idea of melting pot -- and "multiculturalism" was new to me.

Anonymous said...

How dare he attempt to defend his racist bile? Why won't he just disappear into the ether?

Anonymous said...

The reaction of the liberal elites in both the Labour and Tory parties, who had just driven Powell into the wilderness, was unanimous: the white working class could never be trusted on race again


One of the most remarkable happenings of our time is the hatred which the white liberal elites have developed for ... white people. It's impossible to imagine William Gladstone or FDR hating the populations of their own countries, on racial grounds.


This is highly remarkable in its own right, but it is also remarkable in that it is not remarked on. Nobody comments on it - it would be like remarking on the air that we breath. But this change only came about in the last thirty years.

elvisd said...

Also from the Telegraph, working on a Steve theme:

"When we discuss “fatherlessness” in urban areas what we are talking about, effectively, is polygamy. And countless studies have shown that, the more polygamous a society, the more aggressive its males. Polygamous hunter-gather societies are absurdly violent.

Why? Because where male parental investment is low, the qualities that define a good male mate are strength, aggression and status. Where male parental investment is high, the most important quality becomes monogamy – because without it a woman’s children will starve. These qualities are partly hereditary, and on the male side this tendency for deadbeat lotharios to produce unfaithful sons was noted long before science dared to tread its feet into the field of evolutionary psychology. Science still cannot tell us to what degree male monogamy is influenced by nature; “allele 34” may influence vasopressin, the hormone associated with monogamy in male mammals, but then it may not (and even if it influences behaviour, men can still be “trained”)."

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100100485/the-riots-remind-us-that-polygamous-societies-are-naturally-violent/

ELVISNIXON.com said...

Sounds like America. CA students cannot wear anything displaying American flags during Cinco de Mayo without being sent home. The Mexifornian classmates accused them of "disrespecting" them and "our" holiday.

"...Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez asked two of them to remove their American flag bandannas, the Morgan Hill Times reported. two of the boys to remove American flag bandannas that they wearing on their heads and for the others to turn their American flag T-shirts inside out. When they refused, the boys were ordered to go to the principal’s office.
“They said we could wear it on any other day,” Daniel Galli said, “but today is sensitive to Mexican-Americans because it’s supposed to be their holiday so we were not allowed to wear it today.”
The boys said the administrators called their T-shirts “incendiary” that would lead to fights on campus.....to many Mexican-American students at Live Oak, this was a big deal. They say they were offended by the five boys and others for wearing American colors on a Mexican holiday.
“I think they should apologize cause it is a Mexican Heritage Day,” Annicia Nunez, a Live Oak High student, said. “We don’t deserve to be get disrespected like that. We wouldn’t do..."

What does that (and many other) "teachable moments" teach American students precisely?

Severn said...

the “Rivers of Blood” speech remains, even 40-odd years after its delivery, an unhealed wound.

I wonder what that means, exactly. The English people were pretty unanimous in their appreciation of that speech. If it is an "unhealed wound", it's an unhealed wound on the part of the left-wing establishment, which can never forgive the masses for their refusal to sing the Internationale and embrace socialism and the brotherhood of man.

Whiskey said...

Or more likely, an upper to middle class woman. Consider this, if you are a guy, working to middle class, you'd take pride in heck, male ancestors of yours beating Hitler. That's a guy thing like Baseball stats, or books about baseball stats, or movies starring Brad Pitt about baseball stats.

But women of the middle to upper class find that distasteful. Beat Hitler? How icky and "racist" because their female ancestors did not do much to beat him. Virginia Woolf famously opined that Hitler was no worse than a British soldier and she would not support the War Effort. If you are the Bridget Jones set, taking pride in beating Hitler is defacto "racist" because ordinary Beta White males did it, not multiculti PC driven activists and lawyers like the Colin Firth character or big shot media mavens like the Hugh Grant character. Its pretty revealing that Bridget chooses between the two SWPL archetypes of liberal men -- the activist and big shot.

Whiskey said...

Let me add, if you want to understand how people came to hate their own country, traditions, heroes, values, and the like, look no further than the commercial power of middle to upper class women, who by virtue of aggregate purchasing power and swing voting and general attitudes, have made nationalism akin to "racism."

It is as clear in this country as in England. You can see it in an episode of "Househunters International" on HGTV (very revealing) or the media-press-university loathing for nationalism (all those institutions are dominated one way or another by middle class / upper class White women).

Who themselves were shifted. Middle/Upper Class White women were the wellspring of patriotism, nationalist values, and the like. [Starkey is wrong to suggest a PC/Multiculturalist nationalism, no such thing is possible. Who will die for the Colors of Benetton?] Instead mass luxury consumer culture (driven by huge increases in middle/upper class women's disposable income) has inexorably moved to "foreign is good, traditional-nationalist bad." Like a trendy Coach bag or $500 pair of designer jeans. "Seven for All Mankind," or "True Religion?" Their names tell you the values they seek to evoke.

RWF said...

That article is why David Starkey won't be another Larry Summers style sacrifice to the gods of political correctness- he isn't going to start grovelling.

Garland said...

"You have to be pretty well indoctrinated to be revolted by your country's flag on the 50th anniversary of your victory over Hitler."

But that's what they were fighting against! Nationalism, racism, antisemitism. WWII is celebrated not because it was a victory of our nations over theirs but because it was a victory for liberalism over racism. It makes no sense for Bridget to celebrate the 50th anniversary of defeating racism by putting up symbols of racism. A hammer and sickle would have been appropriate, but not a symbol of white national identity.

hbd chick said...

@david starkey: "If all the people of this country, black and white alike, are to enter fully into our national story, as I desperately hope they will, they must do so on terms of reciprocity. In other words, I must be as free to comment on problems in the black community as blacks are to point the finger at whites, which they do frequently, often with justice, and with impunity."

lots o' luck with that one!

Anonymous said...

"That article is why David Starkey won't be another Larry Summers style sacrifice to the gods of political correctness- he isn't going to start grovelling."

Exactly, and that's what it takes.

ricpic said...

Very noble sentiments on Starkey's part. But has Starkey ever actually looked at the actual black man, or should I say black boy, on the street? I mean looked at the actual creature, not the idealization Starkey would like the creature to be, if only? Of course not. And so the argument goes back and forth round and round...and it's all in the air, way up in the air. Meanwhile, on the ground, stands the fact, the obdurate fact of the creature: a dull normal piece of violence imported by idiot idealists, who will not adapt. Ever. Yes, a fine pickle the high minded have gotten themselves into. And there's no getting out of it. Ever.

Henry Canaday said...

I love it. Scot low-lifes are so proud of their unique, booze-addled, drug-drenched, axe-murdering brand of low-lifeness that they decline to associate with gangstas of either black or white persuasion in the south. Craig Ferguson could get a week out of this.

Anonymous said...

@Aaron in Israel

We are all delighted, I'm sure, by your being delighted by Starkey's call for multiracial English nationalism.

Are we to infer that you are looking forward to a multiracial, multiethnic, multisectarian nation in Zion?

Or is that a different animal?

Brenda

Anonymous said...

But that's what they were fighting against! Nationalism, racism, antisemitism. WWII is celebrated not because it was a victory of our nations over theirs but because it was a victory for liberalism over racism.

I'm sure it would have been news to 100% of the people fighting on the Allied side in WWII to learn that they were fighting against nationalism, racism, and antisemitism. The purpose of the war was "reimagined" after it was over. The British who actually fought in WWII were at least as racist as the Nazis and Japanese. And the Americans didn't even allow "colored people" to fight.

The myth that WWII was a war against nationalism and racism is one of the more preposterous and implausible ones to ever be foisted on the public consciousness.

Anonymous said...

The problem with the Larry Summers thesis is that Larry Summers failed upwards.

His dismissal got him (yet another) powerful government appointment

Perhaps you meant Al Campanis?

ELVISNIXON.com said...

@Aaron in Israel: someone I have read coined a term for that concept: "Citizenism"


Hmmm who WAS that..?

Anonymous said...

English nationalism, by definition, excludes Africans, or 'blacks'. It's a total non-starter.

Anonymous said...

I especially liked his call for a multiracial English nationalism. I think that's the only hope for America as well, at this point. It's extremely significant that he said nationalism and not patriotism. I hope that point doesn't get lost.

The point isn't lost - it's incorrect. "Multiracial nationalism" is a contradiction in terms.

Nation connotes people united by consanguinity and congeniality.

What you're describing is some kind of xenocracy or imperialism ruling over multiple nations.

Laban said...

"has Starkey ever actually looked at the actual black man, or should I say black boy, on the street? I mean looked at the actual creature, not the idealization Starkey would like the creature to be, if only? Of course not."

He taught a few for a reality TV show. And told a few home truths.

Anonymous said...

What the guy is awesome for is not apologizing ala Watson and Stephanie Grace. Good job, Starkey. Brave through and through.

steve burton said...

"'Trying to explain why, led me to what all my friends agree was my greatest error: to mention Enoch Powell. Tactically, of course, they are right, as the “Rivers of Blood” speech remains, even 40-odd years after its delivery, an unhealed wound.'

"This is how it's done, too. Use your opponent's demand for an apology to continue discussing the issue on your terms."

Very perceptive remark by svigor. Starkey pivots beautifully from an ambiguous pseudo-apology to an unambiguous frontal assault. Nicely played.

Truth said...

"English nationalism, by definition, excludes Africans, or 'blacks'. It's a total non-starter."

Who does American nationalism exclude, everyone but Native Americnans?

Anonymous said...

English 'Chavs' have not quite embraced gangsta culture as much as Starkey suggests.

The three staples of real gangsta culture are street crime, rape, espcially gang rape, and guns.

English 'chavs' commit a lot less of these types of crime.

Eric said...

First of all, it'll be difficult to turn this monster around and secondly, how is the French model of integration working out?

The problem in France is the official line differs so much from facts on the ground. In reality there's very little actual integration, and immigrants are treated as a reserve labor force for which there are jobs only when the culturally French population is at nearly full employment.

The stupid "salad bowl" multiculturalism (which the UK bought into hook, line, and sinker) encourages that kind of thing.

Anonymous said...

"And here, at the bottom of the heap, the story of integration is the opposite: it is the white lumpen proletariat, cruelly known as the 'chavs', who have integrated into the pervasive black 'gangsta' culture: they wear the same clothes; they talk and text in the same Jafaican patois; and, as their participation in recent events shows, they have become as disaffected and riotous." Yes, that's what white guys are doing. But this is what white girls into black culture are doing. Indeed, Duggan was the son of such a white woman gone black. Maybe 'Porn Pop' should be a new category apart from Rock music. Or maybe it should be Cock music or Hump & Rump--as opposed to rock n roll.

Difference Maker said...

Aaron in Israel:
I especially liked his call for a multiracial English nationalism.

A multiracial England will benefit the same as a multiracial Israel.

Sword said...

Whiskey wrote:
Let me add, if you want to understand how people came to hate their own country, traditions, heroes, values, and the like, look no further than the commercial power of middle to upper class women, who by virtue of aggregate purchasing power and swing voting and general attitudes, have made nationalism akin to "racism."
--------

I sure would like it if some HBD woman would take one for the team, so that Whiskey would lose his virginity and quit that particular whining.

Anonymous said...

elvisd: riots-remind-us-that-polygamous-societies-are-naturally-violent

Holy Cow!

Did that appear in the print version of the Telegraph?!?

Whiskey: Instead mass luxury consumer culture (driven by huge increases in middle/upper class women's disposable income) has inexorably moved to "foreign is good, traditional-nationalist bad."

Whiskey, I think you need to consider the possibility that this is not necessarily something natural to women, but rather is a new longing which was [intentionally & artificially] planted within them by the e.g. the Frankfurt School and their ilk.

Going back to at least Marx & Engels, the Left has realized that women* formed the soft underbelly of any civilization, and that if the women could be corrupted [and if they also possessed the franchise via suffrage], then eventually the civilization would fall.

Ergo more than 150 years ago, you have Marx & Engels screaming about e.g. the "Emancipation of Women" and the dissolution of the family, after which the Frankfurt School just picked up where M&E had left off.

ricpic: Meanwhile, on the ground, stands the fact, the obdurate fact of the creature: a dull normal piece of violence imported by idiot idealists, who will not adapt.

In that regard, Fred Reed does not mince words in his latest essay.





*Women being creatures which lack any innate sense of the difference between right and wrong - creatures who must be taught that difference [by the men in their lives].

The problem, of course, is when [ostensibly] moral men shirk their duty to teach women the difference between right & wrong, and thereby leave a pedagogical vacuum which immoral men, such as the Frankfurt School nihilists, are all too happy to fill.

Anonymous said...

During the heyday of British Imperialism, Brits tried to suppress nationalisms among their subject peoples and fill them with pride in being part of the British Empire. "Don't be bloody pride of being an Hindu; be proud of being a citizen of the British Empire!"
Back then, Brits suppressed nationalisms of OTHER peoples while pumping themselves with their own nationalist pride. Non-Brits, unlike Brits, were to take pride in being ruled by the glorious and noble Brits.

Now, it's as if the process has reversed itself. Brits suppress their own nationalism while allowing their nation to be conquered by non-British peoples who are then encouraged to feel great pride in their Jamaican-ness, African-ness, Muslim-ness, Hindu-ness, etc in the name of 'multi-culturalism'.

Have the Brits simply gone bonkers? Or, is it a sign that the Britain is now a colonial outpost of American globalism(dominated by Jews)? If Britain(and much of Europe)is indeed a colonial outpost(financially, militarily, intellectually, culturally, musically, morally) of the globalist elites, then it is in the interest of globalists to indeed suppress British national pride(just as Brits had once suppressed Hindu and African national pride). Brits today are NOT to take pride in British nationalism but in being part of the 'global community' controlled by NWO elites. And if British elites play along, they get special toys and prizes--just like Indian elites who accepted and collaborated with British overlords got special privileges over most of their own kind.

Anonymous said...

Jewish power is a very shadowy thing, and Jewish neurosis reflects it. On the one hand, Jews are the most powerful people in the world; on the other hand, they are the most vulnerable among the great powers. Chinese have China, Russians have Russia, Japanese have Japan, Mexicans have Mexico, Canadians have Canada, Germans have Germany, etc. Jews have dinky little Israel, which really isn't much; Jewish power isn't firmly located in one sure/secure spot but spread out all over the world. It is these internationalist and globalist links that maintain, preserve, and expand Jewish power. Goy nationalism and firm borders, then, is the biggest threat to Jewish power, which explains why Jews are for 'free trade', 'open borders', UN and international organizations(which they control), media, etc against the forces of nationalism. In the West, manufacturing used to be conservative, with white employers hiring white employees. Now, many US manufacturers are cut off from their own people as they build factories in Mexico and China.
It is a form of Jewish imperialism, and we are all under its spell. Brits too.

Anonymous said...

He fails to mention that though educated blacks have melded into white upper crust society, both elite blacks and elite whites also indulge in trashy pop culture, morally support black thug culture, ceaselessly denounce white 'racism', promote PC and censorship, etc.

He should know because the black woman he argued with on the TV show was one of those haute blacks who 'effortlessly' integrated with white society. Such people may have better manners but in terms of ideology and manners, they are no better than Duggans of the world.

Same here. Obama may act nicer and be 'clean cut'. But he too pushes political correctness, afro-motive action, and anti-white agenda. In a way, such Trojan horses are more dangerous cuz they feed the lie that most blacks can culturally meld with whites on white terms--and effortlessly too. So, Starkey is deluded too.
But when I see Obama and Michelle, I see and smell a fraud. Eric Holder too.

Paul said...

The myth that WWII was a war against nationalism and racism is one of the more preposterous and implausible ones to ever be foisted on the public consciousness.

Explain, then, why Britain and France declared war on NATIONAL socialist Germany for invading Poland, but gave INTERNATIONAL socialist Russia a pass for doing the same thing?

While vast majority of the soldiers fighting in WW2 were fighting for nationalism, you cannot deny the fact that the intelligentsia blamed "nationalism" for the slaughter of WW1.

David said...

"You have to be pretty well indoctrinated to be revolted by your country's flag on the 50th anniversary of your victory over Hitler."

Out of the ballpark.

(The explanation, of course, is that elites consider all normal whites as neo-Nazis - as the same kind of people who caused the trouble in WW2.)

Kylie said...

"@Aaron in Israel

We are all delighted, I'm sure, by your being delighted by Starkey's call for multiracial English nationalism.

Are we to infer that you are looking forward to a multiracial, multiethnic, multisectarian nation in Zion?

Or is that a different animal?

Brenda"


Brava, Brenda!

David said...

I like the part where he says "we" (normal whites?) will no longer tolerate being lied to on racial matters "by bankers."

Gives ya the feeling he knows more than he's saying - but no more than what large parts of the population are thinking.

Anonymous said...

"CA students cannot wear anything displaying American flags during Cinco de Mayo without being sent home. The Mexifornian classmates accused them of "disrespecting" them and "our" holiday."


Can they wear something with a French flag? The teachers today are so ignorant they probably wouldn't even get it. The Mexicans may have beat the French at the Battle of Puebla, but the French won the war.

Svigor said...

No upper middle class women in Israel or Japan (and DEFINITELY no "beta males" in Japan for the upper middle class chix to HATE HATE HATE). Or Germany. That's why they don't have an immigration/xenophilia problem.

Upper middle class women run the America (the media in particular), not the (40% Jewish) Forbes 400.

David Gelbaum, upper middle class SWPL chick.

Thanks Whiskey!

P.S., love how you refurbished your stupid schtick to hone in solely on upper middle class white women. Not upper middle class yellow women, upper middle class Jewish women, upper middle class sepia women, etc. Please do explain to us what it is about white upper middle class women that explains this? What is this X-factor, that upper middle class women of yellow or Jewish extraction lack?

Can you explain why Japan, stuffed to the gills with "beta males" the culture-dominating upper middle class Japanese women simply must HATE HATE HATE has trivial immigration, and zero non-yellow immigration?

This seems to be a big hole in your hare-brained "theory."

P.P.S. to the gallery, Whiskey does not target upper middle class white women with his schtick, he targets white men of the sort that read political blogs that go off the reservation.

Anonymous said...

Starkey says its not skin color its culture; that Britain needs a multiracial nationalism--but then calls for honest talk about race...huh?

Vanishing American said...

'Anonymous' at 1:23, and 'Marlowe', seem to be the only ones noting the difference between English and British.

Anonymous is absolutely right; English nationalism excludes all but ethnic English, people descended from English ancestors. I don't know why this point is lost on so many people.
British is a civic identity, not an ethnic one, and not exclusive in the same sense as 'English'. Whoever has British citizenship can be called 'British' but only people of English ancestry are English.
Starkey is either deliberately blurring the meaning of 'English' or he is missing the point.

Currahee said...

"But that's what they were fighting against! Nationalism, racism, antisemitism. WWII is celebrated not because it was a victory of our nations over theirs but because it was a victory for liberalism over racism.

I'm sure it would have been news to 100% of the people fighting on the Allied side in WWII to learn that they were fighting against nationalism, racism, and antisemitism. The purpose of the war was "reimagined" after it was over. The British who actually fought in WWII were at least as racist as the Nazis and Japanese. And the Americans didn't even allow "colored people" to fight.

The myth that WWII was a war against nationalism and racism is one of the more preposterous and implausible ones to ever be foisted on the public consciousness."

8/22/11 1:09 PM

Yes, and thank you.

RKU said...

Svigor: Reciprocity is Kryptonite to leftoids. Hell, equality is Kryptonite to leftoids, but they mothballed it and substituted their own perverted doppelganger for it long ago...Reciprocity, "witch-finders"...how many White Nationalist talking points is this guy going to borrow?..."Not in front of the children"? He wasn't done borrowing, apparently.

Pretty funny. As far as I can tell, that Starkey fellow is really just some sort of moderate liberal, and his Telegraph piece was just a defense of moderate liberalism. But the political universe has gotten so totally weird these days that a mere defense of moderate liberalism is on the one hand viciously denounced as the vilest sort of horrible "racism" and on the other hand, heavily praised as using talking points borrowed from White Nationalism. Ha, ha, ha.

I'll bet that if some completely apolitical professor of applied engineering got out his tape measure and his Excel spreadsheet and announced to the world that yes indeed, men were (on average) somewhat taller than women, all of modern feminist ideology notwithstanding, the shocked KKK would praise him as their greatest ideological hero, and offer to run him for President on their national ticket...

travis said...

But this is only the beginning. The riots are the symptom of a profound rupture in our body politic and sense of national identity. If the rupture is not healed and a sense of common purpose recovered, they will recur – bigger, nastier and more frequently.

England has always been a tough neighborhood. Here's how Charles Dickens sums up the place in 1775 -- in two magnificent sentences:

"In England, there was scarcely an amount of order and protection to justify much national boasting. Daring burglaries by armed men, and highway robberies, took place in the capital itself every night; families were publicly cautioned not to go out of town without removing their furniture to upholsterers' warehouses for security; the highwayman in the dark was a City tradesman in the light, and, being recognised and challenged by his fellow-tradesman whom he stopped in his character of "the Captain," gallantly shot him through the head and rode away; the mail was waylaid by seven robbers, and the guard shot three dead, and then got shot dead himself by the other four, "in consequence of the failure of his ammunition:" after which the mail was robbed in peace; that magnificent potentate, the Lord Mayor of London, was made to stand and deliver on Turnham Green, by one highwayman, who despoiled the illustrious creature in sight of all his retinue; prisoners in London gaols fought battles with their turnkeys, and the majesty of the law fired blunderbusses in among them, loaded with rounds of shot and ball; thieves snipped off diamond crosses from the necks of noble lords at Court drawing-rooms; musketeers went into St. Giles's, to search for contraband goods, and the mob fired on the musketeers, and the musketeers fired on the mob, and nobody thought any of these occurrences much out of the common way. In the midst of them, the hangman, ever busy and ever worse than useless, was in constant requisition; now, stringing up long rows of miscellaneous criminals; now, hanging a housebreaker on Saturday who had been taken on Tuesday; now, burning people in the hand at Newgate by the dozen, and now burning pamphlets at the door of Westminster Hall; to-day, taking the life of an atrocious murderer, and to-morrow of a wretched pilferer who had robbed a farmer's boy of sixpence."

Anonymous said...

"That article is why David Starkey won't be another Larry Summers style sacrifice to the gods of political correctness- he isn't going to start grovelling.

If he wants a multiracial society, he is already grovelling it seems. Did he call for a cut off of all immigration for 3rd world countries?

Anonymous said...

"The problem in France is the official line differs so much from facts on the ground. In reality there's very little actual integration"

The problem actually is that there are immigrants in France.

Anonymous said...

", but not a symbol of white national identity."

That's what England is: a white country. They thought of themselves as separate from Wales, Scotland etc..

Anonymous said...

The secession movements of Scotland and Wales, endorsed & encouraged by political devolution to their own national assemblies, a policy carried through by Tony Blair & the otherwise anti-nationalist, pro-EU Labour Party, widely fly their own national flags too

There is a theory that that the Celtic nationalisms are pandered to as they diminish the power of the UK. The remaining smaller states are weaker, more amenable to the EU project, to globalsim.

That leaves the intractable problem of the English. TPTB would like to break England up too, into more digestable portions, they havent figured out a way yet, hence no English nationalism allowed.

Its notable that Irish men in the IRA used kill and be killed to reject English/British political power. One that in many ways didnt impact on their daily life. But Dublin today is rushing to 3rd world demographics as fast as London and thats from a much later start.

And what does the IRA do?

Nothing.

Funny sort of nationalists.

Almost as if their only purpose was to diminsh Britian but job done, they do nothing to preserve Ireland.

Weslh nationalists used to burn down 2nd homes/holiday homes they believed belonged to English people. The argument was they were depriving Welsh people of homes, and the English in general were culturally dominating the Welsh, undermining the Welsh language and so on.

Yet now Wales is host to ever more thousands of asian muslim immigrants. They certainly bring their own culture, religion etc. They will achieve in a few generations what the English are accused of and failed to do in hundreds of years.

So how many times have Welsh nationalists attacked muslim property?

That would be zero times as far as I know.

Again a starnge sort of nationalism, it served its purpose, undermining the union, now the EU, globalisation, race replacement program can proceed.

It reallt does seem if Irish, Welsh and for all I know Scottish nationalism are really top down projects all along. Designed to reach certain ends, while being deniable all along.

Anonymous said...

UK is a colonial outpost of American globalism? No the seat of globalism is Europe.

ALL modern American politicians who aspire to the top levels are on their knees to the Bilderbergers. That is reality. The Bank of International Settlements, BIS, is the headquarters of the global NWO empire, and it's in Europe.

Kylie said...

From Starkey's article:
"But an English nationalism we must have. And it must be one that includes all our people: white and black and mixed race alike."

Unbelievable.

Anonymous said...

The real bugaboo of the British left is English nationalism, stoked by the rise of its Scottish rival and the coming referendum on the Union (which may result in the Scots succeeding from it)

Some opinion polls have shown a majority of Scots wanting to keep the Union. Many of them realise that without English tax payers to pay the bills, the Scottish socialist enterprise will fail. Its also unfashionable for Scots to admit any sentimental attachment to the Union in public, yet I think some of that must be there too.

There was a time when the SNP may have hoped that the EU would rain down money on them as it had Ireland, to replace the English money. That gravy train has well and truly crashed into the buffers though.

The other problem is the British left in general.

Without Scottish MPs, most of whom are Labour the remaining English MPs would be majority Tory. Im not sure how many elections this go back but I believe England has been voting majority Tory for a while.

Scot Nats and British lefties generally like to think that Scotland is a naturally socialist country but I think that is quite a recent idea. Probably of the same vintage as England as a naturally conservative country.

In a 1950s general election the Tories won over 50% of the popular vote in Scotland, not MPs, actual votes. The other 40 odd per cent being shared by Labour, Liberals and Nationalists.

So the Britsh left generally want to keep the Union. English Labour would be defeated at the polls for the with Scottish votes, at least in the short to medium term. The Scottish left in turn can see that running an impovershed Scotland wouldnt be much fun.

Anonymous said...

. . . but the French won the war.

And that's why a descendant of Emperor Maximilian rules as Emperor of Mexico today.

Aaron in Israel said...

Dear Stupid Commenters,

Starkey did not call for integrating the Scots into the nation of Englishmen. That would have been ridiculous. And that is the analogy for integrating the Arab citizens of Israel into the nation of Jews (cf. "Canaanism"). So try to get your analogies straight.

If you're looking for a "gotcha" analogy, the multiracial English nationalism that Starkey called for is closer to the integration of Russian and other gentile immigrants in Israel (some of whom are non-Caucasian) into the Jewish nation. I support that.

I hope this helps correct your stupidity. I'll leave the last stupid word to you all, if you wish.

Re the non-stupid responses: A multiracial nation is not a contradiction in terms, if a nation is defined as a largest group of people sharing a myth of common ancestry. The nation of Israel itself (a.k.a. the Jewish people) is multiracial.

Nationalism, multiracial or otherwise, is not citizenism; nationalism is antithetical to citizenism. Sailer has explicitly modeled citizenism on publicly owned corporations, where the directors' fiduciary responsibility is to their current stockholders. That is not multiracial nationalism or any other kind of nationalism.

To follow up my own original comment, it seems that this Owen guy from the TV discussion did just what I hoped his side wouldn't do. He spent most of his article on whether or not Starkey's clarification correctly represented what Starkey said in the interview. It's time to forget the muddled TV discussion and move forward from Starkey's clearly written article. Let's see if any of Starkey's opponents are willing to do that.

Anonymous said...

Incredibly the UK actually has BETTER immigrants than we in the USA:

http://tinyurl.com/3k659uk

eh said...

Incredibly the UK actually has BETTER immigrants than we in the USA:...

I'm not so sure about the rest of the UK. But London in particular has quite many well-educated, multilingual Europeans -- as I've pointed out in the past...

Anonymous said...

Explain, then, why Britain and France declared war on NATIONAL socialist Germany for invading Poland, but gave INTERNATIONAL socialist Russia a pass for doing the same thing?

Are you serious?

For old-fashioned realpolitik reasons. Britain has spent the last several hundred years opposing the establishment of one major power on the European mainland, and France was likewise terrified of the rise of a powerful Germany.


you cannot deny the fact that the intelligentsia blamed "nationalism" for the slaughter of WW1.

You mean WWII I assume. After the war, maybe they did. They certainly did no such thing at the time. Even the "internationalist" Soviet Union hyped up Russian patriotism and nationalism in the middle of the war.

Anonymous said...

Chavs or Chamaicans?

Matra said...

Explain, then, why Britain and France declared war on NATIONAL socialist Germany for invading Poland, but gave INTERNATIONAL socialist Russia a pass for doing the same thing?

Probably because Germany was both more powerful than the USSR and closer to Britain and France so it was perceived as the primary geopolitical threat to both countries as it had been dating back to the early 1900s (ie before international socialism in Russia and national socialism in Germany).

Both Britain and France were ready to go to war against the USSR after Stalin invaded Finland. Though I suppose even in that case they probably had Germany on their minds as much as the USSR..

After WW2 neither Britain nor France were in a position to do much for Poland.

Simon in London said...

Re Starkey's call for multi-racial nationalism - I'm not sure this means he's a proposition-nation neocon. A country can have a recognised ethnic core (indigenous English) at the same time as some people of other ethnies are part of and loyal to the country. Historically I'd think that was very common. So I'm not sure it's right to criticise him from an ethnonationalist perspective; he wasn't calling for more immigration or anything that would harm England or the English.

And I think his call for English nationalism is both right and practical. When it comes to black Christians, Hindu Tamils and other non-Muslim immigrants, the powers that be wish them to be 'British' patriots, but officially they can't be 'English' because they're not ethnic English and because England Is Bad. Yet IME they often cleave happily to the folkways of England, and eagerly wave England flags when the national team is playing, but have no wider sense of 'British' identity. Some Muslims are an exception, because many seem actively hostile and they certainly won't wave England's crusader flag.

Probably a more important point by Starkey concerned the indigenous English's sense of identity. He contrasted Yorkshire/Sheffield with Midlands/Birmingham. I've lived in Sheffield and then Coventry (Midlands) in the '90s, and the contrast was shocking. Yorkshire people might be miserable but they had a strong sense of identity comparable to my own people back in Ulster, whereas people in Coventry had nothing (working class London is more complex). This made them helpless in the hands of the State.

Antioco Dascalon said...

They celebrated another 50th anniversary in grand style, complete with rappelling Army Rangers, parachuting Navymen, giant Union Jacks, a brass band playing Jerusalem and Spitfires all at the White Cliffs of Dover (while making fun of the French, Aussies and Belgians): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLkEBRoilJ8&feature=related

Gotta love Top Gear.

Svigor said...

Pretty funny. As far as I can tell, that Starkey fellow is really just some sort of moderate liberal, and his Telegraph piece was just a defense of moderate liberalism. But the political universe has gotten so totally weird these days that a mere defense of moderate liberalism is on the one hand viciously denounced as the vilest sort of horrible "racism" and on the other hand, heavily praised as using talking points borrowed from White Nationalism. Ha, ha, ha.

The funny part is that you see a distinction that I don't, since I was thinking the same thing as I wrote the comment.

Anonymous said...

An entertaining story of diversity training from British copper's blog:

http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/2011/08/23/once-upon-a-time-in-the-west/

Anonymous said...

UK is a colonial outpost of American globalism? No the seat of globalism is Europe.
ALL modern American politicians who aspire to the top levels are on their knees to the Bilderbergers. That is reality. The Bank of International Settlements, BIS, is the headquarters of the global NWO empire, and it's in Europe.


Is this from Alex Jones?

Marlowe said...

I, too, lived in Coventry during the 1990s. The reason for its lack of a strong identity originates naturally enough with internal migration to the city during the post-war period. The economic boom of the 50s/60s brought a lot of outsiders to Coventry seeking employment in the car industry & adjacent trades and this new population swelled until it outnumbered the traditional Coventrians who traced their family lineage back to previous centuries and who became a minority. A good deal of the city's old buildings fell during the Luftwaffe bombing of 1940 and the post-war reconstruction effectively erased much of the old identity as well.

Bill said...

That Bridget Jones flag thing happened to me for real in 1995. I was involved in trying to set up a Victory in Europe day celebration at the London University I attended and the wackazoid lefty Students Union had a fit of apoplexy when they realised we were planning to display Union Jack flags.

They refused us permission to hold the event in their premises.

Anonymous said...

You're wasting your time here, Sailer. The whites in the US can't be trusted to look out for anything but their own short-term self interest: job & retirement for themselves. And the hordes of immigrants pouring into this country do so in populations large enough to be small countries. They will largely marry within their race/ethnicity which will preclude any sort of primary identity as Americans. The powers that be want a borderless world and so set these events in motion decades ago.

People being what they are, I'm sure reducing countries to mere economic regions will fall apart which will start the whole process of building actual nations all over again but you and I will be very old by then, Sailer. Why bother with putting your finger in the crumbling old dyke.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

Who does American nationalism exclude, everyone but Native Americnans?

Time will sort that one out. The takeaway point is, any number of disparate peoples cannot make a single nation. Ethiopia and Eritrea separated, the Balkan tribes, the Czechs and Slovaks, Sweden and Norway. The UK, Italy, Belgium and others will follow.

Speaking of Ethiopia, do you know their separate dialects are based on which clan they hail from? And that's the sort of raw material they tell us will constitute the New America.

America's constituent nations operate under an uneasy truce, kept by easy money and the full might of the federal government's propaganda organs and executive enforcement. That truce is fraying on the margins, as we see with the flash mob phenomenon. The money that keeps the peace is running out.

Truth said...

"The Mexicans may have beat the French at the Battle of Puebla, but the French won the war."

And they've been speaking French there since.

Kylie said...

"In that regard, Fred Reed does not mince words in his latest essay."

He doesn't mince words and he doesn't distort or exaggerate, either. Everything he describes in that essay I have seen first-hand over and over again in my years living among blacks.

I don't think most whites have any notion of just how limited the black world-view is. It is confined almost solely to the few blocks of their neighborhood with which they are familiar and to the few dozen people they know. Only concrete ideas hold any sway with them. It's not just that the vast majority of blacks don't get particular abstractions (like patriotism, altruism, neighborliness, etc.), they don't even know such things exist. And you can forget future orientation past, say, the idea of tomorrow. No, I'm not kidding or trying to be facetious.

The few blacks who do get such things seem unable to apply them to their own lives. It's like the way I understand when I see a word in, say, German, that I'm seeing a German word. That doesn't mean I know its meaning or can use it in a sentence.

The notion of our country have a "dialog on race" is ludicrous. My observation has been that black people's conversation is almost entirely on the mundane, the immediate and the concrete: subjects like who's got warrants out, what welfare officer is generous with vouchers, who beat up who, who's got food stamps to sell, etc.

Fred gets it; I wish more people did.

Svigor said...

As for "hilarity," I'll take being laughed at by my enemies (surely you qualify?) over being defeated by them.

Svigor said...

Whoops, wrong tab.

Unknown said...

@ Aaron in Israel

"Dear Stupid Commenters"

Charming salutation. You criticize Starkey for his clumsy rhetorical style on a five-minute TV segment, and now you show by example how things should be done.

"the integration of Russian and other gentile immigrants in Israel (some of whom are non-Caucasian) into the Jewish nation. I support that."

These “gentile” Russians may not be halachically Jewish but many have significant Jewish ancestry or are married to Jews. They surely experience societal, if not official, pressure to formally convert. This seems perfectly reasonable to me, by the way. Moreover, I don’t accept any assertion that Jews and Russians are different races as commonly understood.

“The nation of Israel itself (a.k.a. the Jewish people) is multiracial.”

This is absolute hogwash. Jews have ethnic inflexions perhaps, but multiracial they are not. Israel does keep a Potemkin Village of Ethiopians it disingenuously trots out to demonstrate its Universalist bona fides. The average Israeli Jew would rather subsist on communion wafers for the rest of his life then allow his children to marry into this group.

Brenda

Jack Aubrey said...

"Instead, Miliband – the son of a refugee who fled from Nazi Europe to preserve his life and freedom of thought"

"Freedom of thought": that's Starkey's subtle way of reminding people that Miliband's father was a Communist.

Londoner said...

OT: the England cricket team has been doing extremely well recently, and is now ranked #1 in the world. Unlike the mediocre England sides of the 1990s, which had numerous black and Asian players, it is exclusively white. On last night's edition of Newsnight (the programme on which Starkey made his controversial comments), a "British Asian" was given substantial air time to argue that the England team must be "helped to become less white" (I quote verbatim). Because many Pakistanis, Indians and Bangladeshis in England are enthusiastic cricketers, he argued, the England team absolutely must reflect this. He ignored the fact that players called Khan, Patel, Shahzad, Panesar, Shah and Rashid have all either played for England in the last few years or are now on the fringes of the squad. There is in fact no shortage of reasonably good Asian cricketers in England, but the current team is all white (not to mention unusually blond) and that is clearly unacceptable to this particular ethnic partisan.

The English presenter gingerly suggested that these "communities" usually owe their sporting and cultural allegiance to their country of origin rather than to England, something the British Asian cheerfully agreed with, but then argued that Asians should be AA'd into the England team anyway. There is apparently no urgent need to make the Indian or Pakistani teams "less brown", or the West Indies team "less black".

I know that cricket is not the sport of choice of most iStevers, but I thought that this might be of interest. The only positive note was that, in my subjective opinion, the guy's language - "helped to become less white" - came across as egregiously malicious - it really jarred. This kind of talk would not have been too remarkable, say, ten years ago, but multiculturalism is not the force it once was and I sense it raises more hackles now. Hope so anyway.

Luke Lea said...

Anonymous:

"Jewish power is a very shadowy thing, and Jewish neurosis reflects it. On the one hand, Jews are the most powerful people in the world; on the other hand, they are the most vulnerable among the great powers. Chinese have China, Russians have Russia, Japanese have Japan, Mexicans have Mexico, Canadians have Canada, Germans have Germany, etc. Jews have dinky little Israel, which really isn't much; Jewish power isn't firmly located in one sure/secure spot but spread out all over the world. It is these internationalist and globalist links that maintain, preserve, and expand Jewish power. Goy nationalism and firm borders, then, is the biggest threat to Jewish power, which explains why Jews are for 'free trade', 'open borders', UN and international organizations(which they control), media, etc against the forces of nationalism. In the West, manufacturing used to be conservative, with white employers hiring white employees. Now, many US manufacturers are cut off from their own people as they build factories in Mexico and China.
It is a form of Jewish imperialism, and we are all under its spell. Brits too."

Assuming that is true, is it a viable strategy over the long-term? I think not. It reminds me of the Jewish experiences in Poland and Spain -- works wonderfully for a while, but ends sadly. The difference is that then the world was based on exploitation of the peasantry, and the Jews "exploited" that situation as tools of the ruling class. In a democratic polity the better strategy would be to support the peasantry and stand up for their interests. The common people - a la Lincoln's Gettysburg address -- could, and should, be their rock and salvation -- not competing gentile elites who harbor latent hostility.

If I were in their shoes this is the way I would be thinking. But what do I know? I live in the sticks. [take note Abe Foxman! :) ]

Which I hope they will come

Anonymous said...

If non-whites in the past resisted white power because whites were too arrogant, contemptuous, and high-handed; non-whites today resist assimilation to white culture because whites are so wimpy, wussy, apologetic, self-loathing, and decadent. What passes for Western values today? Gay marriage? Worshiping a black guy as president of the most powerful nation in the world? And the sight of white people sucking up to Zionist powers-that-be in EU and US doesn't do much for respect for whites either.

Too much fear leads to hate. In the past, there was too much fear of white imperialists by non-whites, which led to anti-white hate.

Too little fear leads to contempt. Now, non-whites laugh at sappy whiteys. White elites seem to be apologizing all the time(and attacking white 'racists'), while worshiping Mandela, MLK, Oprah, and Obama. White masses seem to be shaking their asses to afro-jungle-thug music. HOw can anyone respect white people as a great people?

Respect comes from a mix of fear and admiration. In post-war Japan, Americans make it clear who was boss, and so Japanese feared Americans. But Americans were also just and fair IF Japanese were willing to play ball. So, Japanese feared and admired Americans, and that led to respect. That was the golden age of wasp power. It is now gone. Wasps had been a triumphant people. Now they are a therapeutic people.

David said...

>It reallt does seem if Irish, Welsh and for all I know Scottish nationalism are really top down projects all along. Designed to reach certain ends, while being deniable all along.<

Perhaps. But it's also true that the people of those isles have long been regarded as perfidious hypocrites.

The only ethical principles an average Englishman, Irishman, or Scotsman adheres to consistently are these:

1. Money = God;

2. The other fellow should neither spend money nor have sex; and

3. Anything that doesn't offend, directly or indirectly, against principles One or Two is permitted.

Anonymous said...

As an English person, part of the problem I would say, with migrations, is that English people, sadly, don't have much of a sense of history, and tend to think that culture is singing and dancing and having spicy food with a lot of ingredients per dish (rather than those being showy things that are more common at low latitudes), and so don't think they have a culture and basically assume everyone is like them except in ways flattering to the foreigners.

Plus England is a cosmopolitan place in many ways - the high musical, high art culture is pan-European and that is regarded as a common patrimony for the entire world, so there's no refuge there. And the way English people dress has been exported around the world, so English people can't hide a culture in a national dress either - there are no saris or qipaos because the country pioneered more modern forms of dress.

Which all creates this idea that England is cultureless and needs culturebringers.

Plus, for the Working Classes, it's a worse problem, they define their culture around manual labour and being good at that, and being tough and doughty and there's not much room for that these days - in addition to a kind of oppositionist Marxist response that is quite alien to most countries around the world (ex-Communist countries don't think in anything like the trenchant "We are Marx's proletariat!" way that the English Working Classes think, even if they don't necessarily even know who Marx was).

Anonymous said...

"As an English person, part of the problem I would say, with migrations, is that English people, sadly, don't have much of a sense of history, and tend to think that culture is singing and dancing and having spicy food with a lot of ingredients per dish (rather than those being showy things that are more common at low latitudes), and so don't think they have a culture and basically assume everyone is like them except in ways flattering to the foreigners."

We are living in the era of mass media and extreme gratification, and English culture--as rich, complex, and admirable as it is--, isn't conducive to winning over today's young people hooked onto culturgasms. To appreciate English culture, literature, and manners, one has to grow up in a certain hierarchy. Even critics of that hierarchy need to function within a hierarchy because satire is a form of art. It's not just grabbing the crotch and flipping the middle finger. I can't imagine kids today appreciating Swift or Orwell.

When UK had been securely British, the 'bad guys' seemed to be mostly British: the lords, the upper crust, the rich, the politicians, the bigots, etc.
So, British reformers saw non-whites as powerless allies with whom to make common cause against the Establishment.
It's like in an all-white school where the bullies, bigshots, and jerks are mostly white, blacks might be perceived and idealized as 'fellow oppressed' and 'comrades' by white kids who feel dejected. John Hughes grew up in the rich white suburbs, and so his idea of GREAT EVIL was some spoiled white kid while he romanticized about blacks and white proles--the kind of people he never met in real life.
But with recent riots, some Brits are waking up the fact that blacks in UK are not merely political props or puppets or allies of their imagination; the immigrant community is indeed a time bomb threatening all of Britain.

Regarding the British elites, we must keep in mind that people's resentments are often formed by personal reality than larger social reality.
For example, it may well be that most liberal Jews in America knew that blacks are a problematic people and that there were many admirable things about wasps. But as social climbers, more Jews were bound to compete with wasps than worry about black crime or craziness. So, for upwardly mobile liberal Jews, a wasp who wouldn't allow a Jew into a golf club or wouldn't allow his daughter to marry a Jew as a bigger reason for outrage and resentment than the fact of black crime(since most victims of black crime were not rich liberal Jews). People think ideologically but FEEL personally, and feelings oftentimes override ideas and knowledge of reality.
Since British elites live in their own cocooned world--and don't have to deal face-to-face with crime and other social problems--, their main emotional concern might be more about 'who has more than me' than 'who has less'.

So, even though blacks and chavs are causing problems from below, as long as those troubles remain among the underclass(and affect ordinary schmoes), the vain elites are fixated on 'who has more than me'. And to the extent that they feel rebellious against 'those who have more', the under-elites(or petite elites or mini-elites) may 'spiritually' identify and feel united with the underclass against the uber-elites(as John Hughes the nerd in privileged white school did).

Anonymous said...

We think liberal elites look down on us, but maybe liberal elites are more obsessed about looking up enviously to people who have even more. So, a millionaire liberal feels oppressed by a 100 millionaire liberal who may feel oppressed by a billionaire liberal. Even if they are all liberal, there's bound to be lots of resentment, especially if they went to the same schools. Suppose among Harvard buddies, some guy ends up making 200,000 a year while another guy is making 10 million a year. Suppose one Harvard grad girl marries a well-to-do accountant while another marries a super millionaire computer company CEO. So, everyone feels oppressed, and even the rich don't see the world in terms of 'we rich vs the poor' but 'we poor rich vs the rich rich'. So, the elites feel more threatened by other elites than by the masses of blacks or mexicans. On the eve of the French Revolution, the vain aristocrats were more worked up about inter-aristocratic rivalries and triviaies than the fact than that people wanted to chop their heads off.

In the past, when the rich and upper crust were rspected in UK, the under-elites may have felt resentment about the uber-elites, but the former identified with the latter. They wanted to be like their betters. Today, things are more schizo because under-elites, as in the past, wanna be like the uber-elites, but socio-morally they are supposed to identify with the masses and the oppressed poor.

PS. On social reality vs personal reality. Consider TINKER TAILER SOLDIER SPY. The traitor knew the USSR was oppressive and evil. So, why did he become a Soviet agent? Because the loss of British power/glory to the upstart Americans was PERSONALLY traumatic and humiliating for him. It didn't matter US was a better nation than USSR. It only mattered that Americans had reduced UK to their poodle and worked to strip UK of its empire.

I think we take things PERSONALLY too, on some level. Though many on the Right know Gaddafi is a scumsucker, some have rooted for him just to see him humiliate NATO that they've come to loathe.

Anonymous said...

Too little fear leads to contempt.

I have zero fear of Hungary, but I also have zero contempt for Hungary.

I have zero fear of my mom, but I also have zero contempt for my mom.

Your axioms are seriously flawed at best.

Anonymous said...

Another example of the fine gentlemen coming into the USA.

LA Times reports:"A man who allegedly made threats to bomb a Los Angeles County social service office in El Monte because his benefits were terminated has been charged in connection with the incident, police said Tuesday.

Jose Guillermo Zepeda Parra, 32, who lives in the Harbor City neighborhood of Los Angeles, is charged with calling the county Department of Public and Social Services on Aug. 12 and making the threats, the El Monte Police Department said.

Parra, police said in a statement, "was upset because his benefits were terminated."..

It is so SAD that this "UNDOCUMENTED 'Worker'" had his benefits cut.

How will he pay for his neck tattoos?


http://tinyurl.com/3ppw743

Anonymous said...

"I have zero fear of Hungary, but I also have zero contempt for Hungary. "

Are you being 'racist' against Magyars again?

Londoner said...

As others have noted, English nationalism is a strongly ethnic phenomenon.

For years, decades even, we have been fed Britishness as a quasi-national identity - always defined by the elites in terms of meaningless abstractions such as "tolerance", "diversity", "fair play" etc, while Englishness has been maligned as the worst kind of racism or (preferably) not mentioned at all. But Blair's gang of reptilian bullies released the genie from the bottle in the 1990s by pandering in every conceivable way to Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish interests while simultaneously trying to legislate England out of existence, not to mention replacing its people through mass immigration. In fact English identity - symbolised by the Cross of St George and the rejection of the Union Flag - had been resurgent since even before Blair came to power, but he inadvertently guaranteed that it would take hold. Ever since then I have regarded myself as English and English only, and ceased to see myself as British in any sense other than a legal one (which I hope will also cease with the break-up of the United Kingdom).

For quite some time it's been fashionable and ok to be "Black British", "British Asian" etc - the nebulousness and meaninglessness of Britishness has facilitated these hyphenated identities - but the rise of Englishness and the rejection of Britishness by the English has effectively pulled the rug from under these identities - there is no such thing as "Black English" or "English Asian" and everybody knows it. These groups are welcome to feel as British as they like - but they must understand that the English no longer do.

Presumably at some point the powers that be will attempt to re-imagine Englishness on our behalf as a rootless abstraction of identity rather than a viscerally ethnic one, but their preferred strategy for now is to deny, suppress and smear it - which of course only serves to make it more intractable. And all the while the hyphenated communities realise that the "British" with whom they share a nominal link are melting away like snow on a dyke and in their place are emerging the English, whose identity will not, cannot hyphenate.

Sport does afford some measure of interracial unity, but it is limited. the England football team has a permanent minority of black players, but these are becoming noticeably lighter-skinned as time passes, and no other non-white ethnicities are ever represented (they don't play football). I sense that as blacks have abandoned cricket over the past twenty years, so they may now be abandoning football in favour of American sports/general non-sporting (sport is too white!) thuggishness. So that little (and superficial) common identity may also disappear. Ethnic retrenchment is coming, if it isn't already under way. It's still an unspeakable taboo, of course, but it won't stay so forever.

So Starkey's dream of a multi-racial nationalism - if indeed he is serious about it and not merely trying to placate the multiculti mafia - seems pretty far-fetched to me. It doesn't and won't exist.

Anonymous said...

Too little fear leads to contempt.

"I have zero fear of Hungary, but I also have zero contempt for Hungary."

"I have zero fear of my mom, but I also have zero contempt for my mom.
Your axioms are seriously flawed at best."

Well, you can say the same thing about squirrels and earthworms.
But we aren't talking about just anything.

We are talking about POWERS THAT BE that want respect. For a POWER to command respect, there has to be an element of fear--physical, political, legal, physical, and/or moral.
Can you imagine anyone worshiping a powerless god? No, a god must be feared. But if a god is to be truly respected, it must also be admired(and seen as just).
Same goes for POWERS THAT BE.

Anonymous said...

"Rivers of bloods" sounds a bit ripe. Maybe Powell should have something like flames of anarchy.

Anonymous said...

Maybe this should be called the SNOOPY NIGHTMARE SYNDROME. Remember 'What a Nightmare Charlie Brown' where Snoopy has a nightmare about being an Eskimo sled dog? Snoopy is a civlized dog because he lives in the human world. He reads, he writes, he ice skates, he celebrates Christmas, he cooks, etc. Snooper can be a civlized dog because he conforms to a world created and maintained by orderly humans. But one day, he bakes and eats too many pizzas and his stomachache leads to a nightmare where he finds himself in the Arctic with a bunch of Eskimo dogs or malamutes that are almost wolf-like. Snoopy's high-faultin ways are of no use here where might-is-right and muscle-is-bustle. With no protection from Charlie Brown and the civilized world, the only way Snoopy can cope is to become vicious himself. He even begins to howl like a wolf. Britain used to have poor people and social violence, but there was a very strong hand of order(sometimes brutally applied). And the lower orders feared, respected, and looked up to their social betters for instructions and as a model. But with breakdown of family, spread of trash pop culture, Negro-ization of society, and suppression of British pride and honor, the Chavs are turning into what the Snooper became in his nightmare.

The Snoopy cartoon is just fantasy, but here's a real-life story of beagles going feral and savage. In a way, the difference between whites and blacks is like between dogs and wolves. Same species but very different breeds. Like wolves, blacks are stronger, bigger, and more aggressiv(and harder to tame or civilize)than white folks. Whites are like German Shepherds and Collies, Asians are like smaller breeds. One difference in the analogy is that blacks are not smarter than whites though wolves are smarter than dogs(or most breeds of dogs). But even if wolves are smarter, their wild temperament makes it near impossible to guide their intelligence for constructive stuff like 'dog tricks'. Wolves are 'intellectually' capable of learning tricks but temperamently unsuited for such stuff, just like even smart blacks often get distracted by too much aggressive funky-jive stuff. Wolves and (even smart)blacks wanna whatever they feel like, which is usually to hunt and mark territory.
Anyway, with the introduction of the wolf-race into UK and breakdown of social order, the the dog-race(whites) are becoming feralized and recognizing the wolf-race as the alpha race. In the world of ferality, the bite is might.

Truth said...

Well now, you don't see a two-page hyperlink just everyday, now do you?

ben tillman said...

"Rivers of bloods" sounds a bit ripe. Maybe Powell should have something like flames of anarchy.

It was a literary allusion.

ben tillman said...

Assuming that is true, is it a viable strategy over the long-term? I think not. It reminds me of the Jewish experiences in Poland and Spain -- works wonderfully for a while, but ends sadly.

Once in a while a Jew will write a book that makes this point. A good one, which I recommend to you is Benjamin Ginsberg's The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State. Does the principle of "gambler's ruin" apply to the cycle of Jewish booms and busts?

Kylie said...

"Ever since then I have regarded myself as English and English only, and ceased to see myself as British in any sense other than a legal one (which I hope will also cease with the break-up of the United Kingdom)."

Good for you, presuming, of course, that you are white. I entertain similar hopes for the unfortunately reunited States.

In Liberia, one cannot hope to become a citizen (leaving aside the question of why any sane and civilized person would entertain such a hope) unless one is a Negro.

Our elites, along with non-whites, want us to play by the set of rules they impose on us while they remain free to play by an entirely different set, funded of course by us.

It's fundamentally unjust and unsustainable in the long run.

Kylie said...

"OT: the England cricket team has been doing extremely well recently, and is now ranked #1 in the world. Unlike the mediocre England sides of the 1990s, which had numerous black and Asian players, it is exclusively white...I know that cricket is not the sport of choice of most iStevers, but I thought that this might be of interest."

It is of interest, thanks.

I love what I guess you'd call cricket's historical and cultural associations. Would you believe I've read the "cricket poetry" entry in Wikipedia? Thompson's "At Lords", Newbolt's "Vitai Lampada" speak to me of a tradition that many find laughable today but I continue to find laudable.

Anonymous said...

Damn, anonymous at 1:24 AM, if you don't know how to post a hyper link, please don't.

Anonymous said...

We are talking about POWERS THAT BE that want respect. For a POWER to command respect, there has to be an element of fear--physical, political, legal, physical, and/or moral.


What the fuck is a "POWER"? Are you a "POWER"? Do you command respect?

I respect a lot of people who have no "POWER" to hurt me, Tom Tancredo, for instance. I respected Pope John Paul. I respect my Mom, and I respect Hungary.

I don't respect you, because you're an idiot. I don't respect some street punk with a knife for the same reason. I don't respect the US government, regardless of how much "POWER" it can amass.

Adult men do not respect "POWER". If and when you ever become a man you'll understand this.

Londoner said...

Kylie - glad to hear it. Cricket's ancientness is a part of its appeal - it stretches back into the middle ages and in the villages of England it is played today much as it was 500 and more years ago. The USA has more of a cricketing tradition than most people realise too (down to the present day, when it seemingly has some kind of a foothold in LA's gangland, bizarre though that sounds). In England, it's one of the few institutions (perhaps even the only one) that the upper, middle and working classes partake in with equal enthusiasm. It's long been a proxy for imperial politics, racial politics and geopolitics too - all of which will be of interest to most people here.

Robert Henderson is an interesting guy - a heretic on issues of national identity, sporting allegiance and immigrant equanimity who cause a storm in the 1990s by asking why the England team had so many foreigners in it (he also had an entertaining feud with Tony Blair). The offending article and other material is here:

http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/is-it-in-the-blood-and-the-hypocrisy-of-the-media/

Simon in London said...

Londoner:
"the England football team has a permanent minority of black players, but these are becoming noticeably lighter-skinned as time passes, and no other non-white ethnicities are ever represented (they don't play football)"

The black (West Indian, Somali) and south Asian (Bangladeshi, Pakistani) kids were playing football on my street this evening when I came home from work. I often see groups of adult Tamils playing football down in Colliers Wood. The south-Asians do play football, they're just not very good at it.

Kylie said...

"Cricket's ancientness is a part of its appeal - it stretches back into the middle ages and in the villages of England it is played today much as it was 500 and more years ago..."

Yes, the continuity is a big part of its appeal.

"In England, it's one of the few institutions (perhaps even the only one) that the upper, middle and working classes partake in with equal enthusiasm."

And the egalitarian aspect is another part of its appeal.

"It's long been a proxy for imperial politics, racial politics and geopolitics too - all of which will be of interest to most people here."

Again, yes. All these are why it holds such sway over my imagination. Plus, I respect anything that's prompted such lovely poetry and so many interesting scenes in literature and film.

ATBOTL said...

"I especially liked his call for a multiracial English nationalism."

What is wrong with with English English nationalism?

Maya said...

"Adult men do not respect "POWER". If and when you ever become a man you'll understand this."

On a personal level, you are correct. That's why the whole "alpha-beta" male thing is bullshit. My sexuality responds to real men in charge of their actions like engineers or doctoral students in science while muscled thugs or grown men playing with balls, pretending it's a profession, don't even register as human males. Then again, my daddy is a real man.

HOWEVER, interpersonal relationships are different from the relationship between a person and the state. The state MUST be able and willing to demonstrate power, meaning brute force. I live peacefully and follow the law expecting the state by whose laws I abide, to use brute force against those who break the law at my expense. I don't lack respect for, say, Romania, because it can't demonstrate power against Fiji by invading. I don't respect Romania because it lacks power over its own citizens and therefore fails to provide law and order for its own citizens.

Oh, and you don't have to respect that thug with a knife you mentioned only as long as the state can successfully use brute force against him. Throughout my childhood, my father was the great provider of nurture and safety that stood between his family and chaos even though he was a physics nerd who'd never been in a fight. That is because he's a highly skilled specialist in a somewhat ordered system where he could call on another specialist, an armed representative of the local brute force to handle that huge drunk who was bothering his wife on her way from the market. Unfortunately, at that time, in that country, the organized provider of the law, able and willing to enforce it, was the mafia. Everyone respected it to some degree, at least, because the mafia kept the drunk thugs off the kids' slides and swings. Nobody respected the government because it was either unable or unwilling to exude enough brute force to get rid of neither the bothersome drunk thugs nor the mafia.
So you see, to create an environment where what you and I consider real manhood can flourish, an agreement to create a system which will provide law and order (and enforce them with brute force need be) is necessary.