“...we are sandwiched between a burgeoning underclass of foreign newcomers on one side, and a globalist overclass of bureaucrats and sociopaths on the other” - sounds about right...
Excellent article. I like to listen to ideas such as Starkey's, but agree that it seems to have little to no relevance to the current situation. It is, like an historical essay, merely a description of what went before. We may learn from it, but cannot apply the learning. Similarly, I find the online discourse of our online friends extremely interesting. But even some of that (e.g. Spenglerianism) suffers in a similar way to Starkey, in my view. Our civilisation is fallen, of that there can be no doubt. But unlike the past upheavals and recoveries in Britain, the thing that will go into the future isn't very British at all. There is still a majority ethnic group, but we are the children of mass entertainment, Americanism, consumerism. Modernity has almost rendered us un-British. Our institutions are effectively gone. Most people seem to lack any sort of belief in anything culturally meaningful. A radical change has already taken place. Starkey is too late to the party.
As I have watched in recent years the hordes of assorted, random brown people obviously being shoved deliberately in to my home town, I have had to start coming to terms with the fact that my country is being abused. Bad things are not simply happening to it, they are being callously done to it. The slap, the punch, the push down the stairs. Now the boot is being put in.
A 'rival castle' needs to come to the fore soon, or it will soon be too late. Of all the historical lessons we've learned lately, I think 'riding the tiger' is the best thing we've got. Sorry to be so glum.
When the supply chains break--as they are about to--and the supplies of food and medicine dwindle to nothing, there will be no more patience with parasites and ne'er-do-wells.
I have a lot of experience with failed states. In another lifetime, I entered countries that did not exist when I left them. I have been through hyper-inflation, the cancellation of currencies, and the total destruction of national governments. I have been in countries that were annihilated around me. And a lot of people died. However, most of the people survived--kind of.
I see that upheaval coming to the West. Virtually everyone does now--even David Starkey, though he doesn't want to say it out loud. I can't believe Mr Starkey really doesn't know what is about to happen. I also refuse to believe that he doesn't secrectly want what is about to happen to happen (win or lose).
It would be interesting to read, in as much detail as you can give, about WHY your previous experiences make you so sure that upheaval is coming to the West.
There is a lot I could say about this. I'll begin by saying I have no ancestral connections to Eastern Europe--my DNA is Western European. That's an extremely important point. I observed Eastern Europe as an outsider--and no, I never married a local girl. My perspective is pretty neutral and are the views of an outsider, which has a lot of merit in my book.
I have to add that I am an Anglican Christian (CoE), and my faith is my guide. I live clean, work hard, and try to stay in the Grace of God. Why am telling you this? Because my behavior there was not immoral, and a lot of foreigners I encountered over there were awful, and they were there for bad reasons. People can read my face easily, and so I was generally welcomed by everyone I met, even by groups that most Westerners would be wary of. An honest man is appreciated by most people (even if sometimes derided as 'naive'). I know a lot of people here dislike Christianity, but it is central to my life. I offer no apologies for that.
Long story short: The ex-Soviet Union and the former-Yugoslavia were multi-ethnic empires. In my opinion (as a Westerner) the Soviets made a sincere effort to overcome Russian chauvinism and give everyone a fair chance to improve their lot within the Soviet system. There were a lot of non-Russians in powerful positions and the officer corps and civil service was not domain of the Russians. I think the 1980s were fairly mellow in the Soviet Union and a lot of people I met there said that they wouldn't want the USSR back, but that it was also not all bad and that some things about it were better than the 1990s post-Soviet Union.
Yugoslavia was, for the most part, dominated by the Serbs and Montenegrins (who are really the same ethnicity). While Tito (a Croat) was alive, I think he tried, just a little, to be fair. After he died, Serb/Montenergin nationalists took over completely and 90% of the officer corps, civil service, diplomatic service, postal workers, etc. were Serbian.
While the last 10 years of the Soviet Union were fairly mild (thus making the breakup of the Soviet Union relatively bloodless), Yugoslavian Serbs leaned hard on the minorities who made up the majority.
The Soviet Union faded away quietly and anti-climatically. 'Ok, boys. It was a good try, but it's not working anymore; let's go home.' Handshakes all around. (This is a broad overview, I know...)
Yugoslavia brokeup in mass rape and genocide because the Serbs refused to let go of an iota of their power.
MY POINT:
People want to live in their own countries with their own people. The Soviets, after Stalin, of course, mellowed out a lot under Khrushchev. So, even though life was not that bad and efforts were made to be truly inclusive and fair to everyone, people eventually decided they wanted independent ethno-states. The Soviets treated most minorities (kind of) fairly, yet they still wanted to leave. These other people looked very different from the Russians, so perhaps it came as a surprise how little vitriol their was between them. There is more racial hostility NOW in Russia because it is once again a nationalist empire; HOWEVER, non-Russians can still make it into the upper ranks.
The exceptions were definitely the Balts; they were treated horribly by the Soviets.
Life in Yugoslavia (after Tito died) sucked (to varying degrees) as a minority, so the breakup there was understandable. The thing is is (I know, a double cupola) that the people there pretty much looked alike (to me). They all shared one langauge (though some had their own) and religion was not really a factor. People there view their religion as part of their ethnic identity but rarely practice it--unless there is a wedding or holiday.
The difference between Ukrainians can be described as the difference between the English and the Scottish. But even being that similar, the Ukrainians want to be free. (Okay, the issue is deeper than that; the Ukrainians have always wanted to be independent, and the while Ukrainians speak Russian, Russians generally don't understand Ukrainian.)
What the UK is facing is FAR worse in that millions of people there are completely alien to this part of the world. While Russians and Poles might be able to get along, Nigerians and Indians probably never will.
This is already far too long, and, I am sure that I have already offended parts of your readership. I'll end it here.
Appreciate the perspective. History is useful as a guide as to what to expect although I dare say we can never truly be prepared. Skin colour will definitely be the uniform though.
'...that talk of civil war is ridiculous because a civil war requires weaponry.'
Weapons were handed out in Russia in 1917, Croatia in 1991, and every country that has had any kind of civil war or revolution. Army depots are great places.
A polyglot, multi-racial country like England today, quite simply, cannot survive. When people say that differenece are only skin deep, they don't really understand what they are saying. A person can convert to Islam or learn a foreign language, but they cannot change their ethnicity. And these differences may mean very little among some white people (England, Wales, and Scotland) or mean everything, like Croatia, Bosnia, and Serbia, depending on the culture. Yes, culture matters, but those differences can be tempered or even overcome (white Americans); however racial differences are set in stone. And those racial differences always carry with them different cultures, languages, and often different religions.
Yugoslavian wars were wars of white people fighting white people, who, for the most part, spoke the same language (or at the very least, shared one).
I think a more relevant comparison to look at today would be the Ottoman Empire, where racial differences eventually trumped religion--the constant, multi-century relbellion of Albanians (half of them Muslim) and the massive Arab (mostly Musilm) revolt of World War One.
Islam was, eventually, unable to bind the Asiatic Turks, European Albanians, and Arabs together.
The revolts in the Balkans were led by Muslim Europeans and the revolt in the Middle East was led by overwhelmingly Muslim Arabs (though Christian Albanians and Christian Arabs did join these rebellions).
Race eventually trumped religion and culture in the Ottoman Empire, and it will trump it in England.
Like Peter Hitchens, Starkey is an institutional and procedural fetishist. They fall for orthopraxy. Seeing people in the act of participating in an ancient rite paradoxically blinds them to a wider trend; because, unlike the historian or conservative commentator's deeply imbued love of institutions and procedure, someone or a group can use those same edifices as means of furthering their own agenda(s) (personal, ethnic, religious) for purely tactical reasons.
Excellent article. Respectful towards Starkey, while clearly stating some severe limitations to his conservative outlook in this unprecedented age (or at least the views he reveals to the public) Any chance he might appear on Millenniyule, do you think?
With the timing of this latest upload from him, I wonder if he (or someone close to him) might perhaps have read your article? I agree, I don't think he would go on Millenniyule, but it is interesting to imagine what it would be like to hear him duel with you a little over the merits of his 'Bi-Culturalism' idea talked about here!
If you don't use Race as the main reason to oppose the invasion, then all other fake reasons can be dismissed away. If you say 'we don't like them or want them because they are from a different race and people' then you erect a wall against all criticism.. Race is a fundamental difference that nothing can change. They cannot solve it by saying 'OK, then we'll make them the same race as you' or some stupid cope like that.
Your enemies will call you racist, but simply point out to that law that doesn't exist that forces you to love people of other races. The only reply to the slur of racism is "yes, and ... ?' Racism is simply your amygdala taking over and engaging your fight or flight response.
No species that suppresses their survival instinct will transmit their genes.
Another wonderful piece, MW - for which, many thanks. Your impassioned, uber-articulate polemic is doing for Britain what the venerable John Waters is doing for Ireland. With brilliantly daring analysis like this it becomes more and more clear that this is our last stand. This is the hill we die on - probably literally as well as metaphorically if we don't reverse mass immigration and declining birthrates! The bald fact is that we start resisting vigorously from now on... - or there will be no 'from now on.'
I do think things will come to a head under this current, literally psychotic, communist government. And when I say 'psychotic', I mean it: something is very definitely not right in the heads (let alone the hearts!) of those in Starmtrooper's cabinet. I see the `Coopers' and Raynors' and' Lammys' of this world as clinically deranged by Marxian, deconstructionist ideology (yes, I know there are other influences too), acting under whose influence they are quite prepared to push all of us off a cliff into the sea of historical oblivion. In this context, Keir "I don't mind being ruthless" Starmer displays the classic swivel-eyed conviction of a Pol Pot type: who cares if he has to genocide the whole country (or half of it) to achieve his goals? Look at the good he will do in the end!
My sister, a plank if ever there was one, said to me just after the election: 'hooray! a change of government!" Sadly, this is the mindset of the Boomer generation - I should know: I AM one, albeit a massive renegade. - And they (plus mindless young lefties) are why we are where we are: they just don't get it - never will. I said to her: 'But David Lammy as foreign secretary??" - "Well, I prefer him to Cameron!" says she. "Forgive me," I retorted, "but you have the political understanding of a child..."
The phone was put down. We haven't spoken since. For this exchange - and parting of the ways - read the emblematic fate of the whole nation. - No further conversation between us and the massive normie class is either possible or useful.
That said, I remain hopeful that the 'undecideds' are being gradually woken up by impassioned debaters such as your good self. - All power to your arm, MW!
Conversatives seem to care more about 'institutions' and liberal democracy than they do preserving the British peoples.
I for one am happy to see parliament, the current royal dysnasty and a 1000 years of crooked laws and instiitutions fall apart, or be broken apart, to ensure the survival of the English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh and Cornish peoples.
Speaking for my own people, we were better before we allowed Norman parasites to pervert our Kingship and sever the ties between nobility and peasantry.
All our people's require a new warrior caste who will replace the crooked cabal as a new nobility, men of our blood who lead us all for the good of all.
A good analysis, thank you. And this is why, after the X debate between Steve Laws and Laurence Fox, in which the latter answered in the affirmative to the question if Britain were 90% Black would it be acceptable if they upheld British values, Gavin Boby declared the debate between ethno and civic nationalism over.
How do I transfer the meagre (I'm broke-ish) monthly sub I'm paying you on Subscribestar or Bitchute or somewhere(!), where you're not producing anything ... - to here, where you ARE? Ta very much for info. Kind regards, Orpheus Looks Back.
Well, I receive the money either way, so it doesn't make any difference, except that you won't be able to read paywalled essays on here. You would need to upgrade your subscription on here, and cancel your donation on Subscribestar.
I am an American but with Scots-Irish and English ancestry (amongst others) so it interests me to study Britain. What I am pretty certain of is that whatever Britain’s future is to be, it will be an entirely new chapter. People 500 years from now, regardless of who they are, or how they think will see this time period as the turning over of a new leaf, and a completely new set of events, regardless of who wins.
Also, while he is not wrong about the civil war needs weapons line, Britain is not bereft of weapons at all. It is bereft of weapons in private hands. The military has weapons. What the military decides to do and not do, and who is in it in the years ahead will decide quite a bit.
Two things struck me from my own life experience while reading your post. Back in the 1970s, when hyphenated Americans became the rage. I asked my mother if we were Lithuanian-Americans? We went to a Lithuanian church, lived in a largely Lithuanian neighborhood, attended events at the Lithuanian Hall, you get the idea. My mother’s response? We are Americans!
My grandparents were legal immigrants, my mother and her siblings were born in the US and being Americans mattered even though vestiges of the old country imbued our lives.
Second personal reflection, when I teach US history, I borrow Tyrion’s final speech from Game of Thrones. I tell my students our history is what unites us. It is our story. It doesn’t matter when our families came to the US, US history is OUR history—the good, the bad, the beautiful, and the ugly. Today, we have fewer common experiences than we did in the past. Our history is one of the few things we share.
History does not need to be directly relevant to the present to matter or to have power. Britain has a long glorious and reprehensible history can it be used to unify?
I am not downplaying the masses of illegal immigrants. I offer no solutions to this problem from history or the present. I merely wanted to share some reflections.
I'm pretty sure that Starkey was strongly in favour of mandatory vaccination during The Great Stupidity of 2020-21. (I'd have to go back and check, and my memory may be at fault, but I think he was interviewed by Brendan O'Neill and they were in agreement on this). I want to be able to look beyond this one error of judgement and not let it besmirch everything else he has ever written and said, because that would obviously be foolish. But it's such a basic litmus test that in all honesty I struggle to do so.
“...we are sandwiched between a burgeoning underclass of foreign newcomers on one side, and a globalist overclass of bureaucrats and sociopaths on the other” - sounds about right...
Excellent article. I like to listen to ideas such as Starkey's, but agree that it seems to have little to no relevance to the current situation. It is, like an historical essay, merely a description of what went before. We may learn from it, but cannot apply the learning. Similarly, I find the online discourse of our online friends extremely interesting. But even some of that (e.g. Spenglerianism) suffers in a similar way to Starkey, in my view. Our civilisation is fallen, of that there can be no doubt. But unlike the past upheavals and recoveries in Britain, the thing that will go into the future isn't very British at all. There is still a majority ethnic group, but we are the children of mass entertainment, Americanism, consumerism. Modernity has almost rendered us un-British. Our institutions are effectively gone. Most people seem to lack any sort of belief in anything culturally meaningful. A radical change has already taken place. Starkey is too late to the party.
As I have watched in recent years the hordes of assorted, random brown people obviously being shoved deliberately in to my home town, I have had to start coming to terms with the fact that my country is being abused. Bad things are not simply happening to it, they are being callously done to it. The slap, the punch, the push down the stairs. Now the boot is being put in.
A 'rival castle' needs to come to the fore soon, or it will soon be too late. Of all the historical lessons we've learned lately, I think 'riding the tiger' is the best thing we've got. Sorry to be so glum.
When the supply chains break--as they are about to--and the supplies of food and medicine dwindle to nothing, there will be no more patience with parasites and ne'er-do-wells.
I have a lot of experience with failed states. In another lifetime, I entered countries that did not exist when I left them. I have been through hyper-inflation, the cancellation of currencies, and the total destruction of national governments. I have been in countries that were annihilated around me. And a lot of people died. However, most of the people survived--kind of.
I see that upheaval coming to the West. Virtually everyone does now--even David Starkey, though he doesn't want to say it out loud. I can't believe Mr Starkey really doesn't know what is about to happen. I also refuse to believe that he doesn't secrectly want what is about to happen to happen (win or lose).
It would be interesting to read, in as much detail as you can give, about WHY your previous experiences make you so sure that upheaval is coming to the West.
There is a lot I could say about this. I'll begin by saying I have no ancestral connections to Eastern Europe--my DNA is Western European. That's an extremely important point. I observed Eastern Europe as an outsider--and no, I never married a local girl. My perspective is pretty neutral and are the views of an outsider, which has a lot of merit in my book.
I have to add that I am an Anglican Christian (CoE), and my faith is my guide. I live clean, work hard, and try to stay in the Grace of God. Why am telling you this? Because my behavior there was not immoral, and a lot of foreigners I encountered over there were awful, and they were there for bad reasons. People can read my face easily, and so I was generally welcomed by everyone I met, even by groups that most Westerners would be wary of. An honest man is appreciated by most people (even if sometimes derided as 'naive'). I know a lot of people here dislike Christianity, but it is central to my life. I offer no apologies for that.
Long story short: The ex-Soviet Union and the former-Yugoslavia were multi-ethnic empires. In my opinion (as a Westerner) the Soviets made a sincere effort to overcome Russian chauvinism and give everyone a fair chance to improve their lot within the Soviet system. There were a lot of non-Russians in powerful positions and the officer corps and civil service was not domain of the Russians. I think the 1980s were fairly mellow in the Soviet Union and a lot of people I met there said that they wouldn't want the USSR back, but that it was also not all bad and that some things about it were better than the 1990s post-Soviet Union.
Yugoslavia was, for the most part, dominated by the Serbs and Montenegrins (who are really the same ethnicity). While Tito (a Croat) was alive, I think he tried, just a little, to be fair. After he died, Serb/Montenergin nationalists took over completely and 90% of the officer corps, civil service, diplomatic service, postal workers, etc. were Serbian.
While the last 10 years of the Soviet Union were fairly mild (thus making the breakup of the Soviet Union relatively bloodless), Yugoslavian Serbs leaned hard on the minorities who made up the majority.
The Soviet Union faded away quietly and anti-climatically. 'Ok, boys. It was a good try, but it's not working anymore; let's go home.' Handshakes all around. (This is a broad overview, I know...)
Yugoslavia brokeup in mass rape and genocide because the Serbs refused to let go of an iota of their power.
MY POINT:
People want to live in their own countries with their own people. The Soviets, after Stalin, of course, mellowed out a lot under Khrushchev. So, even though life was not that bad and efforts were made to be truly inclusive and fair to everyone, people eventually decided they wanted independent ethno-states. The Soviets treated most minorities (kind of) fairly, yet they still wanted to leave. These other people looked very different from the Russians, so perhaps it came as a surprise how little vitriol their was between them. There is more racial hostility NOW in Russia because it is once again a nationalist empire; HOWEVER, non-Russians can still make it into the upper ranks.
The exceptions were definitely the Balts; they were treated horribly by the Soviets.
Life in Yugoslavia (after Tito died) sucked (to varying degrees) as a minority, so the breakup there was understandable. The thing is is (I know, a double cupola) that the people there pretty much looked alike (to me). They all shared one langauge (though some had their own) and religion was not really a factor. People there view their religion as part of their ethnic identity but rarely practice it--unless there is a wedding or holiday.
The difference between Ukrainians can be described as the difference between the English and the Scottish. But even being that similar, the Ukrainians want to be free. (Okay, the issue is deeper than that; the Ukrainians have always wanted to be independent, and the while Ukrainians speak Russian, Russians generally don't understand Ukrainian.)
What the UK is facing is FAR worse in that millions of people there are completely alien to this part of the world. While Russians and Poles might be able to get along, Nigerians and Indians probably never will.
This is already far too long, and, I am sure that I have already offended parts of your readership. I'll end it here.
Appreciate the perspective. History is useful as a guide as to what to expect although I dare say we can never truly be prepared. Skin colour will definitely be the uniform though.
Woes, please, if possible, do a few Grams...
'...that talk of civil war is ridiculous because a civil war requires weaponry.'
Weapons were handed out in Russia in 1917, Croatia in 1991, and every country that has had any kind of civil war or revolution. Army depots are great places.
A polyglot, multi-racial country like England today, quite simply, cannot survive. When people say that differenece are only skin deep, they don't really understand what they are saying. A person can convert to Islam or learn a foreign language, but they cannot change their ethnicity. And these differences may mean very little among some white people (England, Wales, and Scotland) or mean everything, like Croatia, Bosnia, and Serbia, depending on the culture. Yes, culture matters, but those differences can be tempered or even overcome (white Americans); however racial differences are set in stone. And those racial differences always carry with them different cultures, languages, and often different religions.
Yugoslavian wars were wars of white people fighting white people, who, for the most part, spoke the same language (or at the very least, shared one).
I think a more relevant comparison to look at today would be the Ottoman Empire, where racial differences eventually trumped religion--the constant, multi-century relbellion of Albanians (half of them Muslim) and the massive Arab (mostly Musilm) revolt of World War One.
Islam was, eventually, unable to bind the Asiatic Turks, European Albanians, and Arabs together.
The revolts in the Balkans were led by Muslim Europeans and the revolt in the Middle East was led by overwhelmingly Muslim Arabs (though Christian Albanians and Christian Arabs did join these rebellions).
Race eventually trumped religion and culture in the Ottoman Empire, and it will trump it in England.
Race always trumps every other factor.
Always.
Like Peter Hitchens, Starkey is an institutional and procedural fetishist. They fall for orthopraxy. Seeing people in the act of participating in an ancient rite paradoxically blinds them to a wider trend; because, unlike the historian or conservative commentator's deeply imbued love of institutions and procedure, someone or a group can use those same edifices as means of furthering their own agenda(s) (personal, ethnic, religious) for purely tactical reasons.
Excellent article. Respectful towards Starkey, while clearly stating some severe limitations to his conservative outlook in this unprecedented age (or at least the views he reveals to the public) Any chance he might appear on Millenniyule, do you think?
Oh, I doubt he would appear on Millenniyule. In fact I'm so sure that I wouldn't even try. I'm just too controversial, too "dark".
I don't know, I could see it happening.
It's not only extreme wealth that bestows “fuck you” powers on those who posses it ( as some 20th century American billionaire claimed)?
Surely advanced age possesses similar qualities especially if youre without a heir?!
With the timing of this latest upload from him, I wonder if he (or someone close to him) might perhaps have read your article? I agree, I don't think he would go on Millenniyule, but it is interesting to imagine what it would be like to hear him duel with you a little over the merits of his 'Bi-Culturalism' idea talked about here!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOellS0Caww&t=1255s
Seeing Ed Dutton and Graham Linehan in the same room was trippy enough. (even with Ed on best behaviour).
Not sure I could handle Woes and Starkey together.
Fantastic article Woes. You're a treasure.
Thank you. :)
If you don't use Race as the main reason to oppose the invasion, then all other fake reasons can be dismissed away. If you say 'we don't like them or want them because they are from a different race and people' then you erect a wall against all criticism.. Race is a fundamental difference that nothing can change. They cannot solve it by saying 'OK, then we'll make them the same race as you' or some stupid cope like that.
Your enemies will call you racist, but simply point out to that law that doesn't exist that forces you to love people of other races. The only reply to the slur of racism is "yes, and ... ?' Racism is simply your amygdala taking over and engaging your fight or flight response.
No species that suppresses their survival instinct will transmit their genes.
Another wonderful piece, MW - for which, many thanks. Your impassioned, uber-articulate polemic is doing for Britain what the venerable John Waters is doing for Ireland. With brilliantly daring analysis like this it becomes more and more clear that this is our last stand. This is the hill we die on - probably literally as well as metaphorically if we don't reverse mass immigration and declining birthrates! The bald fact is that we start resisting vigorously from now on... - or there will be no 'from now on.'
I do think things will come to a head under this current, literally psychotic, communist government. And when I say 'psychotic', I mean it: something is very definitely not right in the heads (let alone the hearts!) of those in Starmtrooper's cabinet. I see the `Coopers' and Raynors' and' Lammys' of this world as clinically deranged by Marxian, deconstructionist ideology (yes, I know there are other influences too), acting under whose influence they are quite prepared to push all of us off a cliff into the sea of historical oblivion. In this context, Keir "I don't mind being ruthless" Starmer displays the classic swivel-eyed conviction of a Pol Pot type: who cares if he has to genocide the whole country (or half of it) to achieve his goals? Look at the good he will do in the end!
My sister, a plank if ever there was one, said to me just after the election: 'hooray! a change of government!" Sadly, this is the mindset of the Boomer generation - I should know: I AM one, albeit a massive renegade. - And they (plus mindless young lefties) are why we are where we are: they just don't get it - never will. I said to her: 'But David Lammy as foreign secretary??" - "Well, I prefer him to Cameron!" says she. "Forgive me," I retorted, "but you have the political understanding of a child..."
The phone was put down. We haven't spoken since. For this exchange - and parting of the ways - read the emblematic fate of the whole nation. - No further conversation between us and the massive normie class is either possible or useful.
That said, I remain hopeful that the 'undecideds' are being gradually woken up by impassioned debaters such as your good self. - All power to your arm, MW!
Conversatives seem to care more about 'institutions' and liberal democracy than they do preserving the British peoples.
I for one am happy to see parliament, the current royal dysnasty and a 1000 years of crooked laws and instiitutions fall apart, or be broken apart, to ensure the survival of the English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh and Cornish peoples.
Speaking for my own people, we were better before we allowed Norman parasites to pervert our Kingship and sever the ties between nobility and peasantry.
All our people's require a new warrior caste who will replace the crooked cabal as a new nobility, men of our blood who lead us all for the good of all.
A good analysis, thank you. And this is why, after the X debate between Steve Laws and Laurence Fox, in which the latter answered in the affirmative to the question if Britain were 90% Black would it be acceptable if they upheld British values, Gavin Boby declared the debate between ethno and civic nationalism over.
“multiculturalism”. …….
As big an OXYMORON as military intelligence!!!
Dear Colin,
How do I transfer the meagre (I'm broke-ish) monthly sub I'm paying you on Subscribestar or Bitchute or somewhere(!), where you're not producing anything ... - to here, where you ARE? Ta very much for info. Kind regards, Orpheus Looks Back.
Well, I receive the money either way, so it doesn't make any difference, except that you won't be able to read paywalled essays on here. You would need to upgrade your subscription on here, and cancel your donation on Subscribestar.
Then so shall I do! Thanks for letting me know.
I am an American but with Scots-Irish and English ancestry (amongst others) so it interests me to study Britain. What I am pretty certain of is that whatever Britain’s future is to be, it will be an entirely new chapter. People 500 years from now, regardless of who they are, or how they think will see this time period as the turning over of a new leaf, and a completely new set of events, regardless of who wins.
Also, while he is not wrong about the civil war needs weapons line, Britain is not bereft of weapons at all. It is bereft of weapons in private hands. The military has weapons. What the military decides to do and not do, and who is in it in the years ahead will decide quite a bit.
Two things struck me from my own life experience while reading your post. Back in the 1970s, when hyphenated Americans became the rage. I asked my mother if we were Lithuanian-Americans? We went to a Lithuanian church, lived in a largely Lithuanian neighborhood, attended events at the Lithuanian Hall, you get the idea. My mother’s response? We are Americans!
My grandparents were legal immigrants, my mother and her siblings were born in the US and being Americans mattered even though vestiges of the old country imbued our lives.
Second personal reflection, when I teach US history, I borrow Tyrion’s final speech from Game of Thrones. I tell my students our history is what unites us. It is our story. It doesn’t matter when our families came to the US, US history is OUR history—the good, the bad, the beautiful, and the ugly. Today, we have fewer common experiences than we did in the past. Our history is one of the few things we share.
History does not need to be directly relevant to the present to matter or to have power. Britain has a long glorious and reprehensible history can it be used to unify?
I am not downplaying the masses of illegal immigrants. I offer no solutions to this problem from history or the present. I merely wanted to share some reflections.
I'm pretty sure that Starkey was strongly in favour of mandatory vaccination during The Great Stupidity of 2020-21. (I'd have to go back and check, and my memory may be at fault, but I think he was interviewed by Brendan O'Neill and they were in agreement on this). I want to be able to look beyond this one error of judgement and not let it besmirch everything else he has ever written and said, because that would obviously be foolish. But it's such a basic litmus test that in all honesty I struggle to do so.