“...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...
4 hrs ago·edited 4 hrs agoLiked by Millennial Woes
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.
You're obviously correct. Starkey's problem is that he rode the wave of globohomo when it suited him - he is a homosexual and was a Thatcherite obsessed with economic growth - and failed to put up a stout defence when it was needed - i.e. the 1980s. As a professor at Oxford he also probably only saw the best which foreign nations could produce.
The one thing which I think is a positive though is that many immigrants refuse to 'integrate' - or to pretend to be what they are not. Of course you have the upper/political classes who get called 'coconuts', but the majority of non-white immigrants know they are not British and only use the nationality as a convenience and only use our country to benefit themselves economically - 'we come this country, better standard of living sarr, etc'.
The fact they are not integrating means they will be easier to remove when the time comes, and I genuinely believe that this event is getting closer and closer - possibly sparked by a foreign war, economic downturn, or the growth of a genuine nationalist movement which the authorities are too busy to counter.
If the police were not protecting them so viciously during the immigration protests in August - and if the natives were led by people who knew what they were doing - this could well have been the beginning of the great removal. But alas we are not at that point yet. However, we do know from this test-run that these foreign parasites will cling to this country like limpets as long as they can - no matter how much they claim to dislike the 'gammons' and this 'colonial empire' they know it is better than from where they came.
When I consider post-WW2 immigration it always staggers me that people brought here to work were awarded citizenship and allowed to vote. [edit - please read the following article for a vivid description as to how this immigration was enabled - https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/07/12/jews-the-ss-empire-windrush-and-the-origins-of-multicultural-britain/ ] However, remembering that this was now 'the post-WW2 mythos era' and that anything else would have been seen as 'literally Hitler' and contested by bleeding heart politicians of the left (who had by now become a dominant force in British politics) it is hardly surprising.
In short, Starkey is distraught by the situation the country is in, however, he - like many others - refuses to address the situation other than by appealing to democracy and politics: the institutions which allowed and promoted the current situation. The only way out of this situations is forced repatriations, and while this would economically damage the country and lead to international sanctions, they would pass and the country would be forced to come together properly under a single identity to prosper.
We are not losing our country. We've already lost it, and repatriation of non-whites (much as that needs to happen) won't get it back, culturally speaking. Post-migrant Britain will be a new thing with new problems, but I for one will be satisfied if judges and barristers just stop wearing those stupid f*cking wigs.
The only time when Britons didn’t have a hyphenated identity must have been before the English Reformation when all the absolute monarch’s subject had to follow his religion under the principle of cuius regio eius religio.
Even the Viking invaders who raped and pillaged their way round Europe eventually settled down and became good citizens. The Roman soldiers who came with the Roman invasion but had to leave were asked to stay. Britons able to trace their ancestry back to the Norman Invasion are proud of their lineage.
Normans were different to Tudors. Republican England under the Cromwell and the Puritans were so culturally different to the Restoration and the rest of Europe they felt they had to leave the Old World for the New World on the Mayflower after the English Republic ended with the death of its Lord Protector.
Without an official moral system giving Britons accountable leadership regulating the behaviour of the government and governed in a way that supports marriage and family values, Britons cannot return to the high trust society they long for where the punishment fits the crime.
A constructive national conversation about having an official moral system most people can be persuaded is fair enough should be seen as a moral imperative.
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).
'...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 carrying 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.
“...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...
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 piece, with the important objection that the Gaels in Scotland absolutely resisted incorporation and were utterly stamped out as a result.
You're obviously correct. Starkey's problem is that he rode the wave of globohomo when it suited him - he is a homosexual and was a Thatcherite obsessed with economic growth - and failed to put up a stout defence when it was needed - i.e. the 1980s. As a professor at Oxford he also probably only saw the best which foreign nations could produce.
The one thing which I think is a positive though is that many immigrants refuse to 'integrate' - or to pretend to be what they are not. Of course you have the upper/political classes who get called 'coconuts', but the majority of non-white immigrants know they are not British and only use the nationality as a convenience and only use our country to benefit themselves economically - 'we come this country, better standard of living sarr, etc'.
The fact they are not integrating means they will be easier to remove when the time comes, and I genuinely believe that this event is getting closer and closer - possibly sparked by a foreign war, economic downturn, or the growth of a genuine nationalist movement which the authorities are too busy to counter.
If the police were not protecting them so viciously during the immigration protests in August - and if the natives were led by people who knew what they were doing - this could well have been the beginning of the great removal. But alas we are not at that point yet. However, we do know from this test-run that these foreign parasites will cling to this country like limpets as long as they can - no matter how much they claim to dislike the 'gammons' and this 'colonial empire' they know it is better than from where they came.
When I consider post-WW2 immigration it always staggers me that people brought here to work were awarded citizenship and allowed to vote. [edit - please read the following article for a vivid description as to how this immigration was enabled - https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/07/12/jews-the-ss-empire-windrush-and-the-origins-of-multicultural-britain/ ] However, remembering that this was now 'the post-WW2 mythos era' and that anything else would have been seen as 'literally Hitler' and contested by bleeding heart politicians of the left (who had by now become a dominant force in British politics) it is hardly surprising.
In short, Starkey is distraught by the situation the country is in, however, he - like many others - refuses to address the situation other than by appealing to democracy and politics: the institutions which allowed and promoted the current situation. The only way out of this situations is forced repatriations, and while this would economically damage the country and lead to international sanctions, they would pass and the country would be forced to come together properly under a single identity to prosper.
We must not fall for the idea that the first black immigrants were 'brought' here for any useful purpose: https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/07/12/jews-the-ss-empire-windrush-and-the-origins-of-multicultural-britain/
This is an excellent article. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
We are not losing our country. We've already lost it, and repatriation of non-whites (much as that needs to happen) won't get it back, culturally speaking. Post-migrant Britain will be a new thing with new problems, but I for one will be satisfied if judges and barristers just stop wearing those stupid f*cking wigs.
I like the wigs and robes.
The wigs went beyond absurd when you started having black women, etc. don them. Ridiculous.
The only time when Britons didn’t have a hyphenated identity must have been before the English Reformation when all the absolute monarch’s subject had to follow his religion under the principle of cuius regio eius religio.
Even the Viking invaders who raped and pillaged their way round Europe eventually settled down and became good citizens. The Roman soldiers who came with the Roman invasion but had to leave were asked to stay. Britons able to trace their ancestry back to the Norman Invasion are proud of their lineage.
Normans were different to Tudors. Republican England under the Cromwell and the Puritans were so culturally different to the Restoration and the rest of Europe they felt they had to leave the Old World for the New World on the Mayflower after the English Republic ended with the death of its Lord Protector.
Without an official moral system giving Britons accountable leadership regulating the behaviour of the government and governed in a way that supports marriage and family values, Britons cannot return to the high trust society they long for where the punishment fits the crime.
A constructive national conversation about having an official moral system most people can be persuaded is fair enough should be seen as a moral imperative.
The Mayflower set sail in 1620. The 'Lord Protector' died in 1658.
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).
'...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 carrying 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.
Fantastic article Woes. You're a treasure.