Starkey makes ‘cultural’ link to gang jailed for sexually exploiting girls | Education |

Starkey makes ‘cultural’ link to gang jailed for sexually exploiting girls

Historian calls on schools to teach English history to ethnic minorities to make them ‘English citizens and English men’

Jessica Shepherd, education correspondent, Thursday 10 May 2012 20.14 BST

David Starkey

David Starkey told a headteachers’ conference that the gang jailed for sexually exploiting girls were ‘acting within their cultural norms’.

David Starkey has risked fresh criticism for describing a largely Pakistani gang jailed for sexually exploiting young girls as “acting within their cultural norms”.

via Starkey makes ‘cultural’ link to gang jailed for sexually exploiting girls | Education |

Starkey keeps digging a bigger and bigger hole. This is what I originally wrote….

26 aug2011

All rights reserved
STARKEY STARING MADThe smoke from the riots has not fully blown away and yet alongside the blackened tatty shop fronts of urban England, we find that David Starkey’s credibility as a resident ‘rent-a-gob’ has gone up in flames as well.

Political Pantomime Dame Starkey turned up on Newsnight to argue that white ‘chavs’ have become black.

Starkey is routinely invited on occasions like these to provide edgy right wing contrarian controversy. Starkey is a seasoned media bitch; he knows what the producers of ‘Newsnight’ want and he knows how to deliver it. He duly appeared and gave his spiel. But something went wrong.

In what appeared to be little more than Norman Tebbits ‘cricket test’ thesis on steroids, Starkey asserted that foreign influence had undermined the culture of working class English youth to the point that they could no longer been seen as ‘white’. Dave further elaborated that this transformation was primarily a function of adopted language, in particular Jamaican ‘patois’. All of which nonsense is fairly unremarkable given Starkey’s oeuvre, but this time things worked out different.

The next day the Guardian characterised the debate as a ‘swan dive’ career ending moment. Some lefty Saxons even took the BBC to task for not challenging Starkey robustly enough. That is not all. Starkey’s intellectual qualifications have been undermined, it has been pointed out that his specialisation in Tudor England hardly qualifies him to talk authoritatively on modern English society, (I would beg to differ).   Lots of Saxons on both ‘left’ and ‘right’ are upset but they are not sure why.

Lets see if I can help:

1. Starkey claimed that poor Saxon whites- ‘chavs’ in riot areas have adopted black ‘culture’’.

Is there any point trying to deny this obvious truth? Since the Second World War Germanic youth have no culture but ‘black’ culture. Ska, Reggae and Hip hop and others have offered an identity to Germanic youth who cannot identify with their own. Now then, why Saxon youth have no separate culture is an interesting question, but I am sure Germanic corporate news will not want to investigate this.

2. Starkey claimed that ‘gangsta’ ‘culture’ is violent and nihilistic

Is anyone trying to deny this? Modern black ‘culture’ is indeed little more than a digitised minstrel show. Its participants are paid to provide a caricature of what Saxons think they are. As a consequence they caper about as mindless semi-bestial comedy baddies.

3. Starkey claimed that the rioting was the product of pure criminality, by which he means it has no legitimate political cause.

According to the entire elite this is true. No one the left or right of Saxon politics says that this behaviour is excusable.

So since no-one really disagrees with the major detail of Starkey’s spiel- what is the problem?

Perhaps the unease lies in the sense that making cheap right wing points at this time was somehow in bad taste. But Starkey is paid to do be slightly risqué and iconoclastic in his own limited terms, so that can’t be the problem. The problem is that underpinning Starkey’s analysis is the idea that working class whites have abandoned white morality, which has inadvertently drawn attention to the central premise of Whiteism. Whiteism asserts that white criminality is different from black criminality. Whites cannot become black.

Starkey was trying to be overly contrarian even by his own standards. Since the Saxon mob, both left and right were united in their condemnation of the rioters, Starkey decided it would be a wheeze to offer some kind of explanation/excuse for their behaviour. The fact that this explanation had an element of implied racism only made it more attractive. But he was not used to standing on this ground and a little unsure of his footing. Starkey makes an explanation of the behaviour of white youth which is in effect an attack on black culture. This ‘racist’ attack on multiculturalism forced liberal whites to use explicitly a tenet of Whiteism as a defence against Starkey’s racism. Whiteism argues that it is not possible for whites to abdicate their whiteness. It is not possible for them to be sublimated into another culture.

It follows from this that rioters should not be allowed to use cultural sublimation as an excuse because it contradicts the fundamental unspoken foundations of Whiteism.

Jack Dee the comedian apparently tweeted that Starkey was ‘literally trying to argue that White was Black’. In other words what Starkey was trying to argue was obviously and self evidently untrue and an affront to logic itself.The idea that ‘Whiteness’ and ‘Blackness’ in denoting race is different from the physical properties of colour and might be the creation of German ideologues or anyone else is obviously not something  that unser freund  Dee is willing or able to entertain!

The first and foremost characteristic of Whiteism is that it refuses to acknowledge its existence as an ideological tool. (see ‘Forget Racism’…) Anything that forces Saxons to make even an oblique reference to the structure of Whiteism makes them very nervous and aggressive.

I have written before about the ‘Duopoly’, the political division of labour called the Cold War that helped white culture to survive and rehabilitate itself after the Holocaust and Hiroshima.

The end of the Duopoly with the fall of the Soviet Union brought to the fore the spectre of ‘White Euro Trash’, defeated Slavic Whites, who did not at all behave in a morally superior way to (Germanic) blacks. The trauma that this caused together with the fall of white South Africa has haunted all Whiteist politics since.

The point here is that Whiteism insists that no matter how white culture is seen, either superior or inferior to another culture, it cannot be sublimated or absorbed by another culture. The bonds that bind whites together are stronger than anything else. But Saxon whites especially ‘lefty’ whites never like having to explicitly express this and they are going to make Starkey pay for forcing them to.

That particular Newsnight was like watching a White middle aged barrister wander into the wrong side street in Tottenham. The locals show barely concealed outrage and aggression at this incursion on their ‘private’ territory.

Starkey, trying to be a smartarse, accidentally wandered up one of the dark back passages of Whiteism. He will be lucky to get out in one piece.



The True Importance of WHITE FLAG


Now we begin to see more clearly the strategic shape that the Whiteist response to the collapse of the post WWII Duopoly is going to take.

The whole point of the Duopoly was to persuade or intimidate non Germanic countries to buy into the narrative of two differing forms of white civilisation. In classic ‘free market’ fashion the victim is free to choose which one to support.

And whichever one you support the Whiteists win.

This strategy has decisively failed after the collapse of the dictator network in the Middle East. The Anglo Saxon powers are seeking to replace it with a strategy of fighting non white powers on their own cultural ground.

A clear example of this is the overthrow of Ghaddafi in Libya. The Saxon led powers are seeking to exploit Sunni identity in the Libyan population as the basis for a new Germanic compliant regime.

The other most glaring example must surely be in the recent absolutely pathetic Iranian assassination fraud; a blatant attempt to create Sunni-Shia conflict. (See above)

I am by no means the first to notice the effects of this trend, commentators in Asia Times and others have already described the process of stirring up mischief in China’s border territories and elsewhere.

We can expect to see the Germanic media increasingly busying itself with the detail of various regional conflicts everywhere it has an interest. Of course it will do so with a Germanic attention to detail.

But this strategy rests on one vital flaw.

It assumes that potential victims of the new policy cannot play the same trick. That they will continue to fall for the line that all white people are the same.

That there is no difference between Gaelic and Slavic whites and Germanic whites.

But I know there is.

And I know what those differences are.

And I am working to detail them.

When non-white nations learn to do this as well, we will begin to have some justice and peace in the world.

This is the vital importance of the WHITE FLAG project.

May 3 2012 Whiteism and the Left

May 4 2012

Whiteism and the Left: The Moment of Truth

Between the Russian Revolution and the rise of the Nazi party, revolutionary Rosa Luxembourg observed that the world would be forced to choose between barbarism and socialism. The path of progress envisioned by Marx could no longer be considered a foregone conclusion- a startling and sobering reflection made by a woman living out the last act in her life.

Marx did not have the dubious benefit of Luxembourg’s position in history, which goes some way to explaining what now seems so inexplicable; his insistence on the universality of progress through capitalism.

Profound change has occurred between the time of Marx and now. His vision of universal human progress has become fatally compromised, recast as a specific cultural artefact; part of the narrative of human progress but no longer with the power to define it. A historical Berlin Wall stands between where we are now and Marx and his world. Only an understanding of Whiteism will allow you to even see this wall, much less scale it and look over.

To Marx, forward motion of human development seemed an indisputable fact. Dynamic industrialisation and political and social change were sweeping old structures away replacing them with political and economic forms that appeared analogous to one another. French, German and English systems, even backward Russia, all appeared to have basic developmental characteristics in common. It seemed obvious that the undeveloped world would in time, follow this template. All societies were progressing to capitalism, providing the platform for a worldwide Communist revolution. This vision of capitalism systematically transforming the world was the very bone structure of the Communist movement in the opening years of the last century

Since this progression was to be universal there appeared to be neither necessity nor means to describe it in specific historical terms. Marx did not attempt to describe capitalist progress as the product of specific circumstances, which is to say he idealised it; took it out of time and place- the very antithesis of a materialist conception. Marx implied that capitalist development was progress itself; it did not feed into and specific society, society fed into it. In this lay a fatal flaw. Any description of a social development must take into account its specific cultural positioning in history and geography.

Since Marx saw progress as inevitable to the extent it was universal, he never faced the inevitability that to preserve property and power the Burghers would lay the neck of Germanic civilisation down on the altar of Nazism. German civilisation would prove to be the sacrifice required to preserve Germanic capitalist society.

In the century preceding 1930, Germanic society had become the torch bearer for an unchallenged vision of civilisation and progress. Societies were regarded as civilised and advanced to the extent that they complied with the White/Germanic template of society. They were backward and primitive to the extent that they violated it. The idea of material civilisation completely dominated all Germanic societies and all the societies that were dominated by Germanic societies. Material development, expressed through technology was civilisation. Marx’s materialist formulation was the apotheosis of this conception, asserting that civilisation itself rested on a level of material development- specifically the Germanic model. A society that had the motor car was in every way more advanced, (closer to the goal of Socialism), than one that used the horse and cart.

Only an understanding of the depth and ubiquity of this perspective can make clear how shattering it was to realise that technology could be used as an expression of barbarism.

In 1930 Germany Luxembourg became aware that just as the Russian revolution had changed the trajectory of world history, it would provoke a response that was just as significant. She could see a tipping point was fast approaching.  Luxembourg foresaw the inescapable logic of the rise of fascism in response to the Bolshevik revolution, even if she could not foresee the horrific actualite of fascism.

The rise of Nazism, the Holocaust and the War is the history of the degradation and transformation of technology ; from the mechanised record keeping of IBM in the death camps to the industrial scale murder of prisoners in custom made factory facilities, from the creation of the Enigma code machine to Bletchley park computing and finally the Atomic Bomb.

As both contending sides of Germanic society Saxon and German descended into savagery, they took idealised universal civilisation and progress based on the German model with them.  The very idea of  Germanic civilisation died in the Holocaust. As the Weimar Republic went up in flames universality did  too.

This was a cataclysm beyond which Marx could not have seen and it forever forms an insurmountable barrier between him and us.

Fascism and the resulting holocaust did achieve part of their purpose. They did prevent an ’inexorable’ movement towards socialism; at the cost of the very idea of technological/cultural progress itself. Germanic society through Fascism chose to turn its face away from the idea of civilisation through technology and indeed the very idea of civilisation and progress . It is the Holocaust and the world it produced that has given us high tech barbarism we see today.

The Germanic mind can now only see technology as the harbinger of death and destruction because of the betrayal of technology/civilisation they themselves carried out in WWII.  Now in a horrific inversion of reason it is the purpose of all Germans to universalise this techno-fear and techno-disgust through fantasy fiction and pseudo science- this is what they see as their legacy to the world.

High tech barbarism produced a psychic assault to Germanic society and all the societies dominated by Germanism, producing a myriad of diseased dystopian visions of the future. Every year another  Germanic film or novel appears depicting the future made horrific by technology in the hands of one or other group of German barbarians.

But it is important to understand these artefacts tell us nothing about the future and everything about the Germanic past.

I can see Rosa Luxembourg in her moment of truth: turning her gaze to a brutal reality; a world away from Marx’s vision and anything he had known or had to face. Finally, brought up against the true nature of profound human conflict, there is no room for idealism or any other self-delusion.

Bless her courage.

Forgive Marx his idealism.

Curse German barbarism.

And end it.