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.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s