In this incisive interview, the historian David Starkey expounds why the current political class of the British isles is utterly contemptuous of the people who constitute the country. Make no mistake: we are witnessing a legal coup by the Establishment against the will of the people. The British Supreme Court and its Parliament is wrecking the constitution of the country.
Every week, some new obscure feminoid pops up out of nowhere to bitch about men, particularly white men.
In an article originally in the Washington Post, quoted in the always interesting Unz Review, a certain Mary Rambaran-Olm, Woman of Color, addressed an academic conference of the International Society of Anglo Saxonists—an international academic group devoted to English Medieval Studies.
Naturally, the gripe was that:
“Anglo Saxon” is code for whiteness, a phrase that is co-opted today by white supremacists around the world to advance a false version of white-dominated history.
Despite being utter twaddle, any amount of lying about white men is acceptable in academic, or should I say pseudo-academic, circles. Apparently, now it’s the bespectacled professors of Medieval Studies, swapping their tweed jackets and pipes for Nazi brownshirts in the cloisters of academe.
What really annoys this Woman of Color is not the fact that English Medieval Studies necessarily involves the study of former white civilization and culture, but that all the modern world—science, music, literature, medicine—was created essentially by Men of White. From the Middle Ages emerged the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Reformation, the Industrial Revolution, aviation, the Space Age, the Atomic Age, computers and so on. Almost all the work of Men of White. Had not Western men explored the world and colonized Africa, Africa would still be in the Stone Age.
This is really what irks the second-rate pseudo-intellectuals. Now that their envy and spite are given free range in any venue, everyone is supposed to grovel before them. They can whine and moan about “white supremacy” but do they ever think about what that means? Do they ever think?
It was summed up very neatly by a commenter on the Unz Review (h/t Anon) who opined:
There are certain academics who, after a cluster of years in the field, begin to realize they’re never going to contribute very much, mainly because they’re intellectual lightweights. They’ve begun to notice that tenure and the good jobs at the more prestigious universities are going to their intellectual heavyweight colleagues. When they’re socializing with other professors, they notice that they sound stupid in comparison, and they can’t hold up their end in an intellectual argument with colleagues, and sometimes not even some of their students.
At this point, the lightweight, often a female minority, becomes frantic and desperate when she finally realizes she can’t keep pace with her more brilliant, mainly white male colleagues. The anguish is further compounded when she doesn’t land a white male husband, preferably high status, which is her escape plan if her academic career doesn’t work out. But quite often, the male she’s angling for has heard enough pseudo-intellectual blather from her that he’s disgusted by her stupidity and her underwater basket weaving-type papers in her field that he has read. He considers her an egotistical, screechy dud. Her failures cause her to start scheming like Lucretia Borgia. She delves into her female id and goes into full witch mode. She tries to backstab her colleagues and her entire intellectual field by screaming that everyone’s bigoted against her, and conjures up a media storm.
Quite often, these attempts occur after her employer has just given her a review of her work and failed to give her tenure. This is the academic world’s way of saying, “Eh, you’re really not that good. We made a mistake in hiring you, c’est la vie, now push off.”
Well, she could certainly get hired in the Bitching-About-Men Department at the University of Fatuous Drivel.
My reaction is: so what? All those opposed to political correctness should see this non-issue for what it is. In a few years people will wonder what an earth made this a “controversial” or embarrassing moment. I especially ask Conservatives to think about what trouble they create for themselves by empowering this kind of retroactive political correctness. Everyone in the past was guilty of something that PC condemns. It is all so 1984.
Failing to build pipelines – that is the issue for which Trudeau the Lesser should be deposed.
Words can describe the same thing at various levels of politeness and social acceptability. Moreover, as soon as the euphemism becomes too clear, the word can be changed to something less vulgar. Euphemism piles on euphemism. Thus the place where we void our noxious bodily effusions goes through various evolutions. The incompatibility of shitting with the maintenance of personal dignity causes a continuous slow migration of words to describe the place where the deed is done.
Likewise climate alarmism has changed the terms of the debate whenever it suited them. “Anthropogenic global warming” is a scientific theory. “Global warming” hides the crucial term that attributes human causation to the reality that the world has been warming since 1850. “Climate change” obscures the causal relationship even further. Anything that happens in nature is assumed to be human caused, without that realization ever consciously arising in one’s mind.
“The Guardian has updated its style guide to introduce terms that more accurately describe the environmental crises facing the world.
“Instead of “climate change” the preferred terms are “climate emergency, crisis or breakdown” and “global heating” is favoured over “global warming”, although the original terms are not banned.”
Not banned you say? How civilized of them!
The Guardian continues:
“Other terms that have been updated, including the use of “wildlife” rather than “biodiversity”, “fish populations” instead of “fish stocks” and “climate science denier” rather than “climate sceptic”. In September, the BBC accepted it gets coverage of climate change “wrong too often” and told staff: “You do not need a ‘denier’ to balance the debate.”
“Updated”? The use of the term “climate science denier” is not an update, it is a slander.
Yes the climate has changed. 11,000 years ago, where I write was under 4,000 feet of ice. I deny nothing, I merely allow for a wider range of facts to impinge on my understanding of climate.
Over 2000 years ago, the Spartans gave the world the greatest story of Aryan heroism the world has seen. At Thermopylae 480 BC, Xerxes—the king of the Achaemenid Empire—ordered the Spartans to surrender their weapons. King Leonidas responded coolly, “Μολών λαβέ” (Molon Lave (molṑn labé)—come and take them).
In the ensuing battle, the Greeks, numbering about 7000 men and opposed by an army of over 100 000 Persians, fought for three days before being defeated. Crucially, the Greeks inflicted major damage on the Persian forces, giving the Athenians precious time to escape the city. Later in the year, Greek forces crushed the Persians at the Battle of Salamis, ending Xerxes’ dreams of conquest.
At the site of Thermopylae, there now stands a monument inscribed with these powerful words of King Leonidas.
Similar nefarious dreams of conquest emanate in the modern world from the militant left. In America, the boneless pseudo-men calling for the disarmament of free men take the form of the Democrat candidates for president. Beta O’Dork, the fake Hispanic, seems unable to understand the concise English of the American Constitution. He seems to think that he could simply undermine and ignore the freedoms guaranteed in that great document. What part of “shall not be infringed” does he not understand?
Over 200 years ago, it was clearly established that any law passed by any jurisdiction of the United States, if it contravenes the Constitution, is null and void (Marbury vs. Madison, 1803). All the prattle from the Democrats, aspiring to be the new Bolsheviks, is meaningless unless the US Constitution is violated. This is, of course, the aim of the communist and anarchist wing of the Democrat Party.
The Founding Fathers had the wisdom to understand that the Second Amendment protects the First. If the tyrants get their way, the suppression of free speech will be next on their list. In many other countries, Canada included, “hate-speech” laws are being ever expanded to suppress any ideas not approved by the political class. Criticism of immigration, Islam, is being suppressed all the time, aided by the leftist propaganda destroying our education system, and people can lose their jobs and livelihood if they make an “incorrect” remark. This is de facto tyranny—they’re just waiting until they can make it de jure.
So the courage of the Greeks at Thermopylae should stir our hearts once again. If the nouveau-tyrant Democrats want to try to violate the freedoms of Americans, let them hear just one thing…
A fine Model 1911 Sig Sauer in .45 ACP bearing the immortal words.
Warfare is an area of human endeavour constantly subject to innovation: how to fuck over your enemy at low cost, low risk, and ideally, without him knowing you were responsible. Drones have shown their worth, and I am awaiting the next Pearl Harbour via a force of drones. Why would you ever hit an enemy with an air force when you could almost without cost wipe out the US Pacific Fleet with drones.
The drone attacks on Saudi oil facilities this weekend were a case in point. It leads me to think that a great deal of military equipment, doctrine, training and investment is wasted, not in the sense that all military spending is wasted – of course it is, to a pacifist – but is wasted from a purely military point of view. Much may be useless under modern conditions.
I am reminded, uncomfortably, of a recent article by the always entertaining Fred Reed, in Unz review. The Unz Review is a collection of the most outrageous opinionators on the planet, and I cannot vouch for the sanity of many of them. But Fred Reed is reliably sane.
” In extended periods of peace, which includes the bombing of peasants, a military tends to assume that no major war will come during the careers of those now in uniform. Commanders consequently do what makes their lives easy, what they must do to get through the day and have reasonable fitness reports. This does not include pointing out inadequacies of training or equipment. Nor does it include recommending large expenditures to remedy deficiencies. Nor does it include recommending very expensive mobilization exercises that would divert money from new weapons….”
” An aircraft carrier is a bladder of jet fuel wrapped around high explosives.The implications are considerable. A plunging hypersonic terminally-guided ballistic missile, piercing the flight deck and exploding in the hangar deck, would require a year in the repair yards. The Russians and Chinese are developing–have developed–missiles specifically to take out carriers. Note that the range of some of these missiles is much greater than the combat radius of the carrier’s aviation. Oops. “
” This happens partly because militaries are overconfident as a job requirement. You can’t tell the Marines that they are at best mediocre light infantry or the Navy that it is essentially a target setl. Instead the American armed forces are always said to be the best equipped, best trained, bravest, most formidable military that the world has ever seen. Except they aren’t. “
I do not think that all those American carrier battle fleets will survive a modern missile attack, and I hope that American admirals are conscious of the problem.
Don Hoffman says that consciousness is prior to matter, He undergoes a thorough and logical interrogation by someone who is not of his school of thought. The exchange is a model of how people should speak. Respectful, incisive, and utterly clear, these two go at it, shedding light not heat. What a treat to hear them! Hoffman never gets caught rejecting a proposition unnecessarily. He accepts that his thinking is compatible with several different outcomes, or schools of thought, but is frank about preferring one, and not others. Each person escapes arguing about stupid things and each rapidly exposes the nature and direction of his thought. They are a real pleasure to listen to.
The interlocutor suggests that, instead of there being two classes of being: matter and mind, which is the idea that constitutes dualism, consciousness might be more like a fundamental force of the universe, such as is each of gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force and the weak force. Consciousness might be, or not be, utterly fundamental. My inclination is to believe that consciousness is utterly fundamental. But my pleasure was in having to deal with someone who could make that sort of vital distinction, and force me to be more clever.
Arthur Koestler was a Hungarian of German-speaking culture who joined the German Communist Party and left it, for all the right reasons, in the late 1930s. His most famous writing is Darkness at Noon, which tells the story of Victor Rubashev, a Communist official arrested by the secret police, who finally consents to his death in the service of the Communist cause, even though he is innocent of any crime, deviation, or disloyalty to the Cause.
Darkness at Noon is one of the classics of the literature of disillusionment with Communism. I cannot recommend it enough.
Quite by accident I came across his autobiography “The Invisible Writing“. It recounts his years in the Communist Party in Germany in the years 1931 to 1938. The opening sentence reads:
“I went into Communism as one goes to a spring of fresh water, and I left Communism as one clambers out of a poisoned river strewn with the wreckage of flooded cities and the corpses of the drowned”.
In the second chapter he recounts the fatal weakness of the Communist Party of Germany in the face of the National-Socialist takeover. He likens the Party to a castrated animal, and describes how rapidly the whole structure was rounded up by the police after the Nazis took over in 1933.
“We had marvelled at the conspiratorial ingenuity of our leaders; and, though all of us had read works on the techniques of insurrection and civil warfare, our critical faculties had become so numbed that none of us realized the catastrophic implications of the scheme. The preparations for a long underground existence in decentralized groups meant that our leaders accepted the victory of the Nazis as inevitable”.
Another salient feature of living as a Communist was the total subordination of personal emotions to Party discipline, which meant that close personal friendships were eviscerated.
“As in boarding schools and convents intense personal ties are suspected of having an erotic background, so friendships within the Party aroused political suspicion. This attitude was not unreasonable, for between people whose entire life was dedicated to and filled by the Party, non-political friendships were hardly possible. The slogans of the Party emphasized the diffuse and impersonal “solidarity of the working class” instead of individual friendship, and substituted ‘loyalty to the Party’ for loyalty to friends. Loyalty to the Party meant, of course, unconditional obedience, and meant furthermore, the friends who had deviated from the Party-line, or for some reason had fallen under suspicion. Almost unconsciously I learned to watch my steps, my words and my thoughts.”
The same lack of freedom is recounted by the former leftist David Horowitz, in his book Radical Son, written in the 1980s. That is to say, Horowitz maintains that only outside the Left, as he defines that term, does freedom of thought and discussion exist. (There might be equivalent constraints on thought inside a severe order of Catholic priests or intellectuals, or Muslim radicals). Thus when Horowitz broke with the Left, he found that there were liberals who favoured the Vietnam War and conservatives who were against it. I can still recall his shock at discovering that outside the iron grid of Leftism, people were actually free to disagree. Horowitz so defines the Left as to exclude from it most reasonable, non-totalitarian, left-wing politics, and I follow his example.
In the venomous atmosphere of the Party, every sort of personal betrayal was not merely possible, it was expected. Koestler again:
“Few among the intellectuals in the Party realized the time that their mentality was a caricature of the revolutionary spirit; that with in the short span of theree generations the Communist movement had travelled from the era of the Apostles to that of the Borgias. But the process of degeneration had been gradual and continuous, and the seeds of corruption had already been present in the work of Marx: in the vitriolic tone of his polemics, the abuse heaped upon his opponents, the denunciation of rivals and dissenters as traitors to the working class and agents of the bourgeoisie.”
“The Marxist doctrine is a drug, like arsenic or strychnine, which in small does have a stimulating, in larger doses paralyzing, effect on the creative system”.
I eagerly await the emergence of re-convertants from political correctness. I eagerly await the literature of disillusionment from the political doctrines of equality pushed to extremes. Unfortunately, I do not think there will be one. I propose two reasons. In the intervening years since the 1930s, the decline of educational standards has become so acute that I doubt they would have the discipline and writing capacity to express themselves on anything other than confessional television shows. More important, the political Left was always grounded in Marxism which, however demented, was actually a theory of history, and made some predictions about how the world was to turn out. That they were wrong only showed the extent to which Marxism at least pretended to be scientific.
Currently the political Left is driven by anti-whiteness, which is really the current manifestation of antinomianism. It does not even pretend to be scientific. By antinomianism I mean the hatred and rejection of all existing standards and structures in the liberal West because they represent the workings of bourgeois commercial “white” civilization. My essential point about contemporary Leftism is that, if you made all white people disappear in a puff of smoke and replaced them with Japanese, or any other technically and socially competent group, the Left’s hatred of reality would compel them to reject that outcome just as severely.
The Marxists at least had a clue that one structure would be replaced by another. I am not sure the current anti-whiteness brigade have even approached that degree of coherence.
“Today the political elites are in a crisis resulting from an expected future that didn’t happen. The End of History didn’t pan out; Russia and China failed to join the liberal democratic club; the EU fell apart. The global world failed to last. But Brexit and the defeat of Hillary did not spur them to listen; instead, it inspired frantic efforts to reimpose absolute control via Chinese 5G, facial recognition, Google surveillance, G7 pacts against hate speech, and the NYT witch hunt against white supremacy.”
It starts when you shut the windows. For most of the summer the windows have been open. They breathe in and out on behalf of the house. Sometimes you have to shut them for rain, but most of the time the house and the outside are in a daily equilibrium. Cool in the morning, heating up in day, and cooling again at night, in a pleasant exchange between inside and outside.
Then one fine day in late August, you shut the windows that have remained open all summer, and open only a few of them by special exception, during the day, by conscious action. Summer’s equilibrium between inside and outside has ended. We are no longer in the equivalent of winter in the Caribbean. A few traitorous maple branches turn flaming scarlet or orange, and the rest of the woods start to have a tinge of orange and the edges.
At the same time clothing is added as insulation. We no longer dress for decency but for insulation from the nippy air. It starts with summer shorts and a short-sleeved shirt, and a pair of sandals. Then in latter August an extra shirt has to be thrown on in the mornings. Then we progress through long trousers, and the sandals eventually come off and are replaced, for the first time in months, by shoes and socks, which no longer feel sweaty and uncomfortable.
A cold night in late August finds us dressed in long pants, and fleece, as Jupiter is seen in its magnificence in the southern sky, and the summer triangle of Deneb, Alta’ir and Vega is over the top of the house in the early evening, on its way to setting in the west by ten thirty, no longer the glory of a summer sky at 2am. The Milky Way appears more prominently in the dark skies, and one stays up less late to see it.
Eventually a fire is lit in the stove to keep the chill out of the house. The cat no longer can be let in and out by the screen door, and the sliding glass double-paned doors are used to keep out the cold.
Mornings find the house enshrouded with fog from the lake, as it gives off its heat. The fog burns off to reveal a world bedewed, the grass refreshed and green. But if humans cannot stay outside, why should leaves hang around? Soon they will fall after turning from green to yellow orange and flame red.
Summer people pack up and return to cities to get back to work and send their children to school. The village empties out.
It is a good thing we have a transition several months long between summer and winter. Otherwise we should die of shock from how cold this country is in January.
I hope your chair by the fire has a good reading lamp. You will be sitting in it for months to come, as snow swirls around the house. But that is a few months away yet.