British historian says the rioting white “chavs” are culturally black, so that this was, after all, a black riot
the tide of opinion, the British website Final Conflict
(which a reader tells me
is anti-Semitic) supports
historian David Starkey’s extremely controversial appearance
on BBC Newsnight (“‘The whites have become black’ says David Starkey”) in which he boldly brought race to the forefront of the debate about the riots. Starkey was opposed by the two other, standard-leftist guests: a black female author, Dreda Say Mitchell, who said, “We should stop talking about ‘them’ and us’ and realize that we’re all one community,” and by a young white author of a book on “Chavs” who said, “You’re saying that black culture is criminal,” and said that the rioters rioted because they’re harassed by the police and because they have no future. Both defended black culture including rap. After Starkey’s initial, highly provocative statements about how the riot was really a black riot and due to a negative black culture, the cross-talking gets in the way of any useful discussion.
A reader in England says of the program: “It has outraged a lot of people. He quoted Enoch Powell as well, and said that Powell was ‘absolutely right’. Actually he was criticising black culture, not black people. Starkey is a mainstream gay right wing historian who specialises in books and programmes about Royalty. He is a great ‘stirrer’ and this time he is at the centre of the whirlwind.”
Well, Starkey may have said he was criticizing black “culture,” not black people. But how did that black culture get into Britain and transform it? By the immigration of black people. That’s the kind of simple, undeniable truth that modern white people just can’t face.
Here is the article:
On Twitter, on Radio 5 Live, the historian David Starkey is being pulled apart as a “bigot”, “racist” and “ignorant” for stating that the riots have a racial character and that the white chavs are essentially “whiggers”—i.e. have taken on black gangsta culture.
- end of initial entry -
He has dared to say what so many screaming liberals have wanted covered up, that the gangsta culture, born in U.S. ghettos, with its gangsta rap and its baggy-arsed trousers and weirdly angled baseball hats, has been embraced by some white trash/chavs, and it is they who joined the gangstas in rioting: so it is a racial event, albeit gangstas and whiggers, whilst decent whites and blacks who still have the culture of their grandparents (hard-working, Christian etc.) look on appalled.
As we and others have said, the more generations removed from the Empire Windrush and all that, the worse things get because multi-culti destroys roots, heritage, cultures, decency, honesty, duty etc. and the results of the “melting pot” is to churn out gangstas with no respect for any authority, any culture, any history/heritage etc.
As David Starkey said “the chavs have become black” who speak patois, and strut about like gangstas (a typical example is the “white” bastard who stole from the Malaysian student’s backpack, whilst his coloured accomplice distracted him, that the whole world saw—to England’s shame.
Will they now jail David Starkey, the outspoken homosexual historian, for daring to touch on some uncomfortable home truths? No doubt the “usual suspects” will call for him to get a longer sentence than the gangsta looters!
What was it Orwell said about the truth being revolutionary? Did we ever live in such Orwellian times?
Meanwhile the Neo Con mouthpiece David Aaronovitch boasts of the need for more CCTV [security cameras?], because these people do not want the gangsta menace wiped out—they want to molly coddle them, and use their endemic criminality to get more Police State powers (whilst they live in the safety of their rich enclaves).
Aaronovitch also says the gangstas are no different from the Mods and Rockers on the beach at Brighton, or Skins and Punks in the late 70s.
I think those of us who saw homes and businesses burnt down see a vast difference! These Neo Cons and liberals also know that all the white youth groups (mods, rockers, skinheads, whatever) were never pumping areas full of guns and drugs.
The Neo Con right and the liberal/Marxist left are deliberately putting up a smoke screen. They will paint it as non-racial, when we know where and how it started. They will paint it as poverty when those people wear trainers and carry phones more expensive than anything I have.
The gangstas have made the streets of London unsafe for decades. The police know this. They know who are carrying the knives and the guns. But to talk about the elephant in the room—as David Starkey has—is to face the screaming hordes.
The reverse of this media whitewash (excuse the pun!) is that Sikhs and Muslims who defended their homes and businesses (as is their right) in Southall and Dalston, whilst tooled up with knives and swords, are proclaimed as heroes by the media, politicians etc.
Yet the White English who took to their streets in Enfield and Eltham are dismissed and attacked as “right wing extremists” even though they carried no weapons to defend their own communities.
This is how the media works. Lap it up.
Posted by Final Conflict at 12:21 AM
An Indian living in the West writes:
I was sickened watching the BBC program. The British really are a nation of the walking dead. It has become a disgusting spectacle. Starkey was not even trying to blame all the rioting on blacks, merely on black “culture.” Even that has become unacceptable to these vain moralists. Ridiculous.
I think these riots may be precursors to much worse trouble to come. The breakdown of the family, the destruction of the white British working class (almost completed by now) and the relentless pressure of immigration (particularly black immigration) will finish Britain off. It will become a dreary violent place where few civilized people would want to live.
Dan G. writes:
I just wanted to let you know that Final Conflict, the British website you linked to, is anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic and seems to have Nazi affiliations. Given its title, this is not surprising. I’m not saying that some valid points are not made on the site, including in the article you linked to, but it is decidedly unsavory overall and not the type of site you would want to lend your support to.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 13, 2011 09:50 AM | Send