Starkey: The fastest show trial in history.

The left have been gunning for David Starkey for decades, as much for who he is rather than  what he says. For Starkey is that rarest of commodities: an unapologetic white man who says precisely what he thinks, without the slightest concern for who he offends. For his fans he is a free speech crusader, to his enemies a walking ‘hate speech’ generator.

In the wake of his interview with Darren Grimes, Starkey must have set a world record for the speed at which someone can be condemned without trial. Universally denounced, fired from everything he could be (Harper Collins, Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, and the Mary Rose Museum), hung drawn and quartered on social media, even thrown under the bus by Grimes himself (to whom Starkey is a hero), all well within a 24-hour window. As Starkey once remarked, he won’t be going to heaven; but now he may now be off Beelzebub’s guest-list too.

The furore enveloping Starkey is twofold: first, that he argued slavery wasn’t genocide, and second that he employed the term ‘damn blacks’. The first one is a trifle: of course, slavery isn’t genocide, something even a lamentable historian such as myself can deduce. Slavery is a business which would suffer if you wiped out your workforce. That is not to demean the suffering of slaves, but merely to be accurate. Besides which, you’d think Britain’s most eminent historian would at least be entitled to an opinion on the subject.

The ‘damn blacks’ comment is more problematic, and the reason the left are wetting themselves at the prospect of adding the Starkey scalp to their ever-expanding oubliette. They may well be right, though I fear it will be the final nail in the free speech coffin, should it come to pass. Out of context the social media clip looks bad, but there is a reason Grimes missed it during the interview – it’s crystal clear that Starkey does not use ‘damn’ in the pejorative sense.

He’s refuting the argument of genocide, using ‘damn’ as an emphatic (as in ‘damn fine day!’) – ‘how can there be black genocide, when there are so many black people?’ is clearly what he means. You are free to disagree of course, as many will – but you might wish to consider why the word ‘damn’ can only have a pejorative meaning when applied to black people.

It is important to be as dispassionate in defence as one would aim to be in prosecution, and I feel certain concessions ought to be made in terms of Starkey. First, he is clearly a man of his time – as is the language he uses. Second, while I would not use the term ‘provocateur’, he is evidently aware of the value of offence, having once commented that being ‘Britain’s rudest man’ was worth ₤100k per annum to him. Starkey must take some blame for this, so too must the hysterical cancel culture we live in. In any event, I doubt Starkey would claim not to know he sails close to the wind.

If you find yourself genuinely offended by Starkey, that’s fine. If however you demand the man be crucified, vilified, and hounded out of his livelihood and the public sphere, I believe you have some questions to answer yourself:

Firstly perhaps you did not notice that in the early stage of the interview Starkey was highly critical of other groups: the obese, the white working class, thick schoolchildren, and entitled white women. Indeed, he was much ruder than his use of the term ‘damn blacks’ – why do you think those insults drew no ire whatsoever?

Secondly how comfortable are you with the ridiculous double standard that now exists in terms of race, whereby attacking whites evokes praise and public sympathy, while defending whites leads to police investigation and accusations of ‘Nazi hate speech’ (It’s OK to be white, White Lives Matter).

Consider Cambridge University’s Dr Gopal, who wants to, ‘abolish whiteness’, and thinks ‘white lives don’t matter’. How about Black Lives Matter’s co-founder, Yusra Khogali, who thinks whiteness is a ‘genetic defect’, and should be erased by black people – fancy taking a knee for that? Or Munroe Bergdorf who thinks ‘all white people are racist’, and that ‘the white race is the most violent and oppressive force of nature on earth’, fired and re-hired by L’Oreal, when they could see which way the wind was blowing.

Thirdly do you not find it slightly worrying that a man of such eminence can be effectively ‘struck off’ within the space of 24-hours, due to a faux pas?

Fourthly and finally, even if Starkey were the most racist man on earth – a fully-paid up clansman who’s hood just happened to slip, so what? This cannot come as much of a shock in a climate which routinely portrays all white people as racist – whether they speak out against race (white saviour complex), or remain silent (complicit, violence). Why not let people make up their own minds about his behaviour without having to silence him?

To those perfectly comfortable with cancel culture, I’d like to ask, what exactly is your solution here? With whiteness now classified as little more than a disease, what are we going to do with a nation, 80% of whose population is white? Cancel everybody? Operate a 2-tier system where only non-whites are allowed to speak? Send all our whites off to some kind of racist Botany Bay?

As Starkey himself said at the end of the interview when asked about cancel culture, ‘we’ve got to dare to speak out. They (the left) think they can shut us up.’

He’s not far off, is he?

Subscribe to the quarterly print magazine

Subscribe to the quarterly digital magazine

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

31 Comments on Starkey: The fastest show trial in history.

  1. Why did “Conservatives under attack by the left: Cowards cowering in their homes” by this author get deleted? I’m intrigued there’s apparently some kind of filter going on. What on earth can be possibly have written to get silenced like this?

  2. I have no doubt that Dr Starkey will be back. He can self-publish anyway and is more than capable of defending himself as well as highlighting the hypocrisy of the cultural Marxists that currently hold sway. It’ll probably be a best seller.

  3. “They (the left) think they can shut us up.”

    Obviously they’re right to think that they can shut us up. E.g. they’ve shut David Starkey up. They’ve also shut Katie Hopkins up, and it’s the thuggish actions of “Tommy Robinson” that are reported, not his sensible opinions about Mahometan murderers.

    They’ll shut the Salisbury Review up if ever the SR attracts their attention.

    We used to be the silent majority, but now we’re the shut-up majority, if indeed we’re still a majority. Up to three million Hong Kong Chinese immigrants will surely hasten the silent majority’s reduction to a silent minority.

    Dear God, please end this world soon.

    • Remain calm. The primary platform of the hard left is Twitter and, despite the proliferation of opposing views to be found, it continues to be a boiling cacophony of Liberal hate and cancel culture. They ought to rename it Bitter. However, Conservative-minded folks are abandoning this tedious echo chamber in their droves, either to cock a snook at social media overall or head over to more accommodating pages like Parler. What I’ve realised is if I didn’t use the internet at all – I rarely if ever watch television news or read newspapers – I wouldn’t have a clue about any of this and would likely live just as meaningful a life as I do currently with the extra knowledge I’ve acquired by exposing myself to it. Simply put, ignorance may well be bliss after all.

    • “They’ll shut the Salisbury Review up if ever the SR attracts their attention”

      Well, there was a homophobic article a few months ago, and when a gay man, a subscriber, complained in the comments guess what – he was told to SHUT UP!

      So what’s ok for some is not ok for others apparently. There is also a genuine eugenicist who regularly comments here without censure, although thankfully I do detect a slight tetchiness from the editor when responding to him/her/it.

      • Outside of beacons of compassion (the USA/UK) most of the world regards homosexuality as degenerate, just as most of the world (outside aforesaid beacons) thinks its own little tribe is naturally superior to all others and doesn’t want to live next door to imagined inferiors.

        We don’t like it, but there it is.

        As to eugenics. Don’t we all think it’s a bad idea for junkies, drunks, 11 year olds and first cousins to reproduce?

          • British law did not envisage generation after generation cousin marriage which, doubtless someone will know, eventually amounts to brother/sister genetically speaking. I’ve had it first hand from a Muslim health visitor that she cannot get her clients to understand that or that the high incidence of genetic abnormalities is the result. There was a report on a Canadian news site some months ago about the financial costs to the NHS in (I think) bradford, but not a word in the UK MSM of course.

            I’ve doubts about your homophobia claim – except in the expected religious communities.

      • Andrew: I think the eugenicist neo-Nazi you mention has departed to cultivate more fruitful pastures. I’m grateful to him for helping me to elaborate my idea that the so-called far right and the far left are pretty much the same thing.

        As for homophobia, I’m not scared of homosexuals. I think they should be banned from marching in the streets and otherwise advertising their sexual habits, and they should also be banned from close contact with children, including adoption and employment as schoolteachers, and they certainly ought not to be allowed to indulge in parodies of marriage, – but otherwise, what consenting adults over the age of 21 do to each other in private ought, in my opinion, to be their own business.

        In other words, I support the recommendations of the famous Wolfenden Report. What I don’t support is Wolfenden Correctness Gone Mad.

  4. My favourite piece of anti-white vitriol is the remark by Sudan Sontag:

    ‘The white race is the cancer of human history…The truth is that Mozart, Pascal. Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, Parliamentary democracy, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx, Balanchine ballets et al don’t redeem what this particular civilisation has wrought upon the world,’’

    Hard to beat. And of course, whatever evil the ‘white race’ perpetrated, it was no more evil than any other; just better at it , as it was better at a wide range of everything else which has lifted hundreds – thousands – of millions , out of poverty, ignorance, hunger and disease.

    The ‘philosophy academic’ Sontag doesn’t seem to have grasped this simple point.

  5. Starkey joins a very long and ever lengthening list of top-flight academics, including several Nobel Prizewinners, who have been ‘cancelled’ by their intellectual inferiors.

  6. “Damn” has long been regarded as an intensifier (cf Henry Ford “. . . and the damn thing (Ie the Model T) ran”) rather than a term of abuse.

    • Surely the most memorable example committed to tape is by Charlton Heston: “Get your hands off me, you damned dirty ape!”

      Whether or not this phrase has ever passed through Mr Starkey’s mind, is open to speculation.

      • My favourite animal-related insult, if we’re going to have a competition, is an Arab one that has been much in my mind since the XR protests began last year.

        ‘You are so stupid that even a dog would not piss on your face.’

  7. An excellent article. The defence of Starkey is simple: it’s a free country and he should be able to say what he likes short of inciting violence or crime. Second, he was clearly speaking in a state of irritation and third his irritation was understandable. This country has been badly harassed and frightened by the antics of the race baiting left and it has had the notion of its alleged “racism” rammed down its throat. Finally, his remarks should lead to nothing more than has been done to the disgusting Gopal who goes a lot further in her racial prejudice than him; nor has she so much as apologised. These three points should be enough to sink Starkey’s critics. That they are not shows that a totalitarian left is actually in power and that our official right is too craven, too cynical and too infiltrated to do much about it – even when in government.

    • I do get tired of the “it’s a free country” mantra, when it’s been obvious for many years that the UK long ago ceased being a free country

  8. Have you never encountered black patois? It’s damned childish, obviously. But it’s also damned un-pee-cee. Should blacks have the right “living today” to speak thus? Or do they have some special licence?

  9. So Andrew, – loss of employment with no opportunity to defend himself, or have professionals do it for him? Organisations must be free to employ whoever they wish? Ahh, tell that to the Equalities Commission. What odd ideas you have about justice.

  10. In amongst the mostly irrelevant drivel here is a something about a “final nail in the free speech coffin”, which is the usual bleating from reactionary zealots when somebody feigns indignation following a perfectly reasonable response to something they’ve said. Apparently free speech stops as soon as ‘ spoken and the freedom of others to react accordingly must be curtailed. As far as I’m aware Starkey hasn’t been silenced, he’s still free to say whatever he wants – here, perhaps, if he so desired – and won’t face any legal action, which is the real essence of free speech. Those organisations must be free to employ or appoint anybody they wish, and if he transgressed their terms then he has to suffer the consequences.

    The argument that he’s just a man “of his day” is specious, he’s living today and needs to remember that.

    • What a very silly post. Starkey has lost his appointments and most likely his ‘platforms’, all in accordance with the teachings of Herbert Marcuse,

  11. Frank talking about censorship , what happened to the blog post that you initially posted on this site, starting with the words:

    In light of the Black Lives Matter riots, and the stark contrast between last week’s treatment of Jake Hepple (‘White Lives Matter’ banner – sacked, with his GoFundMe page shutdown) and Cambridge University’s Dr Gopal (‘White lives don’t matter’ / ‘abolish whiteness’) – promoted, I thought it would be timely to write a piece on […]

  12. There is a revered philosopher who has claimed that the equation E+mc2 is phallocentric. Such is the quality of thought in our universities.

    It is clear to me that Frank’s article, using reason and evidence to support the thrust of his argument, is thereby whitely privileged.

    Perhaps the editor could balance it out with a piece of directionless waffle from Welby, if the archbish is not too busy considering smashing stained glass and desecrating graves.

    • E=mc², actcherly, MMcM, but I don’t really know what that means.

      I was waiting for Androol to explain.They has an Astrology degree, don’t you know. They are obviously too busy sewing COVID masks.

      • Thank you John. Maybe Einstein used a keyboard as carelessly as I did and the whole of modern physics has been barking up the wrong tree.