³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

Not sure about Starkey but his "shopping with violence" is a keeper.

Britain is going to the dogs.

Another helpful comment from Theo. Self confidence - even at a national level is key. Starkey's comments were naive, misguided & unhelpful.

Theophane (@ 2) -

Britain is going to the dogs.

Explain, please, the reasoning behind this comment, with reference to trends in other European countries (including traditional Catholic countries), and let's see whether your argument stacks up.

I hope that your answer to this question will be a bit more comprehensive than your attempt on another thread to argue that Britain should consider handing over its sovereign territory to Spain! (You seem to "have it in" for the UK, don't you? I wonder why?)

I think Starkey's thesis:

Dr Starkey insisted he had been trying to point out "the very different patterns of integration at the top and bottom of the social scale."

He wrote: "At the top, successful blacks, like (MPs) David Lammy and Diane Abbott have merged effortlessly into what continues to be a largely white elite...

"At the bottom of the heap, the story of integration is the opposite: it is the white lumpen proletariat, cruelly known as the 'chavs', who have integrated into the pervasive black 'gangsta' culture."

is at least plausible. Some chavs - probably the last minority it is socially acceptable to mock, demonize and generally treat as sub-human - may well identify and ape others on the margins of polite society. It is not racist, IMHO to point this out.

On the other hand, as a narcissist and professional contrarian, he shouldn't be allowed within a hundred yards of a television studio.

That's "may well identify with and ape others on the margins of polite society, BTW.

Miliband's response was dull and predictable, as was the letter from the academic thought police.

The main thrust of Dr Starkey's comments has been given support by Tony Sewell, quoted below from an article in the Daily Mail:

"More importantly, I feel that Dr Starkey, in his own clumsy way, may have stumbled on a difficult truth about the influence of black youth culture. For, despite the attempts of some apologists to dress up the looting as a political act against an oppressive Tory establishment, the fact is that the ethos of materialism — or ‘bling’ to use the street term — that pervades urban black youth played a major part in the widespread criminality perpetrated by rioters of all races. That is why the looters targeted specific stores that are cherished in this culture, such as those selling mobile phones, trainers, sports clothes or widescreen TVs. Let’s face it, there were no reports of the vandals looting bookshops or public libraries.

What motivated the troublemakers was not genuine poverty but rather a raw acquisitiveness that is fuelled by so much in this black-led youth culture, from the imagery in rap videos to the lyrics of hip-hop music. The twin central themes of this world are sex and material possessions. It is a milieu that glories in loose women and fast cars, in macho dominance and easy wealth. Concepts of restraint, hard work and personal responsibility are absent. Respect is something to be demanded rather than earned.

So much of the music and the video output is close to pornographic, with women degradingly treated as little more than sex objects. In this world, the highest ideal to which a man can aspire is to be a philandering, gun-wielding gang leader.

Where I believe Dr Starkey is right is that it is now just as likely to be a white or Asian teenager posing on the internet in baggy designer clothes and dripping in gold chains, either waving a weapon of some kind or pointing their fingers at the camera in a grotesque parody of a shooting. Tragically, this has become the acme of ‘cool’ for a generation of youngsters, regardless of the colour of their skin."

LSV;

'...the reasoning behind this comment ["Britain is going to the dogs"], with reference to trends in other European countries (including traditional Catholic countries)'.

That second part smacks of what grokesx likes to call 'whataboutery', but no matter. It boils down to the point you were making on the other thread;

"Tragically millions of totally innocent people don't get the chance to consider [whether or not they would be grateful to an anti-abortion group]".

Damian Thompson of the Telegraph wrote this post last Friday, entitled "The live birth of gangland";

"In 2010, a quarter of births were to mothers born outside the UK, according to the Office of National Statistics. The same set of statistics also showed that immigration added 239,000 to our population – a number which proves that this Government has no more control over our borders than the last one.

If a quarter of all babies born in England and Wales are to foreign mothers, then we’re experiencing the biggest change in our demographic identity since the Anglo-Saxon invasions of the fifth century."

He also noted that more than half of all births in London were to mothers born outside Britain, but crucially he added;

"The colour of people’s skins isn’t the problem, of course."

In his 'Theos' lecture of 2009, Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks was warning about this exact scenario;

"We are undergoing the moral equivalent of climate change and no one is talking about it."

The really important point in the 'Newsnight' discussion was not made by Starkey, who the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ likes for his anti-Catholicism as much as anything else, but by (black) novelist Dreda Say Mitchell;

"We have tripped ourselves up because what have we emphasised to our children in terms of success? "Success equals money" - that's what we've been saying to our children for such a long time - "Success equals money", so is it any wonder that the type of shops they've been looting - it was all about materialism."

If this is true, do you think it was helpful in 2009 when Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, let slip that he considered his £250,000 fee for his Telegraph column to be "chicken feed"? Or then we could bring up MPs' expenses again; how many of them really had to "pay" for what they had done? This isn't about race, it's about something David Cameron has a faint inkling of when he talks about "the slow-motion moral collapse" of our society. There is nothing "slow motion" about it Mr Cameron. Casur1 put it very well on the "riot of explanations" thread;

"Is anybody (and this absolutely includes the Tories) going to finally declare that the whole of western civilization took a massive wrong turn 50 years ago and we need to seriously bring the ship about?"

[bit more to follow]

I don't think Starkey's comments deserve much attention, but it seems to me that 'Gangsta' culture originated in urban America, and has been emulated by blacks and whites on both sides of the Atlantic. For explanations i think you have to look at drugs, especially cocaine and 'crack', and perhaps also at the legacy of the Vietnam War, when young black Americans were disproportionately represented among the lowest ranks in the US army. A quick note about a traditional Catholic country. It's...you guessed it, Poland again. Their parliament has just recently voted overwhelmingly to keep abortion illegal. They are not stupid.

@10 Theo BS as usual

"In 1993, researchers Cynthia Gimbel and Alan Booth conducted an important study for the Population Research Institute at Penn State University. They examined several previous studies of black participation in the war and concluded that the literature simply did not support claims of disproportionate black service, combat exposure, or casualty rates during the war. In fact, their investigations indicated that black draftees had a significantly lower risk of being given a combat arms assignment than did white draftees.

5. grokesx wrote:

"...as a narcissist and professional contrarian, he shouldn't be allowed within a hundred yards of a television studio"

And that is why they insisted on inviting him. If the Telegraph blogger James Delingpole is to be believed, then it was a toss-up between he and Starkey as to who was interviewed that night on Newsnight.

JD missed the call so they got Starkey. The ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ wanted a right-wing reaction to mull over (and condemn). It got one. Newsnight got some much needed PR. Win/win.

Theophane (@ 8,9,10) -

That second part smacks of what grokesx likes to call 'whataboutery', but no matter.

I think the thing that slightly 'gets' to me about your comments, Theophane, is that you bring up subjects of a political nature (e.g. Gibraltar on the other thread), but you leave people guessing (well, me at any rate) as to what you are really implying. Given your strong defence of the Catholic Church, it is difficult for me not to assume that you are trying to make some kind of Catholic inspired political statement. Given that the UK effectively ditched Catholicism centuries ago, I get the feeling that you are expressing some kind of religiously inspired petulance about this country. Now that it's "going to the dogs", perhaps that vindicates the view that the UK should not have rebelled against Rome!?!

Please feel free to disabuse me of my impressions, and the most effective way to do that would be to let us all know where exactly you are coming from.

This is the reason why I committed the 'great sin' of indulging in 'whataboutery'. Yes, what about Catholic countries (and not just Poland)? If Britain is "going to the dogs", then that idea has to be set in the context of the condition of other comparable European industrialised countries. Otherwise, what meaning does your comment have?

So, OK, Britain is going to the dogs. But if Italy is, and Spain and France etc are, then what you should be saying is "Europe (including Catholic Europe) is going to the dogs". That really would be a fairer comment, wouldn't it, Theo?

to be continued...

...continued from post #13...

Furthermore, Theo, you tend to use the abortion issue as the ultimate moral litmus test. This is frankly an abuse of the issue. We both agree that abortion is an extremely serious problem. But it is irresponsible to use one moral issue - no matter how serious - to somehow give the impression that you are reducing the importance of other moral problems. (As an aside: This tendency is one of the great evils in America, in my view. Some of those on the right who claim to care for the unborn, seem not to give a damn about those very same people once they are born, if they so happen not to be sufficiently monied. This is the most nauseating hypocrisy imaginable. Anyone who cares about the plight of the unborn has a moral duty to show the same level of care and concern for the lives of those same people once they are born.)

Abortion should never be a "moral smokescreen".

Concerning other moral issues: what do you think about corruption, for instance? Both Italy and Poland score worse than the UK on the (Italy in particular). What are your views about the plague of the mafia in Italy? I expect many of those mafiosi are baptised - even confessing and practising - Catholics! Surely you are not going to sweep this evil activity under the carpet in the name of abortion, are you?

So accuse me of 'whataboutery' as much as you like. My question was perfectly valid.

Theo, you are priceless. From your explanation in #8, when you say Britain is going to the dogs you mean it is going to the foreigners. Not that skin colour matters, though, ho no.

You'll be telling us some of your best friends are dogs, I mean black, next.

Without responding directly to Theo's thinly veiled xenophobia- I'll just quote post 7 AS71's quote from the Daily Mail :p

"...a raw acquisitiveness that is fuelled by so much in this black-led youth culture, from the imagery in rap videos to the lyrics of hip-hop music. The twin central themes of this world are sex and material possessions. It is a milieu that glories in loose women and fast cars, in macho dominance and easy wealth.."

What short, compartmentalised lives we lead- unable to relate to anything once the context of time, class & race are reshuffled. It's a 'Raw acquisitiveness' no different from the 'educated upper class' City banker or the 'pious virtuous' Vatican & televangelist.
Here's lyrics to a song from 1941, by the Harry James Orchestra (sung by Helen Ward) - I listen to enough from the 30's & 40's on Sirius XM to realise culture hasn't changed a great deal!

Daddy, I want a diamond ring, bracelets, everything.
Daddy, you ought to get the best for me.

Hey, Daddy, won't I look swell in sable, clothes with Paris labels?
Daddy, you ought to get the best for me.

Here's an amazing revelation
With the bitter stimulation
I'd be a great sensation.
I'd be your inspiration.

Daddy, I want a brand new car, champaigne, caviar.
Daddy, you ought to get the best for me.

Daddy, I want a diamond ring, bracelets, everything.
Oh, Daddy, you ought to get the best for me

How little standards have changed since '41, with the exception perhaps of wearing animal fur sable, I guess nowadays it would be more socially acceptable to have something out of leather or alligator skin...

@16 Ryan;
I don't think human nature has changed much since 1941 but lyrics sure have.

LSV, 13 & 14;

"I think the thing that slightly 'gets' to me about your comments, Theophane, is that you bring up subjects of a political nature (e.g. Gibraltar on the other thread), but you leave people guessing (well, me at any rate) as to what you are really implying. Given your strong defence of the Catholic Church, it is difficult for me not to assume that you are trying to make some kind of Catholic inspired political statement."

If i may remind you of something you wrote on the 9th of June;

"The Archbishop of Canterbury has every right to express his point of view in a secular society (which is not the same as an 'atheistic society'), and the last time I heard, no one is precluded from participating in the democratic process on the basis of his belief about reality or his membership of a particular institution."

May God forbid that we should ever go back to a situation in which one's membership of a particular institution precluded one from participating in the democratic process. I have given you my reasons for saying that Britain is going to the dogs. I could have said "Britain needs gentle reassurance that everything is going to be just fine, no cause for alarm", but that is not what i believe. And incidentally, i'm British, so i have a special entitlement to comment about the state of my own country, which i do not have in respect of other countries.

grokesx;

"...when you say Britain is going to the dogs you mean it is going to the foreigners. Not that skin colour matters, though, ho no."

Skin colour is irrelevant. But British identity is relevant. If it was OK for foreigners to run this country, why didn't we let Hitler have a go? And for that matter, why did Gandhi make a fuss about British rule in India? He pointed out that;

"A nation's culture resides in the hearts and in the soul of its people."

What is more central to British culture than the great Christian festivals of Christmas and Easter? And how was Churchill wrong when he said that;

"There is no finer investment for any community than putting milk into babies."?

paul james, #11;

Were you in 'Nam? (only joking). Hey, maybe you're better informed than i am about African American soldiers, but in any case it seems that America's entanglement there had profound and often negative consequences for American society.

Theo, you really are rather bad at this propoganda malarkey, your comments often have a mysteriously hollow ring to them- it's as if your words dislocate from their intended meaning- the effect reminds me a little of François Le Lionnais' transformation of John Keats' "A thing of beauty is a joy forever" into "Un singe de beauté est un jouet pour l'hiver" - 'A monkey of beauty is a toy for the winter'

Is that right Ryan?...

Is this is the same gentleman who did the "Monarchy" series? I saw the whole series & enjoyed it, but it was a bit ponderous.It was hard to stay awake through each episode, but that says more about me watching them later in the evenings perhaps.
Just looking about online, Dr. Starkey had some extremely "snarky" comments about quite a few subjects & persons, including the Queen.

Theophane (@ 18) -

And incidentally, i'm British, so i have a special entitlement to comment about the state of my own country, which i do not have in respect of other countries.

Then please explain the following from post #10 on this thread:

A quick note about a traditional Catholic country. It's...you guessed it, Poland again. Their parliament has just recently voted overwhelmingly to keep abortion illegal. They are not stupid.

So when it suits you, you refuse to comment on the state of other countries, because you feel that you are not entitled to, but then at another time you feel entitled to make a comment about Poland - i.e. its parliament (representing this "traditional Catholic country) is "not stupid". In other words, you are making a comment about the moral state of another country.

You also recently expatiated about the morality of Poland here on another thread.

Allow me to quote a bit of this:

The fact that Poland, having a relatively very high number of priests, was not exposed to this 'sexual revolution' (that's what it was called, remember), and has been barely touched by child clerical abuse allegations (they have their own controversies re. collaboration with the authorities etc), further indicates that the dereliction of morals in the West was at least a very important factor.

In other words, you are making a direct comparison between "the dereliction of morals in the West" and the morally unstained status of Poland.

I take it, therefore, that you have dual British-Polish citizenship, which entitles you to make these comments?

In the light of this evidence, it is no wonder that other people begin to wonder at your real agenda when raising certain political topics.

LSV;

"And incidentally, i'm British, so i have a special entitlement to comment about the state of my own country, which i do not have in respect of other countries."

So, for example, i might narrowly get away with saying that Britain is going to the dogs, but i'm not entitled to say it about another country, even if all available evidence pointed in that direction. No, i'm not Polish, i am British, but in relation to these recently quoted words from pastorphilip;

"Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people." (Prov. 14v34)

- being Catholic i have no difficulty in conceding a degree of "righteousness" in recent Polish history, which i think has been lacking here. It's another one of those "matters of opinion" which arise from time to time, though i might remind you that in 1942 King George VI awarded the George Cross to the people of Malta to "bear witness to the heroism and devotion of its people"; an important precedent for the expression of British admiration and appreciation of a Catholic country.

Theophane (@ 25) -

So, for example, i might narrowly get away with saying that Britain is going to the dogs, but i'm not entitled to say it about another country, even if all available evidence pointed in that direction.

Of course you're entitled to say it, if the evidence points in that direction! Why is it that you feel qualified to make huge sweeping statements about the morality of Poland, and draw controversial conclusions from those statements, and yet you cannot say that, for example, Italy is "going to the dogs" in terms of corruption or that Spain is "going to the dogs" in terms of its economy, etc?

In fact, I would have thought that sometimes outsiders can have a greater understanding of problems within a country than its own citizens, because the latter may be biased or may be caught up in some political agenda that blinds them (a good case being the ultra-patriotic USA).

There's nothing wrong with admiring a Catholic country, as King George VI did. He clearly didn't feel that he was unqualified to have an opinion about another country. And I am sure that he thought that the partially Catholic Germany at the time was "going to the dogs" (and we can hardly say that Catholic Bavaria was immune from the Nazis?!). If Britain didn't think that "Germany was going to the dogs" during the late 1930's and early 1940's, then would we have bothered to resist Hitler?

Come on, Theophane, your argument that a country can only be criticised by its own citizens is patently false.

So again I repeat my point: compare the moral trend in Britain with those of other comparable European countries, including traditionally Catholic countries. You can do it, you really can. The evidence is not hard to find!

And why behold you the mote that is in your brother's eye, but consider not the beam that is in your own eye? (Mt 7:3)

Is that really the best you can do, Theo? Take a Bible verse out of context?

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me cast out the mote out of thine eye; and lo, the beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Jesus did not say that we could not criticise others, but rather that we should be aware of our own faults in order to be able to do so. Otherwise why did He say: "...and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye"?

Good try though, Theo.

But I suppose if your interpretation stands up, then we have to assume that the UK is the most evil country on earth and everywhere else is a paradise. I mean, it really must be wonderful to live in pure, honest, crime-free Italy, for example!

In fact, if the UK is really so depraved, how come so many people want to come and live and work here - including huge numbers of Polish people!!

@ Theo

But British identity is relevant. If it was OK for foreigners to run this country, why didn't we let Hitler have a go?

So the fighting Hitler was about warm beer and cricket as against lederhosen and umpah bands? Get a grip man. To try and draw a parallel between opposing a twisted ideology of genocide and the master race and worrying about foreigners having kids is sick.

And for that matter, why did Gandhi make a fuss about British rule in India?

Er, 200 years of oppression and the systematic pillaging of India's wealth, maybe? It can be convincingly argued that culture was the least of the problems of the Raj, seeing as quintessentially English institutions like cricket, the gentlemen's club and mindless bureaucracy have flourished in India to this day.

grokesx;

"To try and draw a parallel between opposing a twisted ideology of genocide and the master race and worrying about foreigners having kids is sick."

I take it you don't mean "sick" in the way young people use it nowadays...no, thought not. But who said anything about "worrying about foreigners having kids"? What concerns me and thousands of other people is that British people are NOT having children. Of secondary concern is the number of people who are being allowed to stay permanently in this country; my argument is that if reasonable people ignore this issue it will be exploited by extremists. And where could the process of 'de-British-isation' lead us? I think one might think of the disappearance of the letter 'E' in England, to be replaced by a 'G' and and 'a'...

"This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this Gangland"

I know he is often sniffed at, but I recently finished Roger Scruton's 'England: An Elegy', a top notch book well worth reading. At the time of the riots I was reading his book on Modern Culture and was struck by the following:

But, as I noted in discussing Burke, Enlightenment goes hand in hand with the fear of it. From the very beginning hope and doubt have been intertwined. What if men needed those old authorities, needed the habit of obedience and the sense of the sacred? what if, without them, they should jettison all loyalties, and give themselves to a life of godless pleasure?...Furthermore, the very aim for a universal culture, without time or place, brought a new kind of loneliness. Communities depend upon the force which Burke called prejudice; they are essentially local, bound to a place, a history, a language and a common culture. The Enlightened individualist, by forgoing such things, lives increasingly as a stranger amongst strangers, consumed by a helpless longing for attachment which his own cold thinking has destroyed. Modern Culture, page 28

No doubt there is something to criticise here but my own feeling is there might be less to criticise than first imagined.

The answers to all England's woes are to be found in a place called Walsingham, Norfolk, a centre of pilgrimage for Anglicans, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians, which traces its origins to the 11th century.

Our Lady promised,

"All who are in any way distressed or in need, let them seek me there in that little house you have made at Walsingham. To all that seek me there shall be given succour. And there at Walsingham in this little house shall be held in remembrance the great joy of my 'Salutation', when St. Gabriel told me that I should through humility become the Mother of God's Son."

...though, only just seeing #31, i don't mean that Walsingham should detract from the contribution of eminent thinkers like Roger Scruton. Thanks for the recommendation.

Following on from LSV, Theo any issues with Poles being "allowed to stay permanently in this country"? How about "de-British-isation" being followed by re-catholic-isation.

I take it you don't mean "sick" in the way young people use it nowadays...no, thought not

Correct; seeing as I'm not 12 I mean it in the bog standard dictionary sense of:

mentally, morally, or emotionally deranged, corrupt, or unsound: a sick mind; wild statements that made him seem sick.

And where could the process of 'de-British-isation' lead us? I think one might think of the disappearance of the letter 'E' in England, to be replaced by a 'G' and and 'a'...

Which would make it more of a re-British-isation, since London was the first gang capital of the world in the 19th Century, with

And as the author of that book, "The Gangs of Liverpool" points out, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose :

it's fascinating to compare the newspaper headlines of today with those from the late 1800s. The issues are exactly the same. People were worried about rising youth crime and the influence of 'penny dreadfuls' on people's behaviour. Like today, some commentators demanded longer prison sentences and even flogging while others called for better education and more youth clubs.

And of course, that's not even mentioning the long tradition of religious/political gang culture in Liverpool, Glasgow and Belfast. How does that fit in to your going to the dogs/foreigners thesis?

paul james;

"...any issues with Poles being "allowed to stay permanently in this country"?"

After only a brief look at a recent article i can see that Poles are among skilled workers from EU countries who have been arriving in large numbers. Where 'home-grown' workers are thereby being passed over for training to reach the same skill levels, i think it is a cause for concern - regardless of the nationalities of migrants.

"How about "de-British-isation" being followed by re-catholic-isation."

No. "Re-British-isation" in conjunction with "re-Christian-isation".

31, "Communities depend upon the force which Burke called prejudice; they are essentially local, bound to a place, a history, a language and a common culture" That's absolute tosh. Infact the whole paragraph is. Prejudice shouldn't be used as a device to unite people -prejudice, as its encapusulated in that sentence, is the reason human history is punctuated with the tribalised violence we see in places like Northern Ireland & the Balkans. Have you any other thoughts on the paragraph you highlighted- other than say there's less to criticise than first imagined?
In my view, prejudice is often a prelude & an excuse for violence. I would like to think there are nobler ways of unifying a nation of individuals- respect is one. It's pretty hard to respect someone if prejudice is filling a person's heart with contempt & a desire to mark territory like a dog

grokesx;

"opposing a twisted ideology of genocide and the master race"

I think you underestimate the debt we owe to conservative Christian values in opposing and vanquishing that menace. It was a time when people prayed and obeyed. People remembered their duties to each other, and their duty to God. Churchill himself was a Christian. There is a famous picture of him with a cigar and a tommy gun, looking every inch the 1930s gangster. But he was not a war-monger. He famously made futile attempts to warn people of the dangers of appeasement, precisely because it would lead to another war;

"There never was a war more easy to stop than that which has just wrecked what was left of the world from the previous struggle."

Perhaps it is interesting that Shakespeare wrote Henry V and his 'eulogy' (as opposed to elegy) for England barely a generation before the outbreak of the Civil War, which caused suffering right across the British Isles and Ireland on an 'apocalyptic' scale. When, as Damian Thompson notes, "we’re experiencing the biggest change in our demographic identity since the Anglo-Saxon invasions of the fifth century", it is time to take stock. It is time to THINK, hard, about the best way to proceed.

"How does that fit in to your going to the dogs/foreigners thesis?"

Um, "going to the dogs" is a sort of 'figure of speech'. But the stuff about crime in Victorian London and Liverpool - fascinating. Only i think gangs have been around from time immemorial; an interesting example were the pagan Viking 'gangs' who wreaked so much havoc in the dark ages. Incidentally, i think by and large we do history very well in this country, though perhaps we have a "blind spot" about the middle ages. They too were often violent and horrible, but we also did some good things, like building magnificent Churches, Cathedrals and Abbeys; and founding world-renowned universities like Oxford and Cambridge.

Oops...Richard II, not Henry V...

Ryan

I should have realised the word 'prejudice' would make you bristle. I imagine it to be like saying 'bomb' on an American phone network, can't count to ten before the f-18s are scrambled.

You'd be better off reading Scruton, and Burke for that matter, yourself. For Scruton start will Mark Dooley's intellectual biography. Dooley also edited a Scruton reader. Liberty Fund publish a nice selection of Burke's works.

Burke's use of prejudice is pretty much contained in the sentence quoted. In short, it is an attachment to a place and everything that involves. It is the value of, and tendency toward, inherited wisdom over abstract rationalism. Prejudice, in Burke's sense, is not what is used to 'unite' people, whatever that means, it is upon it community depends. And I take that to be uncontroversial. This is not to say that Burke's prejudice is indefeasible, for me or himself.

The point Scruton is making is that by repudiating order and embracing enlightenment (here meaning not knowledge, or at least not just, but autonomy) you concede the community to the individual. The universal culture which is timeless and placeless, everywhere and nowhere, is functionally incapable of standing in it's place. Of course this was the point of Burke's Reflections.

prejudice...is the reason human history is punctuated with the tribalised violence we see in places like Northern Ireland & the Balkans

Burke is using prejudice in a different way than you are, which is why I suggest you read before you speak.

On the specifics, saying prejudice, in your sense, is THE reason human history is punctuated with tribal violence is a rather simplistic analysis. And supposing it were true, that, in itself, would not be a sufficient argument against it. Just so you understand, I'm not advocating prejudice in your sense but pointing out the inadequacy of your statement.

(Continued)

I would like to think there are nobler ways of unifying a nation of individuals- respect is one.

Nobler doesn't add anything, you should scratch it. Put it back when you've showed your workings.

The idea of a 'nation of individuals' is a rather telling phrase. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by nation but neither Burke or Scruton could be described as nationalists, for what it's worth you can't count me amongst that number either. I skipped over unifying earlier but it's appropriate to add a few words now. National unity is distinct from community. Nationalism is one form of membership and community another. I don't want to say you can't have both but as yet I'm not sure that you can. I suspect a community includes the state. Scruton, for instance, speaks about England not as a nation but as a country.

Most of what I've said is descriptive. I'm not committed to many of these ideas albeit I've been thinking about them a lot. For this reason I'm reluctant. Also, I don't hold much hope of having a worthwhile conversation with you. In fact, I'm beyond wanting to. The prospect of watching you flail at the most rudimentary distinctions is off-putting. I'm also not too keen on gushing and sickly prose, dotted with kittens and out of bounds arrows. So not having to read more of your posts is a real boon.

LOL Andrew such a Queen, can't even answer a question.

I think you underestimate the debt we owe to conservative Christian values in opposing and vanquishing that menace...

Sorry, don't see the relevance between that and the discussion that started with:

If it was OK for foreigners to run this country, why didn't we let Hitler have a go?

You say:

Only i think gangs have been around from time immemorial

Yes, here and everywhere else. So, when you said:

And where could the process of 'de-British-isation' lead us? I think one might think of the disappearance of the letter 'E' in England, to be replaced by a 'G' and and 'a'...

what were you trying to imply?

LOL Andrew such a Queen, can't even answer a question.

Can't isn't the same as won't.

I came across this- - Seems to contain all the ingredients people wish to return to when in search of a 'high watermark' within living memory. Although the implication is that it's Bible camp, once you remove the nostalgia, all that's really involved is team building/bonding exercises & courtesy.

Andrew you make a very bad Christian & a very good advert for Atheism, Agnoticism & secular modes of governance. Being the 'seemingly' young, fiesty pup that you are, you have alot to learn from peterm2 ;) It's a shame you can't avail of real life experience rather than buy into this exported American Evangelicalism you so regularly beat off. Isn't it enough that you have American TV, now you want American religion too?

Andrew you make a very bad Christian

In order to invite the comparison you have to know what a good Christian is.

a very good advert for Atheism, Agnoticism & secular modes of governance.

As I've said before I'm quite happy with secular government. What I've said here, and elsewhere, is compatible with secular government.

Being the 'seemingly' young, fiesty pup that you are, you have alot to learn from peterm2 ;)

Steady on.

It's a shame you can't avail of real life experience rather than buy into this exported American Evangelicalism you so regularly beat off.

There you go with can't again. It's a shame you seem incapable of learning your lessons.

'Real life experience' contrasted against 'American Evangelicalism' is a false dichotomy. Who's to say that 'real life experience' isn't confirmatory of American Evangelicalism? That seems to beg the question against American Evangelicalism. It also supposes there is such a thing as American Evangelicalism but this is very much contested. Take the work of David F. Wells, Richard Muller, Carl Trueman and Daryl Hart. Trueman recently released an inexpensive e-book called 'the real scandal of the Evangelical mind', that's not a bad place to start (.

It's also an inaccurate description of my own Christian beliefs, which for the most part sit comfortably within the Presbyterian and Reformed traditions. I'm happily committed to the Westminster Standards.

grokesx;

'I think you underestimate the debt we owe to conservative Christian values in opposing and vanquishing that menace...'

"Sorry, don't see the relevance between that and the discussion that started with:"

'If it was OK for foreigners to run this country, why didn't we let Hitler have a go?'

The relevance, as i see it, is that there is a kind of 'patriotism', when it doesn't spill over into 'nationalism', which is not only legitimate but commendable. I think that the 'native' population of any country, regardless of skin colour, should be allowed to keep that country's destiny in its own hands. That, i believe, was more or less Gandhi's position, and if it was good enough for him, it's good enough for me.

Now, i don't say this merely to be antagonistic, but i actually think you are 'flirting' with racial prejudice by according any "plausibility" to Dr Starkey's comments in #5. You quote;

'Dr Starkey insisted he had been trying to point out "the very different patterns of integration at the top and bottom of the social scale."

He wrote: "At the top, successful blacks, like (MPs) David Lammy and Diane Abbott have merged effortlessly into what continues to be a largely white elite...

"At the bottom of the heap, the story of integration is the opposite: it is the white lumpen proletariat, cruelly known as the 'chavs', who have integrated into the pervasive black 'gangsta' culture."'

The assumption here is that black people can "rise" to the "respectable" level of white people, while white people may "descend" to the level of black people -that second part is unacceptable prejudice 'IMO'. And arguably the word 'chav' is racist.

"...what were you trying to imply [by saying 'England' could become 'Gangland'].

We agree that there have always been gangs, but there has also always been what the Americans sometimes call a "law enforcement community". These riots, and the unimaginable level of indiscipline in many of our schools, suggest to me that things are not going to get easier for either the police or the courts and prisons etc. Eventually, and it might be closer than we'd like to think, there could be a 'tipping point'. Then what? Survival of the fittest...

Bishops Arthur Roche of Leeds had this to say;

"I think it's the result, in no small part, of the consumerist society. Britain has lost its sense of values. The Prime Minister has spoken about that. In fact, it's lost its Christianity. Our country was built and based on Christianity; our laws were built and based on the law of God. And once you turn your back on that and try to create values in a sort of humanistic context, all you're getting is total and utter confusion. so the youngsters in Tottenham and other parts of Britain who have resorted to violence, I believe, are really very unhappy, disenchanted deep within themselves and really in need of God."

As an addendum; i realise there is a slight but important difference in the use of the word "nationalism" in Ireland.

#49;

In the first paragraph, just to be clearer. The first part is prejudice, the second part is unacceptable prejudice IMO

47, Look, I'm not here to fight with you, but to argue the case for 'prejudice' as a glue to bind communities is flawed beyond belief. That it exists & has been practiced to good effect- ie Nazi Germany, doesn't mean it should be extolled.

Re- "As I've said before I'm quite happy with secular government. What I've said here, and elsewhere, is compatible with secular government"
When in May you said...
"criticism seems to be against any Christian - or "religious" - influence on the state. Apart from all else this seems to me to place a burden on the Christian as citizen which Christians should not be obliging in carrying"

My reply-
If, let's say the state is neutral, ie- without any Christian - or "religious" - influence, you feel it places a burden on the Christian they "should not be obliging in carrying" Can you expand in what sense you mean *not be obliging* - Do you mean the Christian should be uncooperative?

Peterm2's reply to your
"I'm curious though, what 'rights' should a Christian relinquish?"

In light of the immediately prior comments, "I don't think I'd frame the issue in terms of rights. I'm thinking about the role of the state and the enactment of laws. What laws should we have and why should we have them?" I should say that I was primarily thinking of individual or groups of christians eg. churches, in society.

In this context then, Christians are, I think, free to relinquish their rights. I'm thinking of Phillipians 2, "have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:" and following, or Matthew 5:38 "“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’" and following.

It's not so much *which* rights, in terms of a prescribed list, rather I'm thinking of a principle. To return to 1 Thessalonians 5, if we are those "of the day", or Hebrews 11, if we are "strangers and pilgrims", those who belong to the city "whose builder and maker is God", or 2 Corinthians 5, a "new creation", then, rather than needing to affirm our rights, we are *free* to relinquish them for the benefit of another, and in doing so, we, in some little way, demonstrate the Kingdom of God.

Re 'life experience', your comments frequently lack any foundation in reality instead they present as a theoretical 'dry run' (with a decidedly 'Tea Party' fundamentalist American religious feel).

In the spirit of détente- you might like this-

Now, i don't say this merely to be antagonistic, but i actually think you are 'flirting' with racial prejudice by according any "plausibility" to Dr Starkey's comments in #5.

I can live with that. You are confusing me with someone who respects your views.

47, Look, I'm not here to fight with you, but to argue the case for 'prejudice' as a glue to bind communities is flawed beyond belief.

Argue the case, then. I'd be quite happy to see arguments.

That it exists & has been practiced to good effect- ie Nazi Germany, doesn't mean it should be extolled.

As was pointed out, Burke uses prejudice in a particular sense. I've given some explanation of what that means but again, you'd be better reading Burke for yourself. Alternatively the SEP essay on Burke gives a good overview.

The origins of Nazism is a hugely complicated subject. I don't know enough about it to comment. I'm reasonably certain that simple 'prejudice' is inadequate. And even supposing it otherwise we're not talking about prejudice as Burke would have used it.

There is also a difference between endorsing Burkean prejudice as something upon which communities depend and endorsing particular communities. If true, it is sufficient to say, as Scruton does, that by repudiating attachment to a place, language, history, common culture etc as the basis of community you also repudiate the community which depends upon it.

And if unity is a goal then it must be sought elsewhere. By rejecting place, that elsewhere is an abstraction which, if true, is true everywhere. In actual fact attachment becomes, on this theory, universal. It shouldn't matter where you live.

With respect to my statement; [the] criticism seems to be against any Christian - or "religious" - influence on the state. Apart from all else this seems to me to place a burden on the Christian as citizen which Christians should not be obliging in carrying"

I don't see that this statement is incompatible with secular government. In it I am suggesting that public discourse at present (say, Rawls' veil of ignorance) seeks to exclude religious language and Christians should not be obliging by reformulating their arguments, say, in positivistic language, as a later comment puts it. I'd recommend Steven Smith's book 'The disenchantment of secular discourse' which deals with the subject, although in the broader terms of normative language.

In short, I don't think disagreement is a bad thing. We must own our differences.

Re 'life experience', your comments frequently lack any foundation in reality instead they present as a theoretical 'dry run' (with a decidedly 'Tea Party' fundamentalist American religious feel).

I feel like I could copy and paste the paragraph before last in my previous comment. But would it do any good?

I'll try a different tact. You have asserted not argued.

In the spirit of détente- you might like this- Paul Helm

Thanks for this. I had read some of them as they were published but not the whole series.

Hi Andrew 54, I felt the need to reply to this when less tired.
Burkean prejudice should be seen within the context of the time- as a reply to the French Revolution- protecting Britain from the threat of this revolution by qualifying prejudice as accumulated wisdom, as a nations heirloom, preserving the order of its institutions & infrastructure. The basic message being that citizens do not have the right to overthrow oppressive government. Burke's assessment of France, In his letters Reflections was perceptive enough to foresee events unfold as they did. He understood human nature and viewed society as a living organism, however his argument for prejudice is rooted "more on the usefulness of irrational sentiments than on their intrinsic validity". He understood that when under pressure, people are better able to draw on an emotional (animal fight or flight) reaction "than from their own intellects". It must also be remembered, that at first, British reaction was favourable to the storming of the Bastille in 1789, believing that France's monarchy & oppressive, archaic rule should be "curtailed by a more democratic form of government". However, after the Reign of Terror- it was seen as a wave of uncontrollable violence which had the capacity to engulf Britain.

To place my own views in this context, they are perhaps closer to those of Richard Price re constititutional monarchy & govt. "He argued that governments held their power in trust from the people and were not instruments of divine authority. The Kings of England, he maintained were the only legitimate monarchs because they ruled by consent of the people under the 1688 Bill of Rights". Price stated that Englishmen should see themselves "more as citizens of the world than as members of any particular community" which could be understood within his context as a Christian Minister- in a world created by God, as members of one human family, to set aside all barriers of race and nationality.

You might find him interesting, he had an influence on the fiscal policy of Pitt the Younger with his Appeal to the Public on the Subject of the National Debt. A friend of Franklin, he was synonymous with the cause of the American Independence, and "In 1778 he was invited by Congress to go to America and assist in the financial administration of the states. This offer he refused from unwillingness to quit his own country and his family connections."

Both sides of the 'Revolutionary Controversy'- Burke on the one hand, Price & Paine on the other- have their legitimacy within a moderate, restrained culture, but when condensed into an ideological spearhead, hurled to the extreme, both can lead to tyranny.
This demonstrated by the application of cerebral, abstract Enlightenment ideals to the volatile, combustible nature of the French Revolution.
And the appeal to flowery emotions & tradition embodied by the Counter-Enlightenment which ultimately led a path to German Romanticism & Nazism

Perhaps both ideologies restrain each other & engender pluralism. The Enlightenment as cerebral & the Counter-Enlightenment as emotional. The two reflecting the balance we seek in humanity projected onto society at large