Absolutely fascinating conversation. David Starkey never fails to amaze me. Full credit to Harrison, I’ve not come across anyone who’s been able to challenge David in that way. It clearly takes a great level of intelligence to do that. I think by challenging David in the way that Harris did, brought the best out of him and showed another level to his intelligence.
Wonderful, wonderful, program gentlemen, brings back happy memories of tutorials and seminars with my supervisors and my own students when I was at university. Thank you. You have made an old anarchist very happy this evening. ❤️
I think I like Professor Starkey most at his most curmudgeonly. His courteousness always shines through. He must have been a great lecturer. Though I am very far from agreeing with his basic positions I never listen to him without learning something. Thank you.
Extraordinarily wonderful dialogue which kept me on the edge of my seat from start to finish. I shall have to listen again. Dr S was in normal full flow but Mr Pitt held his own (when he was able to speak) in putting forward contrary and often affirmative comments thus giving the listener the added pleasure of seeing two well matched individuals both at peace with each other but arguing from different bases. Well done and thank you.
How many times would Starkey interrupt Harrison when he was attempting to respond with "JUST A MINUTE THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT POINT..." Starkey has acknowledged himself in other podcasts I've seen him on that he won't let others get a word in. That said, this was an enjoyable watch.
I never fully understood Politics until I watched this entire video! What utterly fantastic content, thank you! How this channel doesn't have more subscribers is beyond me! If only every member of the public was sat down and made to understand this one video, it would surely fix the desasterous state of westernized global political affairs. 🙏🏻
I'd love to sit in Dr Starkey's beautifully decorated home, and chat with him for hours. I would also love to own his decorative (vase?) with the emerald band at the top.) 🇬🇧 from 🇦🇺
Dearest David. A conversation is a dialogue, though you as interviewee of course should speak more. This was a monologue, interesting but a tad onanistic.
It is so rare these days for somebody to know (or even to be interested in knowing) what they are talking about, and so it is no surprise that Starkey left the university system, if indeed he left it rather than being kicked out for having the arrogance to think for himself. But Starkey is quite wrong here. The whole Common Law system is based on the belief that there is such a thing as justice. It seeks to search for it in an imperfect (fallen) world, but it is a spiritual, yes spiritual, commitment. As Bede was keen to point out England was a Christian foundation. The rejection of Roman Catholicism was based on a rejection of paganism and a re-assertion of Christian values - namely that there is a transcendent ground for good and evil. The claim that politics ought to be value neutral is Liberalism not Conservatism.
But England doesn't have a Christian foundation, that's just propaganda. England, the English, the Angles, likely long predate Christianity as a whole, let alone the Germanic tradition they come. It's no coincidence that Beowulf was the most common story in all of ancient England, and one of the oldest examples of Germanic language text altogether. Protestantism in history, to a naïve eye, might look like an attempt to reassert a more fundamental Christianity as apposed to a paganised Catholicism, but it simply isn't. Firstly, Protestant nations hardly agree on anything theologically. The reality is that it was a democratic feeling. Catholicism was a form of globalism, it's no coincidence either that it was Germanic nations who most firmly turned Protestant, almost as if there's something cultural about it (interesting note, the Duchy of Prussian, the remnant of the Teutonic Order was the first state to profess Protestantism). Nations simply didn't like the political power that a central supreme Catholicism was having in their daily lives. As some have said, Henry VIII and the Reformation was the original Brexit. So, the politics of it all is obvious and well recorded. But spiritually we can see what happen after these countries turned to Protestantism, they became generally much more patriotic, more democratic (in a productive way), more scientifically minded and culturally more creative, whether it be the literature of Shakespeare or the mass of classical German composers, or in the case of the tiny Duchy of Prussian, rose to overtake all it's deeply catholic neighbours and hold a central European empire that absorbed the Holy Roman Empire and reforged it into modern Germany. Now you can move the goal posts and say "Ah well yes, those of the fruits of a more true Christianity", that's obvious nonsense. I'm not saying they're the fruits of rejecting Christianity either because that's not what they did, but they did reject a centralised de facto globalist rule. They moved out from under a hegemony into a democratic space, essentially a more pagan space, if you know that that word simply means "common people's ways". Of course the religiosity didn't necessarily lose any intensity, though it's being noticed today the Protestant nations are essentially atheist nations, but that's because of a double sided effect of people thinking paganism is about worshipping trees, rather than it's true meaning, which is simple a cohort of people thinking and living for themselves with their own best beliefs and traditions.
Common Law comes from Germanic legal and moral custom. Not sure why you laud a transcendental basis for morality, animistic immanence is obviously superior.
@@Symund My previous comment seems to of been removed, but I pointed out the contradiction in the original commenters comment. I concur. Atheists insist that morality can't actually be scientifically inferred from observation or, animism. Abrahamic likewise insist it's not possible and call such things pagan. But it seems perfectly possible and doable, it just requires a certain wider scope of thinking, objective based yes, but not solely objective based, just appreciating the reality of the chosen logic, while also appreciating that not all people are perfectly logical or rational or anything like that. If we're just honest and reasonable, then all these such legalistic questions of law and society can be understood quite well, not through some sort of liberal rationalism, or zealous totalitarianism, but logical inductive inference. In these philosophical realms, we really can have our cake and eat it too.
@@Symund The Common Law tradition rejects the concept that might is right (as for example defended by the Nazi Party - big fans of naturalism) and asserts that justice is absolute and transcendent. What distinguishes it from the Roman legal tradition is that it views justice as situated in a tradition of continuous discovery rather than being a deduction imposed by a judge in accordance with explicit laws. It sees justice as a continually evolving fallible process. It emerged in the Christian civilization of the Middle Ages in England as an expression and implementation of a Christian belief in divine justice. It seeks to assert but restrain the power of the State by declaring that what is just is not determined by the State.
@@Alfred5555 For a Christian, being morally good is a conversion to a way of life that is divine in inspiration (do as God wills) and transcends our existing appetites (to possess for example) replacing them with a vision of love that is divine in origin. My kingdom is not of this world Jesus said, but God forgives us our trespasses. The Enlightenment assumes the reality of morality because it relies upon a Christian inheritance. Those (such as De Sade and Marx and Nietzsche) who sought on the grounds of an appeal to naturalism to repudiate Christian morality prepared the way for Lenin and Hitler.
Blair did great damage, however, it was Harley, in 1708, who made it possible. Both changed how Parliament functions and created unbreachable schisms, from their overweening ambition and lust for power.
Roman Collapse, in Britain did not lead Christian Romano-British to success as a Christian Empire. Rather the simple, but robust Anglo-Saxons. In a society of harsh division between Romano-British Elites and a huge slave class. Sustaining this depended on Roman gold and Roman Legions.
One of the best litmus tests and reveals of delusion I think is. Does a person think Europe succeeded because of Christianity, or, was Christianity spread by the success of Europe.
@@Alfred5555 the latter I would say, Christianity didn't value history or science. It was once European nations moved beyond matters of doctrinal faith and sought knowledge of how things worked and recovered and taught old pre-Christian texts. That technological and organisational progress permitted expansion trade and conquest. Christianity got carried along by that success.
Alloys are often better than their base metal components. It seems a foolish Either/Or questions & the real one is what is the best combination mix for the outcomes needed.
Palestina was almost completely abandoned by 1840 due to 100s of years of economic destitution and the 1830s Ottoman-Egyptian wars. Arabs purchased land in Jaffa and the countryside. It was documented by these wealthy Arab families via land surveys; mostly ghost downs outside the cities. The 3 major cities were half abandoned. Ironically, the Arab, land flippers, kicked out the remaining Levantines who were pastoralists. Then sold their land to European Jews after 1878 for 4× - 8× what they bought it for. The Belfour act did not kick anyone off their land either. Ottoman government land changed hands to the British Empire and they designated a small sliver of land where Jews could buy their government land. This is not colonization. This was migration.
Not sure if Dr. Starkey is deliberately misreading Tom Holland's useful book. Christianity is not coterminous with "the Church." Ask Martin Luther if you don't believe me.
Nothing illustrates the anti democratic tendencies of our political class then immigration. in a democratic society the political class should seek the consent of the public or at least sell the case for large scale immigration to the public our immigration policy is no different from the people's republic of china where the Chinese Communist party floods non han Chinese areas with han Chinese where local non han Chinese minority populations are not consulted with on this issue well we have something similar in Britain with the issue of immigration
Interesting that Starkey doesn't hone in on the claim that the genealogy of progressivism etc is a growth of the Quaker branch with Puritan influences.
@@jeremysegal1806Maybe he is saying that , just like muslims , jews put their alligence towards fellow religionists first and that England and the UK do not count at all . What do you think ?
Also he has to use small hats otherwise his comment would be deleted if he put jews . Unless , of course , you think that youtube allows people to say what they really think . So thank you for your " witty " comment .
Thank you, Dr. David, for your entertaining way of providing useful analytical insights and takes. However, you over-talk way too much, muffling, often "shouting down," reasoning comments of the your would-be interviewer. Harrison Pitt's reasoning of consciousness of higher transcendent values in worldly government, although not "mocked," went way over your head.
for the love of god man finnish your sentence before you begin the next one i want to like Starkey but he is somehow forever in / around 75% right and this is very annoying.John Gray is even worse i fell like the other 25% is there just to spite me
Essentially, at the end Mr Starkey comes down onto the side of religion. He says that for Britain to be great it must be a values driven society deeply tied and attached to our heritage and history and thus transcendent in our drive. His only complaint is with the Christian religion, if we were pagan in our religion like the ancient Greco-Romans before their conversion then that would be perfect for Mr Starkey. I must confess to having sympathy for this point of view as the values of Christianity largely led to the destruction of the past Western world and darkening of the European mind.
Starkey, like most, doesn't seem to have read much about Germanic paganism, that is to say, the traditional ways of English people. He often seems to only see things for their appearance sake, a certain word, name, outfit, item, and he'll point out that it's often Roman or Greek in origin, essentially he can't see past a classicist education, he knows the classicism that is taught and commonly spoken about, he doesn't really seem to know classicism as a whole as a historical era, just the Greco-Roman stuff. When I first became aware of Starkey's political side, I was very sympathetic to Christianity, I had absorbed the bible, heard the professions, came to a deep feeling about the character of Jesus and the nature of the Yahweh god, etc and I first I didn't know what to make of Starkey's atheism. Years past and I had quite a u-turn on Christianity, I came to view it on my own quite similarly to how Starkey seems too and probably with a more in depth dislike. However I still find atheism quite nonsensical, I realised that I had essentially come around to what I imagine (and from my reading of plenty of ancient writings) is the pagan position. And as time went on I've become fond of what I've seen of the broadly Germanic paganism, based on what Romans claimed of them and what their own sagas and poems contain, not worshipping trees or any such things, but with all that we know in modern day, just seeing the psychology, sociology, and spiritual side of things, and I think I land on the position of definite democracy but with focus on goodness (something Starkey doesn't say, most our moral, emotive and action words are Germanic, such as "good"), essentially the phrase Starkey uses which I think is a good analogy, "English Shinto", not quite, "Worshipping themselves", but consciously attuning themselves in the world to their own soul. I could go on about my own feelings, but I do think a form of modern paganism, that is actual paganism, the pagan mindset of old, not modern wu wu tree worship, but the historical paradigm of the term "paganism", meaning "the common people's ways", would be good for anyone. And we're blessed to have some invaluable ancient texts from our particular stripe of paganism, the Germanic languages, still surviving to show some guidance in archetypes, ideas, and principles so we need not start from complete scratch with the soul searching.
How to accuse someone you like of being wilfully ignorant, while not being offensive. Perhaps being so learned of the obscure, makes one ignorant of the obvious. The 'iron ulna of our lord' in regards to economic weights and measures. The 'Judge and jury' and 'the round table (especially in relation to the Arthurian legends as Christian king)' and 'the last supper' and more specifically the 12 synodic /13 sidereal phases of the moon in regards to the Eucharist (lunar eclipse at dawn of the spring equinox and/or midnight midwinter). Thus the accusatory 'King of Kings' upon the cross. There is no legal system without the bible to swear upon and the judge and jury, just as the day of judgement or jesus and the disciples. On account of this, the Jews demanded, “What sign can You show us to prove Your authority to do these things?” [19] Jesus answered, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again.” [20] “This temple took forty-six years to build,” the Jews replied, “and You are going to raise it up in three days?" The temple Jesus was talking about was not the stone one he was standing in. It was the one that would be ressurected. That temple comes with dimensions that were always associated with 'the Ruler' They are a repository of the Davidian line of Regulus, as was Jesus. Thus Jesus is King vs Jesus is God. One form of christianity had the king as the representation and continuation of that inheritance, standing in the stead of Jesus. One form of christianity had Peter as priest, being the continuaiton of that legacy. Thus the 1689 bill of rights. The metrology associated with that Temple (Stonehenge & the Great Pyramid of Giza), is that of the classical world. See d'Vinci 'Vitruvina Man'. See the crossed solar burst around the skull. See the ashen cross upon the brow of the 3rd eye. See crossing the 5/6ft armbar/clavicle via the 3rd eye, which sits at the center of a 360 Day Sothic (1 passus/second radius) circle, where the 10:1 fractals of City, Temple, Human Orphic Egg, skull and Ashen Cross, all hide the lost secrets of this relationship. Thus to say that christianity and the classical world were/are in conflict is a falsehood of the most grotesque kind. Just as saying that freemasonry was anti christian, rather than carrying on the original tradition that was suppressed (subsequently subverted or not). 10x10x10 pints of 5x5x5 gallons or 1250 pound water of 20,000 ounce, square root 8 feet at 24/25th scale. Rather than the Ulna of 'In the Image of God' geometry at 3 ft, to create the 3:4:5ft based Orphic Egg wrapped around by Ananke like the staff of the bronze serpent raised by Moses and Jesus, or the staff of Asclepius, the half armspan is raised to head height. Just as the raised armspan of the skull, that positions the ashen cross upon the brow, provides a 2x2x2 pint or 1 gallon crown. Shall I continue with the metrology of the ancient world, the garden of Eden, the Tempe of Apollo in the apple orchard of the Hesperides and Ladon ? What about the relationship between the 1st covenant of the Rainbow and the 2nd covenant of Jesus and how they relate to the refractive index of square root 9/5th and the secondary rainbow at dawn on the spring equinox or if you prefer 'In Hoc Signo Vinces' ? Perhaps the 3rd day of the solstice, rather than the 3rd day of the equinox ?
Fantastic discussion. I love to listen to Starkey and take his knowledge of history very seriously but he dismisses Christianity contemptuously. I can't understand this blind spot he has. You can't seriously blame Christianity for the woke idiocy. I suspect his reason for disliking Christianity is personal rather than intellectual.
@@grannyannie2948 The Bible only very vaguely and slightly mentions what we assume is homosexuality, really only certain physical acts, which is held up to criticism aren't even physically possible. It's been human beings investing themselves with the right to speak for god that have had a thing for that particular issue. While leaving out all the other things more overtly mention and forbade in the bible, or even just the glaring mistakes.
Well surely anything that commands us to "Love thy enemy as thy neighbour", should be rigorously researched? Also, you might be interested to know, that one of the earliest, papal bulls so to speak, of early Christianity, was a plea for believers to stop castrating themselves, it was expressly banned at the Council of Nicaea. Upon reading the bible, specifically Matthew 19:12, you can understand why a lot of ancient highly superstitious people might come to that conclusion.
@@Alfred5555 And yet people get arrested and even jailed in my country for reading the Bible as it's considered hate speech by the LGBT community. So our politicians and judiciary have come to a definite position on what the Bible says on the matter.
She knew that workers were potentially not guilty of theft in that the Fujitsu computer system was know to be faulty, workers lives were destroyed and there were suicides during a prolonged criminal of investigation against the innocent.
Unfortunately on this issue the usually correct Dr Starkey is talking arrant & risible tosh. Most of the laws in this country - in respect certainly to serious crimes - are founded in common law, i.e they were formulated by unelected judges and handed down from above. Furthermore all laws, including those founded by parliamentary legislation, are interpreted once again by unelected judges. The fact that English judges are not only unelected, but even today come mostly from the upper echelons of society, makes an utter nonsense of Dr Starkey's jingoistic, fallacious and fanciful attempt to differentiate an English citizen's relationship with the law as compared to the European model. We are ruled by an unelected and utterly self-serving judiciary, and Parliament is merely a fig leaf behind which judges hide their rampant, unaccountable and profoundly corrupt modus operandi.
I don’t think homosexuality should be encouraged but homosexuals have even more of a genetic interest in propagating their people into the future. Because they usually don’t have kids. It should be noticed that certain lesbians and gay men have had particular prominence in recent populist movements. Personally I think Christianity is part of the problem because it is universalist and incapable of drawing boundaries based on race. We need to self consciously cultivate a form of blood and soil paganism that draws on our traditions but is designed for the future
You’re a not a real English conservative then. Look for a philosophy that has the word “moron” in it, you’d be more at home there. David Starkey has more intellectual charisma and profundity in a single fingernail than you could muster in 12 lifetimes.
![[BAEMON NEWS 7] NEW ALBUM COMING IN](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wtVeAPimOyo/mqdefault.jpg)
Absolutely fascinating conversation. David Starkey never fails to amaze me. Full credit to Harrison, I’ve not come across anyone who’s been able to challenge David in that way. It clearly takes a great level of intelligence to do that. I think by challenging David in the way that Harris did, brought the best out of him and showed another level to his intelligence.
Good to see David Starkey interview himself here 😅 love him haha
Wonderful, wonderful, program
gentlemen, brings back happy memories of tutorials and seminars with my supervisors and my own students when I was at university.
Thank you.
You have made an old anarchist very happy this evening. ❤️
I think I like Professor Starkey most at his most curmudgeonly. His courteousness always shines through. He must have been a great lecturer. Though I am very far from agreeing with his basic positions I never listen to him without learning something. Thank you.
Extraordinarily wonderful dialogue which kept me on the edge of my seat from start to finish. I shall have to listen again. Dr S was in normal full flow but Mr Pitt held his own (when he was able to speak) in putting forward contrary and often affirmative comments thus giving the listener the added pleasure of seeing two well matched individuals both at peace with each other but arguing from different bases. Well done and thank you.
How many times would Starkey interrupt Harrison when he was attempting to respond with "JUST A MINUTE THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT POINT..."
Starkey has acknowledged himself in other podcasts I've seen him on that he won't let others get a word in.
That said, this was an enjoyable watch.
Glad to hear Starkey lay into Linda Colley.
incredibly impressive thank you both
Let Harrison speak more
The Right must be revolutionary.
Nothing less.
I never fully understood Politics until I watched this entire video! What utterly fantastic content, thank you! How this channel doesn't have more subscribers is beyond me! If only every member of the public was sat down and made to understand this one video, it would surely fix the desasterous state of westernized global political affairs. 🙏🏻
Thrilling and robust discussion - I gained more respect for David Starkey after hearing his down-to-Earth thoughts on religion.
I'd love to sit in Dr Starkey's beautifully decorated home, and chat with him for hours. I would also love to own his decorative (vase?) with the emerald band at the top.) 🇬🇧 from 🇦🇺
Sadly, in my view, it is impossible to "chat" with DS as he fails to associate good manners with rude, constant interruptions.
@@egverlander can’t you learn to forgive a dear old chap?
He’s a treasure box of information.
Mr Starkey is very clear about presence and awarenes of those who supposed to defend tradition and to pursue strategy
"King of kings. Lord of Lords." is not referring to the monarch !
🎵Glory! Hallelujah!!🎶
Dearest David. A conversation is a dialogue, though you as interviewee of course should speak more. This was a monologue, interesting but a tad onanistic.
Harrison has the patience of a saint
What a great interaction between these two!
It is so rare these days for somebody to know (or even to be interested in knowing) what they are talking about, and so it is no surprise that Starkey left the university system, if indeed he left it rather than being kicked out for having the arrogance to think for himself. But Starkey is quite wrong here. The whole Common Law system is based on the belief that there is such a thing as justice. It seeks to search for it in an imperfect (fallen) world, but it is a spiritual, yes spiritual, commitment. As Bede was keen to point out England was a Christian foundation. The rejection of Roman Catholicism was based on a rejection of paganism and a re-assertion of Christian values - namely that there is a transcendent ground for good and evil. The claim that politics ought to be value neutral is Liberalism not Conservatism.
But England doesn't have a Christian foundation, that's just propaganda. England, the English, the Angles, likely long predate Christianity as a whole, let alone the Germanic tradition they come. It's no coincidence that Beowulf was the most common story in all of ancient England, and one of the oldest examples of Germanic language text altogether.
Protestantism in history, to a naïve eye, might look like an attempt to reassert a more fundamental Christianity as apposed to a paganised Catholicism, but it simply isn't. Firstly, Protestant nations hardly agree on anything theologically. The reality is that it was a democratic feeling. Catholicism was a form of globalism, it's no coincidence either that it was Germanic nations who most firmly turned Protestant, almost as if there's something cultural about it (interesting note, the Duchy of Prussian, the remnant of the Teutonic Order was the first state to profess Protestantism). Nations simply didn't like the political power that a central supreme Catholicism was having in their daily lives. As some have said, Henry VIII and the Reformation was the original Brexit. So, the politics of it all is obvious and well recorded. But spiritually we can see what happen after these countries turned to Protestantism, they became generally much more patriotic, more democratic (in a productive way), more scientifically minded and culturally more creative, whether it be the literature of Shakespeare or the mass of classical German composers, or in the case of the tiny Duchy of Prussian, rose to overtake all it's deeply catholic neighbours and hold a central European empire that absorbed the Holy Roman Empire and reforged it into modern Germany.
Now you can move the goal posts and say "Ah well yes, those of the fruits of a more true Christianity", that's obvious nonsense. I'm not saying they're the fruits of rejecting Christianity either because that's not what they did, but they did reject a centralised de facto globalist rule. They moved out from under a hegemony into a democratic space, essentially a more pagan space, if you know that that word simply means "common people's ways". Of course the religiosity didn't necessarily lose any intensity, though it's being noticed today the Protestant nations are essentially atheist nations, but that's because of a double sided effect of people thinking paganism is about worshipping trees, rather than it's true meaning, which is simple a cohort of people thinking and living for themselves with their own best beliefs and traditions.
Common Law comes from Germanic legal and moral custom. Not sure why you laud a transcendental basis for morality, animistic immanence is obviously superior.
@@Symund My previous comment seems to of been removed, but I pointed out the contradiction in the original commenters comment.
I concur. Atheists insist that morality can't actually be scientifically inferred from observation or, animism. Abrahamic likewise insist it's not possible and call such things pagan.
But it seems perfectly possible and doable, it just requires a certain wider scope of thinking, objective based yes, but not solely objective based, just appreciating the reality of the chosen logic, while also appreciating that not all people are perfectly logical or rational or anything like that. If we're just honest and reasonable, then all these such legalistic questions of law and society can be understood quite well, not through some sort of liberal rationalism, or zealous totalitarianism, but logical inductive inference. In these philosophical realms, we really can have our cake and eat it too.
@@Symund The Common Law tradition rejects the concept that might is right (as for example defended by the Nazi Party - big fans of naturalism) and asserts that justice is absolute and transcendent. What distinguishes it from the Roman legal tradition is that it views justice as situated in a tradition of continuous discovery rather than being a deduction imposed by a judge in accordance with explicit laws. It sees justice as a continually evolving fallible process. It emerged in the Christian civilization of the Middle Ages in England as an expression and implementation of a Christian belief in divine justice. It seeks to assert but restrain the power of the State by declaring that what is just is not determined by the State.
@@Alfred5555 For a Christian, being morally good is a conversion to a way of life that is divine in inspiration (do as God wills) and transcends our existing appetites (to possess for example) replacing them with a vision of love that is divine in origin. My kingdom is not of this world Jesus said, but God forgives us our trespasses. The Enlightenment assumes the reality of morality because it relies upon a Christian inheritance. Those (such as De Sade and Marx and Nietzsche) who sought on the grounds of an appeal to naturalism to repudiate Christian morality prepared the way for Lenin and Hitler.
Blair an absolute disgrace 🤔💯🇬🇧
More than a disgrace, he is a heartless narcissist -- a destroyer of all goodness and light -- Lucifer.
Harrison - shouldn't you look into the Christian Democrat tradition, and also Comunione e Liberazione? Fascinating discussion - thank-you!
Blair did great damage, however, it was Harley, in 1708, who made it possible. Both changed how Parliament functions and created unbreachable schisms, from their overweening ambition and lust for power.
This is what I love about David Starkey: he has no tolerance for hocus pocus. The young lad was given a good schooling.
1:02:00 finally allowed to make his case
Mr Starkey has thought about everything apart from how to be an active listener.
And that is his Achilles heel.
That is pretty typical for a large age gap.
I think young Pitt does well here, Starkey must have about 40 years of scholarship on him.
Evening 🌞🙏
Starkey, a CINO
Roman Collapse, in Britain did not lead Christian Romano-British to success as a Christian Empire. Rather the simple, but robust Anglo-Saxons.
In a society of harsh division between Romano-British Elites and a huge slave class. Sustaining this depended on Roman gold and Roman Legions.
One of the best litmus tests and reveals of delusion I think is. Does a person think Europe succeeded because of Christianity, or, was Christianity spread by the success of Europe.
@Alfred5555 Good point Alfred .
@@Alfred5555 the latter I would say, Christianity didn't value history or science. It was once European nations moved beyond matters of doctrinal faith and sought knowledge of how things worked and recovered and taught old pre-Christian texts. That technological and organisational progress permitted expansion trade and conquest. Christianity got carried along by that success.
Alloys are often better than their base metal components.
It seems a foolish Either/Or questions & the real one is what is the best combination mix for the outcomes needed.
Palestina was almost completely abandoned by 1840 due to 100s of years of economic destitution and the 1830s Ottoman-Egyptian wars. Arabs purchased land in Jaffa and the countryside. It was documented by these wealthy Arab families via land surveys; mostly ghost downs outside the cities. The 3 major cities were half abandoned. Ironically, the Arab, land flippers, kicked out the remaining Levantines who were pastoralists. Then sold their land to European Jews after 1878 for 4× - 8× what they bought it for. The Belfour act did not kick anyone off their land either. Ottoman government land changed hands to the British Empire and they designated a small sliver of land where Jews could buy their government land. This is not colonization. This was migration.
I agree!
Irish Brehon Law wasn't imposed, though after that it certainly was.
Not sure if Dr. Starkey is deliberately misreading Tom Holland's useful book. Christianity is not coterminous with "the Church." Ask Martin Luther if you don't believe me.
OK. Ill just whip out my time machine.
@@edwardburroughs1489 Say Hi to him for me.
Quite right. Theology is not the established church / various church hierarchies.
Nothing illustrates the anti democratic tendencies of our political class then immigration. in a democratic society the political class should seek the consent of the public or at least sell the case for large scale immigration to the public our immigration policy is no different from the people's republic of china where the Chinese Communist party floods non han Chinese areas with han Chinese where local non han Chinese minority populations are not consulted with on this issue well we have something similar in Britain with the issue of immigration
Interesting that Starkey doesn't hone in on the claim that the genealogy of progressivism etc is a growth of the Quaker branch with Puritan influences.
What would either of these two know about “being Christian” ????
Not a dialogue heard here - lost opportunity with #DavidStarkey by his own wordiness. #HarrisonPitt
Both Cromwell and Blair very close to " the tribe " from the Middle East.
A tribe that many conservatives almost have a fetish for.
And ( aside from the fact you think it is witty not to say “jews”) your point is?
@@jeremysegal1806Maybe he is saying that , just like muslims , jews put their alligence towards fellow religionists first and that England and the UK do not count at all . What do you think ?
Also he has to use small hats otherwise his comment would be deleted if he put jews . Unless , of course , you think that youtube allows people to say what they really think . So thank you for your " witty " comment .
Qatar thanks you for your service.
Thank you, Dr. David, for your entertaining way of providing useful analytical insights and takes. However, you over-talk way too much, muffling, often "shouting down," reasoning comments of the your would-be interviewer. Harrison Pitt's reasoning of consciousness of higher transcendent values in worldly government, although not "mocked," went way over your head.
for the love of god man finnish your sentence before you begin the next one
i want to like Starkey but he is somehow forever in / around 75% right and this is very annoying.John Gray is even worse
i fell like the other 25% is there just to spite me
Lol
Pardon me but what did you fall into?
Essentially, at the end Mr Starkey comes down onto the side of religion. He says that for Britain to be great it must be a values driven society deeply tied and attached to our heritage and history and thus transcendent in our drive. His only complaint is with the Christian religion, if we were pagan in our religion like the ancient Greco-Romans before their conversion then that would be perfect for Mr Starkey. I must confess to having sympathy for this point of view as the values of Christianity largely led to the destruction of the past Western world and darkening of the European mind.
Starkey, like most, doesn't seem to have read much about Germanic paganism, that is to say, the traditional ways of English people. He often seems to only see things for their appearance sake, a certain word, name, outfit, item, and he'll point out that it's often Roman or Greek in origin, essentially he can't see past a classicist education, he knows the classicism that is taught and commonly spoken about, he doesn't really seem to know classicism as a whole as a historical era, just the Greco-Roman stuff.
When I first became aware of Starkey's political side, I was very sympathetic to Christianity, I had absorbed the bible, heard the professions, came to a deep feeling about the character of Jesus and the nature of the Yahweh god, etc and I first I didn't know what to make of Starkey's atheism. Years past and I had quite a u-turn on Christianity, I came to view it on my own quite similarly to how Starkey seems too and probably with a more in depth dislike. However I still find atheism quite nonsensical, I realised that I had essentially come around to what I imagine (and from my reading of plenty of ancient writings) is the pagan position. And as time went on I've become fond of what I've seen of the broadly Germanic paganism, based on what Romans claimed of them and what their own sagas and poems contain, not worshipping trees or any such things, but with all that we know in modern day, just seeing the psychology, sociology, and spiritual side of things, and I think I land on the position of definite democracy but with focus on goodness (something Starkey doesn't say, most our moral, emotive and action words are Germanic, such as "good"), essentially the phrase Starkey uses which I think is a good analogy, "English Shinto", not quite, "Worshipping themselves", but consciously attuning themselves in the world to their own soul.
I could go on about my own feelings, but I do think a form of modern paganism, that is actual paganism, the pagan mindset of old, not modern wu wu tree worship, but the historical paradigm of the term "paganism", meaning "the common people's ways", would be good for anyone. And we're blessed to have some invaluable ancient texts from our particular stripe of paganism, the Germanic languages, still surviving to show some guidance in archetypes, ideas, and principles so we need not start from complete scratch with the soul searching.
"I will now shutup". Continues to talk for 5 minutes.
How to accuse someone you like of being wilfully ignorant, while not being offensive.
Perhaps being so learned of the obscure, makes one ignorant of the obvious.
The 'iron ulna of our lord' in regards to economic weights and measures.
The 'Judge and jury' and 'the round table (especially in relation to the Arthurian legends as Christian king)' and 'the last supper' and more specifically the 12 synodic /13 sidereal phases of the moon in regards to the Eucharist (lunar eclipse at dawn of the spring equinox and/or midnight midwinter).
Thus the accusatory 'King of Kings' upon the cross.
There is no legal system without the bible to swear upon and the judge and jury, just as the day of judgement or jesus and the disciples.
On account of this, the Jews demanded, “What sign can You show us to prove Your authority to do these things?” [19]
Jesus answered, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again.” [20]
“This temple took forty-six years to build,” the Jews replied, “and You are going to raise it up in three days?"
The temple Jesus was talking about was not the stone one he was standing in.
It was the one that would be ressurected.
That temple comes with dimensions that were always associated with 'the Ruler'
They are a repository of the Davidian line of Regulus, as was Jesus.
Thus Jesus is King vs Jesus is God.
One form of christianity had the king as the representation and continuation of that inheritance, standing in the stead of Jesus.
One form of christianity had Peter as priest, being the continuaiton of that legacy.
Thus the 1689 bill of rights.
The metrology associated with that Temple (Stonehenge & the Great Pyramid of Giza), is that of the classical world.
See d'Vinci 'Vitruvina Man'. See the crossed solar burst around the skull. See the ashen cross upon the brow of the 3rd eye. See crossing the 5/6ft armbar/clavicle via the 3rd eye, which sits at the center of a 360 Day Sothic (1 passus/second radius) circle, where the 10:1 fractals of City, Temple, Human Orphic Egg, skull and Ashen Cross, all hide the lost secrets of this relationship.
Thus to say that christianity and the classical world were/are in conflict is a falsehood of the most grotesque kind.
Just as saying that freemasonry was anti christian, rather than carrying on the original tradition that was suppressed (subsequently subverted or not).
10x10x10 pints of 5x5x5 gallons or 1250 pound water of 20,000 ounce, square root 8 feet at 24/25th scale.
Rather than the Ulna of 'In the Image of God' geometry at 3 ft, to create the 3:4:5ft based Orphic Egg wrapped around by Ananke like the staff of the bronze serpent raised by Moses and Jesus, or the staff of Asclepius, the half armspan is raised to head height.
Just as the raised armspan of the skull, that positions the ashen cross upon the brow, provides a 2x2x2 pint or 1 gallon crown.
Shall I continue with the metrology of the ancient world, the garden of Eden, the Tempe of Apollo in the apple orchard of the Hesperides and Ladon ?
What about the relationship between the 1st covenant of the Rainbow and the 2nd covenant of Jesus and how they relate to the refractive index of square root 9/5th and the secondary rainbow at dawn on the spring equinox or if you prefer 'In Hoc Signo Vinces' ?
Perhaps the 3rd day of the solstice, rather than the 3rd day of the equinox ?
Fantastic discussion. I love to listen to Starkey and take his knowledge of history very seriously but he dismisses Christianity contemptuously. I can't understand this blind spot he has. You can't seriously blame Christianity for the woke idiocy. I suspect his reason for disliking Christianity is personal rather than intellectual.
Its quite simple. Starkey is gay and doesn't like God's position on this.
@@grannyannie2948 The Bible only very vaguely and slightly mentions what we assume is homosexuality, really only certain physical acts, which is held up to criticism aren't even physically possible. It's been human beings investing themselves with the right to speak for god that have had a thing for that particular issue. While leaving out all the other things more overtly mention and forbade in the bible, or even just the glaring mistakes.
Well surely anything that commands us to "Love thy enemy as thy neighbour", should be rigorously researched?
Also, you might be interested to know, that one of the earliest, papal bulls so to speak, of early Christianity, was a plea for believers to stop castrating themselves, it was expressly banned at the Council of Nicaea. Upon reading the bible, specifically Matthew 19:12, you can understand why a lot of ancient highly superstitious people might come to that conclusion.
Yes but Christian " leaders " are at the forefront of promoting both Marxism and Islam . How is that good or even Christian ?
@@Alfred5555 And yet people get arrested and even jailed in my country for reading the Bible as it's considered hate speech by the LGBT community. So our politicians and judiciary have come to a definite position on what the Bible says on the matter.
Harrison is so hot tho
OMG 06:30 seen enough. Jack Straw’s wife was head of Post Office an eon ago. What are you trying to say, David? Not interested
She knew that workers were potentially not guilty of theft in that the Fujitsu computer system was know to be faulty, workers lives were destroyed and there were suicides during a prolonged criminal of investigation against the innocent.
@@andygriffiths9916Thankyou for that context
Weird strawman attack against tom holland but ok
Wokeness is Jewish. Any other explanation is a copout.
Yes, too much focus on the genealogy of ideas perhaps, and not of those propounding them.
Neo-Beatles 😂
Unfortunately on this issue the usually correct Dr Starkey is talking arrant & risible tosh. Most of the laws in this country - in respect certainly to serious crimes - are founded in common law, i.e they were formulated by unelected judges and handed down from above. Furthermore all laws, including those founded by parliamentary legislation, are interpreted once again by unelected judges. The fact that English judges are not only unelected, but even today come mostly from the upper echelons of society, makes an utter nonsense of Dr Starkey's jingoistic, fallacious and fanciful attempt to differentiate an English citizen's relationship with the law as compared to the European model. We are ruled by an unelected and utterly self-serving judiciary, and Parliament is merely a fig leaf behind which judges hide their rampant, unaccountable and profoundly corrupt modus operandi.
Or we could elect our judges so we can have kangaroo courts like the one trying Trump in New York?
kudos for ‘arrant & risible tosh’
He is bang on about Blair, not an honourable man.
You're asking a gay man?
I don’t think homosexuality should be encouraged but homosexuals have even more of a genetic interest in propagating their people into the future. Because they usually don’t have kids. It should be noticed that certain lesbians and gay men have had particular prominence in recent populist movements. Personally I think Christianity is part of the problem because it is universalist and incapable of drawing boundaries based on race. We need to self consciously cultivate a form of blood and soil paganism that draws on our traditions but is designed for the future
That's what it comes down to
You’re a not a real English conservative then. Look for a philosophy that has the word “moron” in it, you’d be more at home there. David Starkey has more intellectual charisma and profundity in a single fingernail than you could muster in 12 lifetimes.
What's the problem?
@@DIBBY40 Sodomy is violence against nature and a sin that cries to heaven