There are NO Universal Human Rights. British Conservatism is Rooted in History NOT Religion.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 окт 2024
- Fresh from his speech to the "NatCon" National Conservatism Conference, Dr. David Starkey returns to the New Culture Forum for a fascinating and wide-ranging discussion on various topics related to conservatism, British identity, religion, history, so-called "universal rights" and the primacy of the nation state.
---------------
SUBSCRIBE:
If you are enjoying the show, please subscribe to our channel on RUclips (click the Subscribe Button underneath the video and then Click on the Bell icon next to it to make sure you Receive All Notifications)
AUDIO:
If you prefer Audio you can subscribe on itunes or Soundcloud.
Soundcloud: / user-923838732
itunes: itunes.apple.c...
SUPPORT/DONATE:
"So What You're Saying Is.." is still very new and to continue to produce quality programming we need your support. Your donations will help ensure the show not only continues but can grow into a major online platform challenging the cultural orthodoxies dominant in our institutions, public life and media.
PAYPAL/ CARD PAYMENTS - ONE TIME & MONTHLY:
You can donate in a variety of ways via our website: www.newculturef...
It is set up to accept one time and monthly donations.
ABOUT THE SHOW:
So What You're Saying Is... (SWYSI) is a weekly discussion show with experts and significant figures from the political, cultural and academic worlds.
The host is Peter Whittle (@PRWhittle), Founder & Director of The New Culture Forum, a Westminster-based think tank that seeks to challenge the cultural orthodoxies dominant in the media, academia, and British culture / society at large.
JOIN US ON SOCIAL MEDIA:
Web: www.newculturef...
F: / ncultureforum
Y: / newcultureforum
T: / newcultureforum (@NewCultureForum)
Please click here to join our membership scheme from £3 per month & with a range of exciting perks & benefits: www.patreon.com/NewCultureForum - alternatively, for one-off donations via credit / debit card, PayPal or bank transfer, please go to our website: www.newcultureforum.org.uk/donate
I have always found it interesting that the left gives their full backing to Muslims to pursue an ultra conservative agenda. No other group gets that sort of arrangement
It's conditional. The use for the Muslims is to kill Christians. China does not need Muslims to do that, and is therefore content to stuff them into concentration camps.
Skin color
Indeed but are they aware of that I wonder?
At it's route his lam is dangerous.
The left (along with us all ) MAY well experience it.
A few years to go though
I have said this for years, how the hard left let’s the hard right get away with just about murder just because of skin colour makes no sense.
Dr. David Starkey, one of the most knowledgeable Historians of British/European History, on the planet. Superb!!!
indeed, and yet he is depicted as a dinosaur , with views that belong in the past , out of touch with reality etc. they may even depict him as closet racist
I adore him too, but he included porkies about the history of "Russia" and "Germany". Bernays would be proud.
@@bigbarry8343The title says it all, and it is wrong. The definition of religion is: that to which we are bound. It is based on Consciousness now referred to in philosophy as ‘the hard problem’ as it is not understood. Consciousness is not elemental not having emerged with quantum events. It has been understood in religion that Consciousness is what has been named God; present everywhere in nature and in man. It expresses at the level of what it expresses through, the human brain being the best instrument for its expression. Humans are to a human prototype, higher ages saw fourteen versions in a universal cycle, all uniquely human to the human prototype. The Brits. are nuts, always have been it is best if they are reduced to little England as they are benighted and a menace another version of Nazi Germany, if more benign, no genocide, except for the Irish famine. Finally, as religion is that to which we are bound, life should be based on that not on human history which has often been appalling. Religion, man as the microcosm of the macrocosm perspective protects us not only from the nonsense expressed in this video but also from the possibility of trans humanism (humans embedded with technology).
@@bigbarry8343. Based on the title I would not support him. If Conservatism is rooted in history, what comes and goes; it is rooted in quick sand. The definition of Religion is that to which we are bound. He appears a duffer. Was he the person who decided that the soldiers in the N.I. should not be disciplined for shooting into a peaceful march. Or was it some other duffer; there are so many of them. What the elite universities turn out is pathetic; all duffers.
@@ALavin-en1kr British history is older than organised religion; that's why conservatives hold that historic ties are much stronger than religious ones. That's why American conservatives are different to British conservatives.
Great conversation, Dr. Starkey! Yes, forced "MultiCulturalism" will NEVER be the solution! On the contrary, it will deepen division and mistrust...
The explosive compound that blew Yugoslavia to pieces was its multiculturalism. And in last weeks local elections in Northern Ireland the people there did not vote for the party with the best policies but along ethnic lines.
What is really mind boggling is the fact multicultural ideology does not stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny yet it became the central policy of the government.
It goes deeper than government policy.
Slavs have historical chops on their shoulder.
What better excuse to take away peoples rights than allow hundreds of thousands of terrorists in, wait for them to gather and start attacking then say "oh my, we have an internal terrorist threat, so heres some new legislstion.." legislation which makes all citizens rights null and void, allows them to assume anyone a terrorist and detain them indefinitely.. you know for things like speaking bad about the government or drawing attention to their corruption.. oh extremist terrorist lock them up.. its all part of the plan my friend. And the only way to stop it is to revolt. Tens of millions of us lining the streets to take their power from them by any means necessary. This so called "democracy" is authoritarianism with a very thin vale of democracy over its ugly face. But the masses don't see that, orwell's 1984 levels of brainwashed.
Very well expressed and blindingly obvious to all but the deluded who do not understand that human nature cannot be changed by decree, presumably because those who are able to enforce such decrees are psychotics who by definition don't do human
Maybe it was doomed to fail deliberately. If your goal was to create a global, and borderless , monochrome society, then destroying a culture from within would be a good contribution toward this aim.
"our girls are going to dress up just like whores in New York". 😂😂😂
Quote of the week for me 😅😅😅
Excellent discussion. If only David Starkey was in charge of the teaching of history in this country. So many British people lack even a basic knowledge of their country's history.
@@bonniebluebell5940 Great post, well said.
I could have have skipped college and university back in the seventies and saved myself oodles of time and money...not to mention, a whole lot of angst. I was a voracious reader and top student all through elementary and high school. I still remember passages from one little gem of a book on the "History of Great Britain" in Grade 7 whereas ask me what I learned in sociology, anthropology, or political science and all that I can dredge up is a bunch of mumbo jumbo based upon post-modern humanism, much of it out of touch with the true essence of man in the real world. Glad that I got back on track... thanks to the Bible and others who set me straight. It is much worse nowadays. After decades of Socialism / Cultural Marxism, Canada has embraced the cult of the "woke"...."Whom the Gods would destroy, they first make mad." Hats off to Enoch Powel...He predicted the future but didn't go far enough. It exceeded his wildest fears.
You really have to ask yourself, how many takeaways and deliveroo riders does one country need?
Don't forget all the Turkish and Kurdish barbers. There are five in my small town.
@@Pwecko indeed. The housing situation is very depressing. Everything in England is so bloody expensive. After being an Englishman with hundreds of years of ancestry paying into the system I can no longer live in my home root city of London for work. Unless I want to pay a grand a month for a bed sit surrounded by illegals partying all night shouting at each other. It’s an absolute bloody disgrace.
Or you could ask, how long can a tribe last as it espouses below replacement fertility.
Those who, in the past were wives and mothers, have been given the freedom to live a
lifestyle formerly restricted to an unmarried man.... the result: women prefer such a life.
Replacement will happen, just as water flows downhill. Demographics is destiny.
@@reasonablespeculation3893 precisely and the woke cultural Marxist feminist doctrine has created a catastrophe. Tricking women to peruse a career and not a family then discover they are dispensable and their boss never cared about them. Feminising men to not lead a family, pushing the alphabet agenda endlessly to the young. The brain drain of highly educated indigenous people abroad. If this country had healthy tradition values then it would be developing nicely. The replacements are from traditional cultures with conservative values that’s quiet alright it seems. Yet those who were here first are labels as archaic and toxic. It doesn’t make sense.
@@Pwecko and in mine!
David is a national treasure.
Brilliant Man ✌️
He wanted mandatory jabs for all. He hates you and your people. He’s saying anything now for damage control. Wake up !!!!
I confess to being disappointed that he mentions "Game of Thrones".
Really ? I find him to be just an articulate bigot.......His analysis of France after the revolution is simply glib. France is an interesting country to study but politically it was much more stable, say, than Germany or Italy......I could go on.....But that's Starkey : an entertainer's guide to modern history with everybody's prejudices satisfied, especially those pertaining to bloody foreigners.......
Yes a Turd.
I agree… nobody should have another culture forced on them. I don’t visit certain countries because of their cultural differences to ourselves. Chalk and cheese. I’m not in favour of the same culture colonising parts of my city and forcing native peoples out. That’s what is happening because integration doesn’t work.
The Conservatives cabinet has an over representation of 1st and second generation Indians, under Johnson it was a tenfold over representation. I’m guessing you don’t question that despite India having an extremely corrupt and unequal culture? Not to mention Hindutva, Hindu fascism.
@@alanmarr3323 Did you marry one.
@@alanmarr3323 If you are married to one that's fine with me but, do not lecture people on their prejudices and call them ignorant, when you your self are also prejudice against them. You are ignorant of the fact, that you can not accept that we do not appreciate our history and culture destroyed all for the sake of allowing other cultures to run and destroy the U.K. Some of us have studied other cultures, so do Not be so racist to white people.
@@traceyculyer5811 you took the words right out of my mouth…..🤣🤣. And you were 100% spot on. He admitted it too 😂🤣
@@alanmarr3323 one should never dip one’s quill in another cultures ink. Is she a Tai lady??🤭
"You're not born Free,you're born Pissing and Shitting!"
Professor Starkey's new historical epic!😂😳
"Inter faeces et urinam nascimur" (we are born between the shit and the piss) -- Saint Augustine
We are currently ruled by America and the EU which is why our government is so left even when we vote right right now.
I wish I could speak as eloquently as Dr. Starkey (or even spell as well??). I have tried so many times to explain to people how England, and ultimately Britain came to be the great nation that it was, before all this woke/inclusive/PC rubbish bombed the land I love. Anything that divides - Religion, culture, morals - destroys. Know our history and you'll know we've been through it all and should have learned.
Exactly as I feel
Sounds like the French to me. Still longing for the Empire.
Your former subjects freed themselves and now Britain is back to it's original borders. And you recently closed those borders, preferring isolation.
Your history was always in intertwined with the history of other nations. We provided you with a King when you needed it deparately. You're welcome ! ;-))
DAVID STARKEY SHOULD BE ON THE REFORM TICKET .
That would be interesting
@@Sam-gw5pl JUST THINK THE MAN IS AN ABSOLUTE GENIUS .🇬🇧
Starkey's got more sense than to join a MARXIST/FABIAN SCHILL PARTY
Voting is pointless, democracy is a lie. We should be using these points to destroy the system, not take part in it.
They're simply preparing to consume the ordinary worker, regardless of their origin. The primary ambition is to make as much profit as possible *at any cost* and then to paint a picture that shows the pursuit of riches as wholesome and traditonal. All poor peoole will be trampled down, used up and consumed. They don't care. They are supremeists, both greedy and deceitful and we must fight back, with careful rhetoric and firm action.
Invasion of illegals will replace our aged for the global economy.
That’s Tories for you. The majority get poorer when conservatives gave power. Nothing new.
When did you decide to become a communist?
I have never thought of England as a republic. Interesting! As were, Dr.Starkey's thought-provoking comments regarding the American Constitution.
Also interesting, his comment that it was no coincidence that "freedom of speech" should be curtailed in an era of "multiculturalism". Now THAT is food for thought!
This presentation is so valuable to me: it articulates WHY I feel as I do.
He wants as said to push God out of the equation, also deny the concept of universal rights in favour of essentially what..white Britain is special?
We have so much to be proud of, it's no wonder the MSM doesn't want to give Starkey time in their shiws to talk, can't have the masses being proud of little old Britannia.
What a brilliant conversation! Starkey is fantastic, as always, and Whittle has the amazing and rare wisdom to give him room to speak! Bravo!
Whittle's non-confrontational style works superbly with Starkey as the result is more of a conversation and the viewer can listen to uninterrupted wisdom and wit
It is always a joy to watch DS having a row with whomsoever but sometimes it is better to just have an unbroken flow, he should be appreciated while he is still with us as like an intellectual Max Miller there will never be another missus, hopefully he can have an argument with himself in the heaven he doesn't believe in
o
I agree.If a nation’s growth and stability is not rooted in its culture and history,it like a ship without a rudder that will find itself scuttled on the rocks of uncertainty and scattered to the winds of time.
A true patriot.
A true racist.
Love David Starkey!!! His intelligence and grace are on full display here!!!
Dr. David Starkey is one of the best historians of our generation. His documentaries are among the best. He's a straight shooter, pull no punches kind of a man and one of the few who is a true scholar. His biography of Elizabeth I, Monarchy, are among his best.
What he says here is very on point and it is refreshing to hear someone give historical background on our current political crisis.
If this man could be shoe horned into a political party I believe that party would do very well today. Only problem is asking someone like him to become a politician is like asking Einstein to teach physics at a junior school.
Difficult to estimate the long-term damaging consequences of your correct assessment, and tragic that a once respected institution like the BBC can ban someone of his calibre as a "danger to the public" while giving space to the usual third-rate elected collectivist politicians who are more harmful than the obvious lunatic fringe, at least the public can recognise them for what they are
But today's main political parties are not interested in original thought. They have no interest in our constitution, or even the benefit to the people that good government would bring. The Labour Party is a slave to its racist and socialist ideology, and the Conservatives are interested only in retaining power for the purpose of using the patronage it gives them. And the Liberals are just crackpots. There is nobody of any intellectual heft among our politicians today, and it's been that way for at least 20 years.
On the subject of freedom, can you please ask Starkey if he has revisited his position on mandatory vaccinations. A blind spot has emerged in recent months, largely, I suspect because he is so sound on many cultural issues, and as a result he has been let entirely off the hook on his support for mandatory covid jabs.
I had no idea that was his view and am somewhat shocked.
I dont expect a historian to be naturally right when it comes to public health. I dont like what Niall Ferguson says about climate change, or Ukraine. It is possible to be right on one thing and wrong on another. But good luck finding someone with whom you agree on every single thing.
@@cargumdeu What an odd remark.
@@deefsound Not in the slightest. Starkey's ideas on vaccines are totally irrelevant to his chosen subject. Your own remark is the weird one.
@@cargumdeu “But good luck finding someone with whom you agree on every single thing.” 👈Odd remark.
"British Conservatism is Rooted in History NOT Religion" I can understand why David would say this, but it was Christianity in its various forms which brought together the various tribes of ancient Britain, and eventually led to the spread of literacy, so that people were able to read and understand the Christian faith, then apply that understanding to social ills..
He means that our rights and freedoms developed historically being changed and revised by different rulers many times until they reached modern times. So it was history, there are no 'rights' in the Bible from God or any religion or philiosophy. Rights come from politics and ones standing as a citizen in the nation state.
@@clivemarriott7749 Well, I don't want to get into an argument about it 'online" with someone I don't know, but I think you're very wrong! Yes Common Law comes into it, but the moral teachings of the Bible, and especially Jesus Christ have had a great and continuing effect on the Western world, -and further afield. China and Iran for example.
@@h54h52 Its OK to argue with me online as long as a degree of civility is maintained. Speaking about history I agree that Christianity is a cornerstone of western civilisation. The American constitution inspired by the Magna Carter and Christianity gives people rights which i'm sure is a good thing. However the Bible did not say people have rights ? I'm saying rights have no moral authority from God but they do have authority from the concept of citizens rights developed from Roman/Greek times.
@@clivemarriott7749 Apologies, I agree with you.
The Scriptures do not teach that people have rights, although the Torah teaches that the Sinai Covenant contains t’s and c’s or blessings and cursings, if you prefer! The underlying supposition of Biblical morality and law is that God has given man free will. We make choices and we or others, receive the blessings or the consequences of our decisions.
Human Rights legislation results from the philosophy of Humanism, which teaches amongst other things that man is a result of evolution, which in turn resulted from some chemicals in a puddle somewhere, producing the first living cell. So man is free, and unaccountable- because there is no God.(
@@h54h52 Thanks for the discussion because that is a chance to learn something from another conscious thinking life. I use the example of mother nature as another cornerstone of truth. If it didn't happen in nature then maybe it should not happen in our cities. But fair enough a puddle of chemicals does not inspire.
The man, the legend. Dr Starkey. Absolute treasure.
Did you get the jab he wanted for everyone??? He’s an evil devil.
Starkey, although I do not always agree with his point of view is a man to be listened to, however those that hate debate and challenges to their own narrow minded ideologies are terrified of their weak narratives being exposed by him for what they are, therefore the only way to defeat him is to take sound bites out of context and use mis-interpreted statements to blacken his character.
Three comments right at the beginning of Starkey's discussion of the french revolution and comparing the french and british constitutions. 1. A 'stable' regime, hierarchy, social order, etc. does not require it to be "good" for the majority of people (or the surrounding non-human life) living in it. India's cast system is "stable", but there are many who are born to oppression and exploitation in the lower castes.
2. The british constitution itself has been subjected to sweeping ammendments, eradications, and additions as a result of political upheaval, uprisings, revolts, etc. I think Starkey's line of "reasoning" and narrative he is telling is not grounded in experience, humanity, or place, but instead suits his ideological purposes. A "dangerous" kind of reason in Edmund Burke's word.
3. Those with wealth/power have been the ones calling the major shots in these parts for the last 5000 years or so, how would he rate the West's social, economic, and ecological stability at the moment? We've had three conservative prime ministers in the space of a couple months!
You hit it absolutely! We are too polite.
You are incredibly rude ! Listen back to what English leaders publicly broadcast about Europe and Europeans. The name calling, the slander, the lies. Listen to Farage ranting in the European Parliament. Be assured : you are very very far from polite.
The only way to create perfection is to do terrible things to human beings cause humans aren't perfect. I like that
I like Starkey and the rough thrust of his point, but this is starting to sound a lot like Nietzsche and Derrida, which I don't think is a very good grounding for a society. He's sitting on the branch he is cutting off by desiring a 'conservative' politics without God.
I am sure he would argue that many of the influences of the things which have made England great being a result of its geography and the influence and interplay of other factors. But it cannot be overlooked that so much of all of this comes back to things done by people who had a fundamental belief in Christianity. The tradition can neither be preserved nor innovated when the roots are lost. Atheism is an enervating force.
England's unique situation may have influenced the Christianity it has followed, but Christianity itself did not originate here - we cannot therefore entirely rely on our history alone to preserve our culture when Christianity is so clearly a part of it - it must colour how we approach the future but it cannot be our basis.
Transcendental history is one of the finest examples of modernism a person could find because it dresses itself up as tradition while being revolutionary.
Love this man. He has taught me so much and my 11 year old hangs on his every word.
Let's hope your eleven year old's views and interests survived till adulthood.
@@lewislee9201 What makes you say that? The school and university indoctrination?
Too bad, he should be hanging on your every word.
Love Starkey, he’s one of the few anchors of rational thought left.
Utterly enthralling - this was a truly fascinating description of how and why our history matters.
For the first time in my lifetime 75. I wonder how this country would be nowadays had we lost the war. I doubt very much we would be multicultural !
It would be a horrible place. We saw what they did in Poland etc
Often think the same.
Every one is Tribal, once we realise this we can sit down and negotiate boundaries and peace. until that happens, tensions will remain.
@jj Fair comment. What is your view on the matter?
The UN knows that.
Universal human rights was an attempt to place everyone on the same level, and key guides that state boundaries between each tribal group. It basically sees each nation as a tribe unto itself.
This was done, because technology in military weaponry had developed to the level that entire peoples could be extinguished with a push of a button at worst, and with a full on mass campaign of conventional warfare at least.
He likes the fact that London has history buried under the streets he walks. He fails to recognise that the technology is powerful enough to totally wipe out all trace of that history buried under London streets.
Hoping that another nation will not elect another danger that triggers another global war is a fools errand. These rights are there to ensure that there is criminal courts that can handle those events. It is managing the dangerous sides of humanity, that got really bad in WW2.
Mass immigration is imposed upon us by "our" politicians who are governed by the elite of the elite.
There is nothing we can do about it but winge and whine and bellyache.
"Reason is not enough" (25:47). If there's one takeaway from the conversation, this is it. Priceless.
I can't find the video of his speech at NatCon, I can only find Novara Media's reaction to it 🤔
I admire Bill’s immense skill as an interviewer. He is always able to get his guests talking, especially with David who usually is a man of very few words. ;). He always captures my full attention and leaves me with greater insight in to the world in which we live.
Starkey is brilliant 👏 👌 🙌
It's quite clear that rights are not universal - or just sitting there in the air. They can either be "God-given"" - what if I don't believe in God? Or I believe in a different one - with a different set of rules? Or they can be Hu-Man given - but by whom for whom? If say the UN declare a set of rights and I don't subscribe to the UN - why should I subscribe to what they espouse?
You don't have to respect or follow any rules, rights or laws if you don't want to. You just need to make sure to either avoid those who would look to force them upon you, or have enough power to withstand anyone who would try to force them upon you. And since I doubt you have enough power to fight against a nation state, I would just keep a low profile and you do you.
With you 100%. God given insight. Thank you.
God is manmade, so rights are also manmade.
It was always a vast unknown thing for me? I have Human Rights? Who says? Who gives a human right to me? Do I have to do anything to possess this? And so on ...
There is no such thing, of course but this wasn't easy to accept since the TV and press always talk about it,
What an incredible man. Love his humour and intelligence and knowledge
Dr Starkey is a national treasure.
David Starkey - isn’t that Ironman ?
His take on natural rights is troubling, "there's no such thing as natural rights unless you believe in God". Apparently, David believes that basic Human rights are bestowed on a people, (or revoked) by whatever person(s) is in power! This is why a dominant religion is essential to a functioning society, all societies. When a society loses its religion it can no longer judge right & wrong, good & evil rather, the population will splinter into rival groups each trying to impose its own version of morality... sound familiar?
What is the criterion for distinguishing merely alleged human rights from authentic human rights ? The notion of human rights has been debased by being turned into a rhetorical deice to justify whatever happens to be Left fad of the moment.
The test for a real human right is the idea of 'man in a state of nature'.
So, a man on his own in the wild is granted by nature the freedom to speak, think, move, and keep the profit of his labours. These are human or natural rights, you only lose them when someone else denies you them.
However things like health care, electricity, shelter, happiness, are not human rights.
@Fenristhegreat The erosion started with the independent United States. Their aristocrats replaced Life, Liberty, Property with Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
And keeping the fruits of your labours isn't a freedom in the State of Nature. There are multiple species whose survival strategy is to steal. You do, however have the natural right to attempt to prevent that theft - just as the thief has the natural right to steal.
@@Fenristhegreat Those (natural rights) are abilities. I'm not sure why they should be called rights. It seems needlessly confusing. A bear has the ability to take a dump in the woods, but to say it has a _right_ to do so seems like an abstraction.
A sentient wellspring. Keep Dr Starkey's nouse out there. Pass it on !
3:40 revolutions have terror but so do unchallenged monarchies.
Brilliant chat today, thoroughly enjoyed it. David Starkey is a human encyclopaedia.
Before I listen to this, I wonder if RS will roll out the old St Augustine 'Piss and Shit' quote? I don't think that I've heard a speech from him in the past 18 months where he hasn't used it.
Yes!! I had to wait eleven minutes and and forty seconds for it. Thank you David. 😊
We will constantly be called on to compromise
Starkey likes to pretend that the "rootedness" of the English system isn't deeply derived from religion and religious ideas. Tradition, yes, but tradition of _what?_ It's easy to infer why Starkey is so opposed to Christianity, especially its moral precepts, but he is talking in abstractions when he talks of "history" as if its content isn't heavily Christian in nature.
I think he is trying to throw out the baby with the bath water
Another comment from around minute 7:30. Our "not-perfect" british state is compelling many people to do horrible things due to the staggering inequalities that exist in regards to access to education, healthcare, clean and healthy food and environments, access to justice, etc. You don't need a dictatorship to try and force human beings to be a certain way. Economic conditions/status can also dictate our lives disasterously.
Make pageantry great again
I guess as a Yank across the pond, I need to be hopefully, an objective contrarian (which is hard, because I like Starkey so much.) Politics is downstream of culture and culture is downstream of religion. Human rights are rooted in religion, but they evolve and take form over time, and this evolution/formation is documented by history. As such, they are not rooted in history, they are rooted in religion; no religion, no human rights. And yes, they are universal. Perhaps a comparison might be helpful - here in America, we have observed that as religion retreats from the public square, we are beginning to lose authentic human rights and are seeing the emergence of other so-called "rights" never recognized before, based on the legal contrivances of various case law and court rulings.
Your theory is simplistic. Britain, France, Germany, and Russia (to name but a few) are all historically Christian countries, yet their histories and political cultures are VERY different. Starkey is right, a particular country's culture is rooted in its history, which, in turn is rooted in its geographical location (its neighbours, which countries it goes to war with, etc.) and its geographical peculiarities (climate, crops grown, etc.). Ultimately, EVERYTHING (including which religion a country adopts) is rooted in history, which is rooted in geography.
Human rights are granted by the latest ruling jobsworths. They are not genetic, nor born with.
What's conveniently omitted by Starkey and by Burke is the fact and cause of the founding of the American Republic. The USA was founded by men who Starkey and Burke would describe as "rationalists" who advocated the primacy and supremacy of Reason, of individualism and of universal rights: the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This moral-political philosophy led to the greatest country on Earth. It led to the freest, most prosperous nation in all human history with the strongest military power.
What is also conveniently omitted is the fact that the French Republic was not the product of reason and universalism, but of primitive emotionalist-collectivism. It was Rousseau and Robspierre who won the intellectual battle for France, not Thomas Paine, Voltaire and John Locke's philosophy. Rousseau is not an advocate of Reason, but of emotionalism, the idea that ones feelings are guides to truth and the good. Rousseau was one of the first anti-enlightenment philosophers and was also a staunch collectivist. Unlike the founding fathers of America, who advocated that Reason was efficacious and a faculty of the individual - and therefore all individuals have a right to be left free so that they can use their reason to pursue values they judge will lead to the good life, Rousseau argued that reason was defunct and that the primary entity of moral value was not the individual but "society" or "the nation" as a whole. This leads to the idea that the individual is a sacrificial entity which the collective can dispose of anytime it pleases, as the collective is the basis of judging moral interests for all. Collectivism is a rejection of universalism, it says that some groups have greater moral worth and more rights than others - it is profoundly subjectivist in nature. This is in fact is what led to the French Revolution.
The USA's material success has many causes. Also the constitution of 1787 differs quite a bit from the articles of confederation or the declaration of independence a decade earlier, and is a more conservative document. After a decade of chaos it was decided a more nationalist document was needed, with less of Jefferson's liberal idealism.
@@jenniferlawrence2701 not really the constitution was directed by the declaration. The declaration states that man has inalienable rights and governments are established to secure those rights. The constitution is a document protecting some of the rights listed, putting limitations of what the government can do. The emphasis is clearly on the side of individual freedom. There is no nationalism in the philosophy of the founding fathers. Nationalism argues that the nation safe is the primary unit of moral value this idea is antithetical to any of the ideas motivating the founding fathers.
As for the cause of Americas wealth, the cause is clearly (in a political context) individual rights. Americas railways and buildings and transportation and electrification and all the other creative values are the result of free businessmen engaged in wealth creation, profit seeking and trade. The greatest and fast period of economic growth in history was the period after the civil war until world war 1 when citizens had their individual rights (primarily economic rights) secured.
And look what's happened to the USA since.
@@louislemar796 Washington and the Federalists were clearly, unambiguously Nationalists. There's no denying this. They consciously created a nation-state, inspired in large part by England. Nationalism doesn't argue the nation-state is the primary unit of moral value. It argues that nations should either be created or upheld where they exist, and that the liberties and self-interests of individual citizens must be balanced with their collective-interests as a nation.
Individual rights are a contributor to the USA's success, but by no means the only or sole cause. Try this thought experiment: In 1789, take the exact same set of ideas - the exact same constitution - and put it in Iceland. Would Iceland have become become exactly as powerful as the USA? No. Not even remotely. Geography being the first of many reasons. Location matters, as does population size (and content), as do natural resources.
The vast, resource-rich, continental United States was obtained by violent conquest. That's isn't a criticism of it or a call for Americans to feel shame, just an acknowledgment of historical fact. The individual liberty stuff came later. Take the violent conquest of that land by Europeans out of the equation and you don't get the USA's success, or even the USA at all.
Then there's the USA's geopolitical competitors in Europe destroying themselves in two world wars, and so on... In short, it isn't just a set of ideas or rights that explain the USA's success, though they are undoubtedly an important part of the explanation.
@@Thespian-wp6xq I am. It is the rejection of the principles I outlined above which has led the USA and much of the West to the sorry, pathetic state it now finds itself in, it is not the result of too much rationality, or too much rights-based laws. It is the rejection of those things for the moral supremacy of the group. Through democracy people can vote away the rights and property of other people. Irrationality and collectivism have penetrate academia for 150yrs and today’s culture is the result
A lot of the best old writings of serious men are like that, tedious in detail for us but then you find golden passages when they express general principles or ideas. Burke amid the politics of his day is like the great fathers, doctors and saints of the Church amid the heathenism and heresies.
In very few countries one actually has any 'human rights' other than in name.
I hear British being thrown around alot but I hardly ever hear English. This is England. Try to use English a bit more.
And Wales etc
I don’t think he understands why the American constitution says what it says about rights. It really shows either his ignorance or his arrogance.
Multiculturalism only works in metropolis / mega city or country like USA, / London. yet, there are still a lot of shortcomings.
Other countries try multiculturlism is like digging their own grave.
Actually those places are difinitive proof that it doesn't work.
@@leestirling4623 This is why I said there are pros and cos for multiculturalism. However, to be a world financial centre, you can't just have one homogeneous ethnic group made up the population. This is why only NY and London are the world financial centre. (Hong Kong used to be, but that's another story) But of cause, there are adverse effects that NY and London need to bear, but not financial one.
Multiculturalism does not work anywhere and never has or will .
Starkey should be PM.
[Jos 24:15 KJV] 15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, CHOOSE YE THIS DAY WHOM YOU WILL SERVE; whether the gods which your fathers served that [were] on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
... so it seems to me that we actually have ONE universal human right (that is to CHOOSE WHOM WE WILL SERVE) and everything else follows as a natural consequence of that decision... and hasn't history borne out the validity of that assertation over and over again?...even to the present when God has lifted His hand off the nations that have removed Him from the national thinking and we are sinking into the bog of homosexuality, transgenderism, pedophilia, bestiality...it can only get worse unless people make the conscious effort to choose God.
I like David Starkey maybe the beeb will give him a job. There's no such thing as human rights. Judeo-Christian tradition teaches us to be nice to each other but ultimately the rights we have are those that the respective nation state that we live in bestows upon us. Unless your an Englishman. We are freeborn. Magna Carte , Common Law, etc. Yanks copied us when the English 13 colonies seperated from the Mother Country.
But for example, Magna Carta was signed at a time when Wales was under occupation. Our laws were overturned. So this is solely an English thing?
@@vanpallandt5799 What do you mean occupied? Magna Carta was endorsed by the Welsh. King John received representation from all parts of the British Isles. Scots included. It was an English document though. We're all British however.
@@christopherjones67 Wales hadnt welcomed the Normans or English in though. We had our own laws etc and princes.
@@vanpallandt5799 Fair point. But I assume you agree Magna Carta was a good thing? Even if it superseded Welsh laws & practices? I'll admit I'm slightly out of my comfort zone. History is my interest but it's WW2 , Third Reich, British Empire, not really interested in much before mid 19th Century. Love the Victorian era. Tell me where I'm wrong? Or perhaps better the nuance. I tend to make blanket statements.
@@christopherjones67 the Welsh laws were more about restitution and compensation and less about punishment
A superb exposition of our history and constitution. I have been so enlightened. I also didn't really know where Blenheim is.
I think that Julian asagague might not believe that we have hapeuas corpus
Have to object to DR Starky reprehensible misquoting of the American Declaration of Independence. It nowhere says that all men are born free, and it where it says "that all men are created equal", given the times then where there was belief in the Divine right of Kings, that phrase only meant that there are no divinely ordained or natural aristocracies but that all men should be considered equal under the law. And that he can't see that as self-evident doesn't give him the right to insult it as "manifest rubbish."
I was looking forward to watching the coronation and very sad that the weather dampened proceedings.
Charles was not in a good mood, he likely slept poorly. This was not exciting watching pensioner king and queen against young fresh blood ascending the throne. Made a point to listen to Dr Starkey for real information. Camera angles not always good. Very irritated and annoyed that BBC chose what we could view.
I think the monarchy is getting ready to give up the position and retain prominent positions in the global, woke world order.
Isn't the family a more fundamental unit than the nation state?
I'd have thought the journey of the child through to adulthood, with brothers, sisters, grandparents, aunts, uncles and parents is where the template for justice is best expressed?
English Common Law as an expression of the true social unit.
The Nation State is an incorporation of families into a fictitious unit that has to be given "rights" as though it is a person while at the same time is NOT a living being.
Corp, oration, the speech of a body, where the body is nothing more than a contract.
Who ever said it wasn't? (a more fundamental unit than the nation-state)
Exactly, and the family is the most important. Without it everything collapses. Look at black families in the States; more than half of black families have no father present.
Love the intro music…reminds me of Frost and TWTWTW. 😊 GIVING MY AGE AWAY XX
"True religion is the foundation of human society. When that is once shaken by contempt , the whole fabric cannot be stable nor lasting." - Edmund Burke . The foundation seems to me to be very shaken , if not crumbling before our eyes.
He refers to intervening in Afghanistan so "girls would have the freedom to wear miniskirts like NYC hookers ",but remember what was actually said at the time "it was for girls education ".Yes mostly white British soldiers died and were horribly injured for that. But in the wake of that failure by the "neo cons "theirs and their opponents at the time are now all agreed on the solution-open borders. So any individual from these countries of whatever political and or religious views can "choose "their country of choice to move to. Which is what the UN and their various bodies and committees have been advocating for decades which Starkey was alluding to in a similar way in the interview.
These people who are so critical and imagine themselves as the nice people are in fact anything but nice. In fact they seem so full of dislike and even hatred. They just want to spoil our lives. Thank you both for all the goodness and honestly you give out.
Always love it when David Starkey is on 👏👏
The last 3 years has shown us who are the corrupt villians and who are the hero’s. David is the latter.
Listening to this from 00:20:00 onwards hits differently in the wake of latest news on 7.10.23.
Barclay is a Peterhouse historian as well as having been educated by the Army.
There wasn't much on the pitfalls of multi culturalism but what Mr Starkey stated about the Labour party is so true. They are prone to hate heritage value in England, they hate their education. It seems whatever is noble is torn down and replaced with other cultures very different with opposing value systems. The idea of being conservative makes them feel very uncomfortable. They would rather have a cultural revolution and lose their identity and their moral compass to create an alternative society where some brothers are more equal than others.
Lovely to hear mr starkey.
Every day a day at school.
At last someone making sense of the dangers of mixing different races
STARKIE EXCELLENT AND BRILLIANT AS USUAL.
What's shocking in the coronation ceremony is that the king does not even recite the creed of the Church of England in which he professes to belong to a 'Catholic and Apostolic church' - not a Roman one note. In the official prayer book there is no mention of Protestantism. The coronation service seems to hold out such little conciliation to Catholic and Orthodox churches.
Amen to that!!! Can’t even have an opinion.
Does anyone know the name of the Danish researcher DS talks about around minute 18 (whose name, he says, he never knows how to pronounce)? Thank you
Yes, I’m interested to know too.
Development aid and human rights: a study for the Danish Center of Human Rights.
People live with there own race and class of people it will never change trying to push us together don't work
"The 'Lord' giveth and the Lord taketh away"
...and also the Lord turneth us around, bend us over and shafteth us from behind, innit...
@@bristolfashion4421 of course, but that is the Natural world.
Why do you put "Lord" in single quotation marks? And why only the first time you use the word, but not the second? And if we assume this is true, so what? What are we supposed to do with this information? Does it help ANYBODY make a decision about ANYTHING? This sort of thing reminds one of the Islamic cultures (insha'allah, al-Ḥamdu lillāh, and so on), and THEY haven't been world leaders in anything for centuries. Now, I wonder why?
Welcome to Tufton Street. The NewRemburg Culture Rallying Point
Ortega speaks of history living for the British!
Don Hansen
His books too, are always a terrific read.
Every ruler needs a ruler. Reason is not enough and love is not enough.❤🎉
i'm strongly of the opinion that any one person cannot reason properly if they are using multiple belief systems.
It's odd to choose the French Revolution as the bogeyman of multi-culturalism and anti-nationalism. In reality, the Revolution marked the beginning of nationalism and its leaders sought cultural homogeneity within the nation.
I would suggest Dr Starkey could gain from reading Jacques Maritain, who helped to draft the UN's declaration on human rights. In those days, he found a surprising amount of agreement between delegates with respect to natural law arguments about human rights. Unfortunately, this is no longer possible in our day as the concept of the human person has been undermined by those who want to see the destruction of traditional values - and it is not those from other countries who are chiefly responsible for this; it is the atheist secularists who are without any rootedness in valuing the human person as creatures made in the image and likeness of God, i.e. with intellect and free will.
7:01 Starky tells us a historical political fact about why politics needs to serve the people, not perfect them into a 'perfect world' as it's humanly impossible to pull off: Humanity is flawed. Interesting. It's like we've been 'coded' to never perform like perfect drones as a species.
Starkey should write the History section of the National Curriculum 🙂
Very interesting, thank you.
Oh my God, what an analysis! I have to admit that if every conservative thinker was like you, i would gladly be a conservative. But, I'm very much afraid that this kind of illuminating conservative thinking is being produced exclusively in the British Isles...
As to the existence of "Universal Human Rights", I somewhat agree and somewhat disagree. Universal human rights is just a secular label for the proposition that there are inalienable rights, which our creator has granted to mankind. Wherein I agree that there are no Universal human rights is that absent God, any proposed 'rights' rest upon Mankind's current consensus of opinion. The problem with that being that what today's consensus of opinion may agree to... a later consensus of opinion they reject. Thus "Universal Human Rights" are actually privileges. Those currently granted by the State. And what does State giveth, the State may take away at its whim. Like it or not, rights which cannot be taken away can only be granted by a source that transcends the varying opinions of mankind.
I agree. However, it is rime to add the concomitant responsibilities that come with such rights. There is assuredly a Source that grants such rights and which requires, consequently, that the individual accept responsibility for all subsequent words and deeds..
@@AquarianAgeMaitreya I agree with the proviso that only God can always and truly judge whether an individual's words and deeds are acceptable. When a society embraces the Ten Commandments and Golden Rule, acceptance of personal responsibility and accountability is certain. When a society embraces the Rule of Law and merit based advancement, such a society will be successful in every measure.
@@geoffreydebrito7934 I believe in the truism, or adage, that there won't be a better world until there are better people. It's obvious that this isn't happening in the present secular milieu, hence new ways of spiritualizing the population need to be found and implemented as a matter of urgency. Even Charles understands that glaring fact although his solution will bring disaster. Being best friends with the 'Devil of Davos' is NOT the way to go.
@@AquarianAgeMaitreya There were better people in the world. Compare the 'greatest generation' to the generations that followed. The difference is the cultural values embraced, along with the 'hard times' that shaped that generation versus the easy times that followed. In the aggregate, the 'baby boomers' embraced hedonism and rejected much of the cultural and religious values and economic principles that the greatest generation had embraced. As for "spiritualizing" the population, only 'spiritualization' that comes from God can result in better men and women.
Almost every medieval European political entity saw themselves as the new Rome. Including the Ottoman Empire.