Your half Norman mate

@@Hc.krd1 then you’re half-Wit matey :)

@@catsamazing338 use google ya bellend 🤦🏻‍♂️

​@@Hc.krd1speak again oh great intelligent one

@@wodens-hitman1552 yous literally have Norman blood. you can do all that bs all you want mate your dna speaks for it self

Its like these people hate their own countries but also want to make britain like their countries. Which are terrible.

As an American living in the United States, except when living in the smallest of towns, I feel all of the same things that you are referencing. My country found its origins in yours and your culture. I love us. I love and support Britain.

This is true UK wide. My foreign born friends enjoy the communities of their countrymen, as well as the liberal lefties, who bend over backwards to kiss their backsides in the cause of their virtue signalling. Patriotic natives are left out in the cold.

Thankyou friend, God bless America🎆🌄🌱🌿🕊

​@@freneticness6927Caution not a l l Afr---s, are afflicted by 'wo----'. Another category, they're in a heaven, cf their own countries and want this one. Oops that's a 'w---' thing, surprisingly, a, hm, j--ad' thing, surprise, surprise, surprise.

David Starkey underestimates how much immigrants love the U.K..in fact 1.25 million immigrants came here last year!

@hectorshouse7348 exactly, because it's 750K net, it must be in the region of 1.25milion gross.

He just chats shit 😂😂😂😂😂

David Starkey underestimates how much immigrants love the U.K..in fact 1.25 million immigrants came here last year!

@@hectorshouse7348 Wow!

​@@washingtongarden4078Yeah the old puff can't half witter on 😂🤣😂

​@@hectorshouse7348OMG! 😮😮😮

These people need taking down. Do not be afraid to answer back with facts and figures or ridicule.

@@gbentley8176 oh yes! i absolutely hammered her with the local history. She deleted her comments in the end.

@dominionphilosophy3698 well said! I find it astounding that despite Britains thousands of years of history, ingenuity, technological achievement, architecture, civil engineering etc. According to these leftwing zealots, somehow the inhabitants of Britain were entirely incapable of building any town or city without the help of immigrants.

Its like we didnt have the largest empire in existence before the boat people arrived.

​@simonquigley9054 well done mate. A LOT more of that needs to happen. I'd buy you a beer anytime

He’s not that clever ! He’s interesting but he’s been part of the Tory Elite that’s delusional about how great we actually are!

They’re really good guys.

Zealots maybe, they are also village idiots who have found themselves useful to International Finace Capital.

You mean SELF-righteous zealots. They remind me of the Pharisees during the time of Christ, and look at what they did to Jesus. Gretta is just a puppet of the WEF, a figure head of the WEF, nothing more than that.

Wonder why climate change is being pushed at the exact same time as mass migration. Its like a red flag and a bull.

And figures such as Jordan Peterson are not?

Are your paymasters the fossil fuel industries or support the charlatans who are?

Your fourth para also speaks of AUS which has had an extreme immigration policy, but finally recognised as just too much! It has not abated, but has been modified to be less and with more selection !

We should stop giving citizenship to immigrats and their progeny. And take away citizenship or at least the right to vote to all law breakers of foreign origin.

As I mentioned in a previous comment; it is chickens coming home to roost, or as you sow you reap. Brits. went all over during the Empire days took resources, attempted to stamp out culture and religion, now they are under siege. Spare me. I am laughing too hard. Brit. culture becoming multi is awesome. Britain was built by Irish labor and others while the Aristocrats behaved badly at their Ivy Leagues and had an air of entitlement and superiority wherever they went. Now it is just little England, not even a part of Europe as Ireland is, latching on to the Continent to escape its awful neighbor. My advice stew in your own juice you might arrive at something that is palatable, eventually.

There is NO hope of amalgamating the various African, muslims, Asians cultures that come here. The end result is what we have just seen in France the other week. All cultures are different and are not equal, despite what the left tell us. Open borders in the US and western Europe is the extreme left trying to hammer in the final nail in the coffin of western culture and civilisation, unless a popularist comes along to try and stop the final nail in the coffin.

Its hard enough when you belong here.

The Tower is available to solve this problem.

They don’t self loathe…they just loathe people like us

Ironically, when you see who is pushing these Agendas, you know they are just projecting their own fear & self-loathing. Sad & bitter times, but all self-inflicted.

​@@hectorshouse7348Jealousy?😉🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

@@hectorshouse7348 You see yourself as a victim?

David Starkey underestimates how much immigrants love the U.K..in fact 1.25 million immigrants came here last year!

@@hectorshouse7348 pmsl. Check the ONS statistical information on immigration since the 1940's skyrocketed in 1997 aided by K Starmer QC in 2003

​@@hectorshouse7348 Yes, and those 1 million immigrants is the extreme left trying to hammer in the final nail in the coffin of western civilisation and culture. The west is dying a tragic death due to multiculturalism and mass immigration. Soon the indigenous population will become a minority in their own nations, and don't tell me "there is no indigenous population" because that's left wing B/S.

@@hectorshouse7348 Have you just discovered copy & paste?

Err! Which bit would that be? 😲😉

​@@MikeHallett-jc2byooooh Matron!!

@MikeHallett-jc2by lol 😆 his brain!

David Starkey underestimates how much immigrants love the U.K..in fact 1.25 million immigrants came here last year!

Charles iii is WEF, a devotee of the cult of climate 'crisis'. Manoeuvring against 'his' people.

Eco Fascist is much more appropriate in my opinion. Sure the lunatic footsoldiers blocking the streets are in the doomsday cult part of this alliance. But the people at the top are out and out eco fascists.

There are parallels in climate change and net zero to totalitarian states in history, who believed if millions had to die for a utopian future then so be it.

Doomsday Cult is correct

Peter Hitchens has become a bloviating bore. Utterly useless to any potentially workable form of conservatism.

No one has replaced Hitch...Douglas Murray is giving it a good go but he doesn't have the necessary charisma.

I totally agree!!

I'm less sure of what PR would bring, the "frankenstein" monster way of bits of this, of thar, the other, all with differing , often openly hostile to each other strikes me a nasty recipe to swallow. Having said that the Conservative Party have managed to achieve nothing whatsoever of any value with their 80+ seats.

I think we would be better off moving towards a direct democracy model. The referendum shows us that the people are better in control than the politicians. More importantly, we need to make taxation entirely optional and itemised. The flaw in our system is that politicians have figured out that since we only have 1 vote every 5 years. And since we are forced at gun point to "pay" our taxes. We actually have no mechanism of control over the system.

pincermove. FPTP can only be justified if you have a viable and robust opposition. What we have today, and have had for decades, with no differences in policy between the only two electable parties, is, in practice, one party Government. The democratic process is stultified.

In many ways the people of Ireland are being drawn more towards us in Britain culturally, than has happened for a century or more. The existential threat of immigration and political change, woke and the rest are the drivers.

David Starkey underestimates how much immigrants love the U.K..in fact 1.25 million immigrants came here last year!

​@@hectorshouse7348 Good grief!

@hectorshouse7348 Good grief! it's eye wateringly worrying that our isles are accepting such poor quality immigration. It's no wonder that the infrastructure can not accommodate it. Alas, it's the communities that harbour the burden that I worry about. As Matt Goodwin says, it's a managed decline. Instead of investing in our own nations' people and encouraging people to have (and support) them having families, we import cheap masses to compensate. It is infuriating.

@dominionphilosophy3698 Yes I do, and too many people don't call him out on bad manners and indulge it...which is how he got so rude and arrogant in the first place! Starkey can be entertaining and his take on current affairs in the context of history is very interesting. He is clever and vain. I can find him interesting without pandering to rude behaviour and I am not in thrall to him just because of his knowledge and intellect. Foster took a risk to his own livelihood by giving him a platform on Triggernometry, because it was pretty catastrophic, and its arrogant and unappreciative of Starkey to put him down. Starkey has quite a few bob behind him, hard earned without a doubt, but Foster and Kisin are at the early part of their lives and have a long time to go in a time when banks can close your account for speaking out in a democracy. In that context, Starkey can at least have the decency to treat Foster with a bit of respect.

In the interests of accuracy: it was the New Culture Forum that was the first platform to interview David Starkey after his appearance on Reasoned.

@@NewCultureForum Thank you for putting the record straight regarding being the first after the Reasoned interview, but it's still fair to say that Foster and Kisin also gave Starkey the opportunity and took the risk. Certainly Darren Grimes got it with both barrels from both sides afterwards. I stand by my point that Starkey was just incredibly rude and I'd be saying the same if he was similarly rude about anyone at The New Culture Forum after giving him an opportunity and the risk to the channel and those that might be dependent on it. It's not so that I think he should be overtly grateful, not at all, just not rude and dismissive. Basic courtesy.

Agree. I think Francis Foster deserves more credit than “sidekick”. The only fault I could pick out of David’s performance in this discussion.

@@shelleyphilcox4743I wonder if there’s any particular reason why Kissin seems to be everywhere these days and Foster , well quite the opposite? Have you ever come across the “facts don’t care about your feeling” saying? Starkey is successful partly due to his opinionated style which I find very entertaining considering the dross of the vast majority of commenters recently , least he has a personality.I enjoy Kissin, Murray, Owens, Farage, Tousi, and many others who coincidentally seem to deal in facts and are…..generally right of centre…..funny that!

David Starkey underestimates how much immigrants love the U.K..in fact 1.25 million immigrants came here last year!

Indeed, the Starkey-at-the-lectern dynamic gets a bit tiresome. Much better would be conversation or dialogue between or among fellow historians. I have wondered if Starkey prefers not (or refuses?) to share the stage with other historians. Surely there are segment producers who propose the notion to him routinely? The only one of such I have seen was Starkey with Simon Schama on, I think, BBC Newsnight a few years ago. Though the pair were quite civil in that appearance, Starkey has made offhand comments about Schama a few times. Perhaps more surprising is that Starkey and the highly accomplished Tudor historian Diarmaid MacCulloch (both students of Geoffrey Elton at Cambridge) have not been presented jointly. Perhaps there is a private spat (warring queens?😉) that keeps them apart.

Sum-zero thinking for sum-zero thinking people to continue sum-zero culture wars.

It's been renamed 'International White Misogynist & Transphobic Heteronormative Patriarchy Day' at the behest of The Guardian.

32:00 mins. The problem with absolutism is it begins with the abstract, the universal. This is what Sellars is attacking when he attacks Plato's forms. This can perhaps go proxy for Cicero too but not sure about St. Thomas Moore. Sellars contrasts this mythical idea with its role in modern science as Quine's Set extension that is a Sellers argues this as an implicit a kind of temporal Platonism (modality as necessity over time)(like St Augustine perhaps moving image of eternity) that reference for ever is the same as adverbial contextual reference here and now (McDowell's rules as rails in Mind and World). But Sellars in contrasting this set theory semantic structure, with ordinary occasional use (also called observation statements or eternal propositions/thoughts) has to explain the "Apparent" use of the myth of Platonism. If it is wrong how come its seems to work. His answer is these abstractions are used within ordinary language so they have a foot in both camps. Now before we abandon Platonism entirely, first it is regarded by many as Heidegger's philosophical error. Second that any Platonism of concepts as infinite functions has to see the abstraction error as one that abstracts the concepts form their place in an instituional architecture. This instituional context of multiple institutions in some kind of harmony in judgement and that brings in a whole new analysis. Category of public and private duty and organic unity to the rules and cases before the split into separate functions. Then the old onto-theological problem of an exceptional God origin of virtue and morality is now a very different kind of question, situated in the architecture of the State. Sellars i think missed this possibility, taken up by Russell and then peter Suber. The error results in paradoxes like Set theory paradox but the solution is to deny infinity and zero since in demythologising Platonic abstraction we have multiple institutions in play together and all at once. In this i push the Critique coming from Wittgenstein and between Dummett and Crispin Wright that the rules as rails and series is a version of realism. the realism is have is rather the reverse. that all the institutions are running in the one space at once, this is a realism that denies anti realism as the abstraction of one rule where in multiple rules we are in direct relation to objects. like Kant's refutation of idealism then i do not answer the single rule critique as a realism rather i deny it as a single institution abstraction on its own. eg say GDP measures are not metric jsut in terms of the rues of the GDP department but its sense requires all the others to be in paly as well. We see then a "zero" GDP is bellow the event horizon of possibility, that department workers left long before to chop down trees and hunt rabbits. We also see any possible infinity in one metric would have to annihilate all the other institutions or treat them as stable natural or instituional and passive ly given over time which is not possible. so no single or multiple infinities.

So at 40:00 mins my claim is there must always be a parliament a division and synthesis of instituional action. Now the transcendent soverignty has to be viewed in a new non abstract non external way as internal to parliament but not an object a referent or name. Schimitt and Agamben miss this semantic space that both presupposes it and denies it. it is intentionality the parliament is a kind of form but also is concrete with real people doing stuff somewhere. the problem of the myth of the exception then is like rule anti realism or single rule realism, it misses the architecture and so thinks its a problem like Plato or a Platonic paradox, the form of the good as the form of all forms, and so on. in set theory it is the set of all sets not members of themselves and so on. these are not problem then to solve but to diagnose as based in an error from the start and proper view the problem is not their. Wittgensteinian approach to philosophical problems and paradox of various representations of reason. Economic liberalism is quit profoundly a different picture to Platonism with dynamic equilibrium and so on. just as Platonism tries to go down and make the world in its false mythical image so liberalism tries to go up and make government redundant. For liberalisms the structure of all institutional form also. Behavioural theory of laws application and now from 1990 an AI theory of legal judgement and jurisprudence is on the way. maybe Schelling very different notion of nature to Hegel, as the equilibrium of forces can help. (it fits with strong and weak nuclear forces too as well as perhaps equilibrium economics see also Nelson Goodman.)

Interesting conclusion to a rooted transcendence at the end. That was a great discussion, and I'm privileged to have listened. Thank you Harrison Pitt, Evan Riggs and Dr. David Starkey.

Normally when people talk of transcendence it is the idea that we can at once have an intention to an object of thought, but that such intentionality has no actual or sensory judgable content. An example might be a unicorn or me at the supermarket down the road later this afternoon. Here transcendence mean a stepping beyond immediate intentional objects of sense, to something beyond. In trying to fit these two capacities together philosophers have conceived at least two ways or accounts: the unicorn is drawing on conceptual capacities and using imagination to construct a kind of composite cryptid; the thought of being at the supermarket later also draws on the same faculties. Here the conceptual continuity and imagined object are connected in conceptual thought, the unicorn though we cannot see, or what to do to bring it to immediacy, no practical possibility can help us to fulfil the imaginative freedom. There is more Platonic sense too the thought or imagining of a Celestial City, like St Augustine or Thomas Moore entertained. Here is an imagined object constructed as an image in thought with apparent conceptual objective intentionality, along with the hope of a practical root to connect the hear and now to this possible future world. Indeed this is the context that, from McDowell, Sellars goes on to argue for intentionality at in a Kantian sense. Cleary there seems to be conceptual inferences in play in these imaginings, the object can only be as images and concepts, inference here can mean a connection of judgements and possible judgements between the "immediate" as source and the imagined as a gap bridging root to the "imagined" perhaps only by analogy with inference as a practical method to get their or maybe its the other way round too, our practical action is modelled on inference as mealy as cognitive imagined possibility. There is a question here about what might be involved Critically if we are to model the cognitive on the practical or the practical on the cognitive. Indeed a political difference emerges here constraining the cognitive to the practical can be a certain aspect of conservatism, while progressives would claim this as a lack of imagination too much repetition and that as the practical advances though its policy the scope of what is practically possible changes over time. we might say at one extreme is a deficiency of imagination and the later too much imagination. In the above the notion of transcendence is "from" the mundane here and now immediate sensory perception, to some imagined object of intention. There is a recent debate from McDowell on Sellars and Rorty, that questions this restricted use. So Rorty saw in immediate sense perception the objectivity has been justified "sideways on" that is by bridging a gap between inner states and the object using various sciences to causally (material efficient) link the two as if the inner were on one side and the object, the outer, on the other and they connect by a law of nature from science. This picture of two pace casual relation has the problem that: if either if it is thought of as in another third observer then it begs the question or lead to infinite regress, if not it is a kind of inflated version as Gods eye view or view from nowhere. McDowell originally took this as the place for a transcendence in the immediate which he then rejects in Mind and World. But more recently he argues that Rorty's capture of transcendence here mixes up Kant's distinction between transcendent and transcendental or transcendence. That is there is a sense that the immediacy of experience of an object here now is immediate in the sense of non inferential, but that there now open up the different distinction between the immediacy of what is perceived and what is the object in itself. This is the Kant Hegel context of German Idealism that begins with the idea that we are in in experience in a kind of hermetically sealed solipsism and idealism, we cannot get out of the conceptual and imaginative limits of thought to experience anything that is "not thought", ie other to thought. In this context then we can talk about transcendence as a relation perhaps that goes beyond experience and to reality the objective from the subjective. here transcended might mean a kind of gap between two things the sense data or image and the real, but this is wrong. Rather in experience we encounter multiply conceptually presented features of things. As if we have a kind of repatware of concepts sitting in the mind ready to engage with the world around us. it might be model here on the idea of concepts as stored and used by institutions ready for action. This analogy of mine seems to follow Sellar's view that ordinary thought and common sense especially in relation to others works like a theory like an institutional use of concepts. Its called the Theory Theory of mind and many people involved in politic seem to think the opponents think in terms of theories, we have a theory of the other and the transcendental object. this is an example of Sellars's scientism creeping in. Rather the transcendence of experience now, just means more manifold detail more possible conceptual application than passive non judging does. it can be seen as the reverse of the transcendence of the now to a future imagined state, in the sense that cognitive judgement of immediacy of transcendence is not jsut a matter of involving more concepts in the experience but of involving less in terms that we see it as transcendent as it in itself not "it" for some future towards a future imagined it. Transcendence ten can be seen as the suspension of the old model of transcendence to a future and be seen as just to look. The passivity is w.r.t. use and for acquaintance with details not the need to abandon judgement in experience, as here it is judgement of the now object "is" that pulls us away from use for some future state of affaires or imaginings. In this we have to contrast then the image of thought as a quasi instituional scientific policy setting of complexity with separate rules and sets and thought as it is in the intertwined roots of ordinary usage of Language. It may be correct to say following Quine that the instituional setting for concepts is actually a disquotationalism, it certainly is anonimious without a real author the institution apologies means little except money may be. In our experience we oscillate between ordinary usage in which we are raised within a language and images, and some of the same words understood instructionally as functions. Rationalism focuses on the latter and even thinks the former as version of it a theory theory. but i'm not sure how we could teach the instituional language without the ordinary language already in play with actual experience. The langue of representation generates an apparent problem of idealism say metric axiomatic formal modal whatever no anomaly. at the level of ordinary thought and intentionality the question of trasncendence in immediate experience is not open of stepping outside representation, representation is derivative and structured. At the level of ordinary language this kind of escape is not needed. instead of a image of transcendence as escape then we have transcendence as openness to the infinite richness of what is present and what is possible but not only in terms of instituional uptake and use. This view can also be founding the "field of representation" but at the level of intention to a person thought the whole architectural instituional structures. This lead on to aesthetic judgement for Kant. I can contrast here phenomena with noumena as comparing a row of dolls, or rows of dolls, to a set of Russian Dolls perhaps. On intuition then we see injustice as a feature of object relations, which must involve a mixture of the two views one of institutionalised concepts as rule and function in complex unities to be made the other of language intertwined with forms of life. McDowell take this up in long exchange with Robert Pippin on unity of the object unity of judgement unity of experience unity of the subject. In this I have drawn on John McDowell's 1997 Woodbridge Lectures (Columbia University) called "Having the World in View" They are published in the McDowell collection of essays as the first three, in "Having the World in View: Essays on Kant, Hegel and Sellars." (2009)

Really….tedious? Perhaps love island is more your thing?

@@georgehetty7857 Goodness, what a bracing retort. Yes, droning on; not allowing oneself to be interviewed as a guest; monopolizing; and then getting prickly; all bad form; especially if one is guest on a show that is attempting to appeal to a younger audience and expose and persuade them regarding conservative ideas. So I'll reply in the same spirit you did to me: sod off.

@@wolfwind1 Well you’re certainly no stranger to being “disrespectful “ or “prickly” to me are you? When Starkey speaks , his breadth of knowledge and intelligence should be considered a gift. I’m not sure that this video is an interview, more a lesson, that was my impression regarding the two other chaps who seemed to respect and appreciate the great historians, which evidently is rather lost on you, eh old chap?

Perhaps that’s the reason he’s there?

@@georgehetty7857 I can't see there being any other reason.

@@Anglo_Saxon1 Well, anyone can have a go, but it’s always an idea to know exactly what the hell you’re on about!

@@georgehetty7857 Agreed.