15 June 2011

Chavs and Toffs United

A few brief words to clear up a misunderstanding.

A fortnight ago Lord Fellowes (Julian Fellowes, creator of Downton Abbey) argued in an interview in The Times that what he calls ‘poshism’ is the 'last acceptable form of discrimination.' The article explains:

"Recently, [Fellowes] was watching Loose Women — “a programme I rather enjoy” — and one of the participants declared: “I hate posh blokes.” Lord Fellowes says: “There was a cheer from the audience. If I said, ‘I hate Americans’, or ‘I hate blondes’, or ‘I hate common blokes’, that wouldn’t work. But somehow that one was OK.

“And of course it’s not OK. I suppose ‘poshism’ is the last acceptable form of discrimination. Having been fat, bald, posh and male I’m used to a certain amount of humour at my expense but rather than striving towards a pseudo-egalitarianism that in 2,000 years of recorded history has failed to come about, I think we should strive for a position of giving people their worth and being polite.”'

Modern culture encourages a resentment and hatred for toffs: people who speak well, attend good schools, who have what are perceived as old-fashioned manners and ideals, and who, most importantly, represent the old, dispossessed establishment. But I think it goes beyond that, as I explain below.

A few days later, Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee penned a piece criticising the growing demonisation of the white working class in Britain, in particular its underclass variant, commonly known as the 'chav.' It is genuine class hatred, she argues, and extends beyond merely dressing up as chavs at costume parties or imitating working class accents. In fact a whole book has just been published on the phenomenon. Responding to public anti-chav remarks made by leftist Baroness Hussein-Ece, the priviliged daughter of imported Turks who currently sits in the House of Lords, Tonybee writes:

"She would presumably never say nigger or Paki, but chav is acceptable class abuse by people asserting superiority over those they despise..."

Fellowes and Toynbee, for obvious reasons, do not go far enough, avoiding controversy. The reason chavs and toffs are targets of the professional middle class in Britain, which especially in London has taken on an increasingly foreign and internationalist hue, is that their existence offends the egalitarian agenda imposed on Western societies by free-market social engineers and Marxist power elites over the last several decades. (Tony Blair: "We are all middle class now"). They are a living rebuke to the egalitarian project.

Furthermore--and this is crucial--both chav and toff possess a clear sense of class, conservatism, and tribal identity at a time when whites--and only whites--in the West are instructed to discard such identities and submerge themselves in the noxious acid bath of the global-consumer multikult. That's what really rankles the bolsheviks who hurl their foul spittle-flecked invectives at chav and toff alike.

12 comments:

Londonistar said...

Great piece of writing!

La Sombra Sofisticada said...

Well written, as always.

v. Braun. said...

What both the upper and the lower classes dislike about the ever growing middle-mash is mainly their parvenu-like affectations: their insecurity in social situations-- their hypocrisy and untruthfulness: their *inauthenticity*.

RulingPart said...

I think that egalitarianism should mean equal opportunity, not equal results. In America we have destroyed your birth based class system and replaced it with one based on money. That carries its own set of problems, but at least it allows social mobility.

You write very well.

SMM said...

Very nice piece Admiral. One other "last acceptable prejudice" is anti-Catholicism. Our "betters" in the media and in academia never tire of denouncing the Pontiff and his loyal followers.

Anonymous said...

Chav unlike toff does not consist by any means a tribal form of identity or allegiance. As a matter of fact chav was and still is a media construct for the negative interpellation of the working classes with a considerable access to credit - hence the promiscuous exposure of clothing and accessories once available only for the upper middle classes such as Burberry, Daks, Rolex etc. A working class person with a considerable income and access to credit would never categorise her/himself as chav.

As for the issue of political correctness that you raised I can only draw your attention to a series of sitcoms or comedy shows such as Little Britain where the mockery of the working classes and the chav in extension is “hilarious” and entertaining - therefore legitimate.

Fortunately or unfortunately the notion of the toff enjoys a cultural revival. The recent success of Downton Abbey, the King’s Speech and the remake of Brideshead (not quite successful) in conjunction with the theatricality of the royal wedding point towards a socio-cultural setting of an imaginary England - an England that never existed. However, in times of spending cuts, mass immigration and global markets this imagination does not only constitute a refuge but also a prism through which the petit bourgeois can see themselves as part of the nation and not necessarily as something inferior in the social, cultural and biological sense. An indicative example of this imagination is the anachronistic language used in Downton Abbey and the reluctance of the producers of Midsomer Murders to include black people in their stories in fear of distorting the idyllic white English country. Both of these phenomena are reactionary and do not resemble by any means the demography, mannerisms and behavioural patterns of this country. For the equivalent representation of the working class I can suggest the viewing of The Firm by Nick Love where the depiction of hooliganism in the 1980s is a grotesque mixture of Thatcherism, pre-war cockney verbalisms and 1980s sportswear Italian fashion.

Marxist power elites? This sounds really retro. The toffs can only rule as they do at the moment in Britain by advertising their proximity to “the people” and at the same time promoting universal yet national values. The egalitarian agenda exists only at a superficial level upon which Cameron assembles an IKEA bed for his child and at the same time arranges internships for the children of his friends.

Regards
Kostas

Toff said...

Chavs are scum.

Chav said...

Toffs are scum.

Bourbon&Pearls said...

I totally agree with you here so much so that for once I have nothing else to add. As to the Anti Catholicism point raised as was one of only three RC's in my entire school I know it well, but let's not whine about that, the Catholic Church remains a powerful organisation, what other faith has a seat at the UN? I've always thought the Catholic Church should be a sign of contradiction and not hope for popular acceptance. As they say, was it John Paul II?
" only a dead thing floats with the current"

Anonymous said...

Hum, just when I thought I DIDN'T like you, you come up with this.

For once I have to agree with you.
V. Braun says it best, with *inauthenticity*.

However, I also have to agree with RulingPart in some respects that it should mean " equal opportunity" a subject that we differ on, but all in all great post.

Ascot said...

@ Chav

No chav would use the word "scum" in describing toffs. In fact, most chavs wouldn't even know the word "scum".

SMM said...

I agree completely Bourbon & Pearls.