In 1960ish.. Enoch Powell made his historic speech "Rivers of blood"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMTndhA21O0&feature=related

For a glimpse of the actual speech.

His key point was:

"Within 15 or 20 yrs, there will be rivers of blood from racial strife"

if Immigration is unchecked.

Some facts of history.

Prior to 1960

2 mentionable Riots.

1/ Battle of Cable St between Sir Oswald Mosely supporters and a mixed band of Communists, Jews and Irish and Socialists.(Non Racial)

2/ Notting Hill race riots, mainly between White Teddy Boys and Africans. (Racial)

Powell predicted 15 0r 20 yrs in 1965.

1979 Southall Riots
1981 Brixton Riots
1981 Toxeth Riots
1981 Handsworth riots
1985 Brixton riots II
2001 Oldham Riots
1989 Dewsbury Riots (BNP vs Muslims)
2001 Bradford Riots
While not 'riots'.. there have also been the very violent demonstrations about Cartoons, The Pope, "Trinity of evil goto hell" type signs.

The interesting point about how the Brixton riots began, is how 'perceptions' based on the difference of color was significant.

Example.
-a black youth had been stabbed.
-A policeman was attending to him.
-African youths 'perceived' that he was roughing up the youth.. interrogating him.. denying him help (An ambulance had already been called) and so on.. because the youth was black and the Policeman was white.

Say what you like about Powell.. History is history, make your own judgement about the validity of Powells words.

Yes, Powell was ahead of his time. Being a fascist retro-Nazi who looks for scapegoats among racial minorities is very modern.

Well, well, well... somebody remembers Powell and his famous "Rivers of blood" speech. Thank you, Polycarp, for posting this. Everybody shoudl read it. I came across Powell several years ago and I found him to be fascinating. He was a complex person and unafraid.

Here is the Wiki entry about the speech:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_Blood_speech

His critics distroyed him. He never held an offical post again after taking his position and making his speech. Since that time his name cannot be mentioned in liberal and multiculturalist circles without mud being thrown and vile words being said.

The problem is that he believed in equality and he understood that many immigrants did not accept Western values -- particularly their leaders. He said that government policies would favor some groups (immigrants) over others (natives). Critics laughed at his statistics and said be was looney.

Fast forward 40 years. The west is in trouble. Tens of millions of Muslims and opther immigrants are living in Western nations because our nations have allowed tens of millions of them to enter - most of whom are people with which we share nothing in common. Their values are not our values. They do not understand our freedoms and do not respect our institutions. It is happening much as Powell said it would. Almost exactly.

I included a section about Powell in my page on liberty and what is happening to our freedoms
http://www.kactuzkid.com/liberty.html

Of course, his critics blame all the problems on racism or nazi fascists and never ever think to consider their actions and attitudes. It is always somebody elses fault. Always.

Bad times are a coming. Blood will flow.

Kactuz

It appears that all a bigot has to do is wait and someone will think they are prophetic.

like this:
"Your Machiavellian Merchant spoils the State. Your Artifex, and craftsmen work our fate, and like the Jews, you eat us up as bread. Every merchant has three trades at least, and with your cut-throat selling you undo us all. We cannot suffer long. Our poor workers do starve and die.

In Chambers, twenty in one house will lurk, living far better then at native home. And our pore souls, are clean-thrust out of door.

Expect you therefore such a fatal day, shortly on you, and yours to ensue. We’ll cut your throats, in your temples praying. As we do just vengeance on you all. "

This was written in 1593 about the Huguenots.

Or this:
"East of Aldgate one walks into a foreign town"
"The modern Englishman lives under the constant danger of being driven from his home, pushed out into the streets, not by the natural increase of our own population but by the off-scum of Europe".
Major Evans Gordon, MP for Stepney 1887.

Lets wait and see if someone else can look like a visionary.
And come to think of it, Polycarp is looking less like Boazy and more like Jack.

All this kerfuffle over people of different races when the UK Government has introduced serious plans to record every single voice conversation, text message, chat message and internet search made within, to and from the country. The REAL prophet was George Orwell...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

How surprising that Boazycrap is a fan of Enoch Powell.

Predicting the future is not all that difficult.

All you have to know is the set circumstances within a society and you can predict with a general, fair guess.

The director of "Children of Men" a couple of years ago gave a prediction for Englands future, in his quite amazing film.
I think generally that viewpoint will actually come to pass. The only thing missing between the films plot and real life is the automatic weapons the radical Islamics had in the movie. That situation will, of course, change as Islam continues with her plan for global conquest. Guns will pour into GB.

Now!...to get a clear picture of the future you are going to have to turn to prophecy-from-God as in the Book of Revelation.
Johns Revelation shows the way it is going to be...and it doesnt matter what anyone thinks about this vision.
The Holy Spirit Confirms it to all born again christian believers as being the 100% truth.

I tend to agree with kactus. Enoch Powell was accused unfairly of being racist purely because he saw the various racial mixtures and consequent religious beliefs and cultures, as being incompatible. What I like about Australia is the fact that we do have such a racial mix here, but the basic beliefs and cultures are basically the same. What worries me is the differences that are beginning to creep in from immigrants that don't want to accept our way of life and unfortunately this appears to be based on religious differences that are unacceptable in a sectarian society. As I have said before in a previous post, not until religion has gone the way of the dinosaurs and we are all coffee coloured, will we be able to live in some kind of peaceful coexistence.

I actually went to a meeting in Oxford when Enoch Powell was a Don and member of parliament to hear him speak. He was certainly not a rabid racist, but spoke with eloquence and was articulate in his opinion that assimilation should be a carefully undertaken at a very slow pace. otherwise we would be buying trouble in the future. Sadly this is coming to pass.

Boaz, I'm really very cross with you continuing with this "Polycarp" character, simply in order to distance yourself from the clumsy tangle you got yourself into.

It would be the honest and decent thing to admit to your attempted deception, and revert to your original persona and face the music.

If there is any music to face, of course. We are very forgiving.

Even more disappointing is that you have clearly decided to continue with hallmark Boaz rabble-rousing.

Enoch Powell - much like your other mentor, Sir Oswald Moseley - was a highly intelligent and articulate individual.

I have absolutely no doubt that Powell was sincere. I also have no doubt that he was a prime example of the apologetic racist. "It's not the colour of their skin I object to, so much as..."

But that isn't really the point, is it?

You consider the "rivers of blood" speech to be prophetic.

I, and many others both at the time and since, consider that speech to have been the single biggest factor in the increase of racial tension in Britain, and the major driving force behind every racially-based riot since.

You see prophecy, I see cause and effect.

To you, as we have discussed before on many, many occasions, "speaking the truth" is paramount, and therefore may be held totally blameless for any resulting outrage.

To me, your "truth" is simply your opinion, and should be displayed with the humility that is appropriate to one opinion among many.

You lack, Boaz, any vestige of that humility.

As a result, the only outcome of your racist rants can be to foment ill-will, to stiffen resistance, and eventually to light the match to a major conflagration.

At which point, no doubt, as you salivate over the bodycount and rub your hands together in glee, you will say "I told you so".

You are three of a kind, you, Enoch and Sir Oswald.

So utterly convinced of your own rightness, that you fail to see how dangerous your opinions can be.

I reckon there's just as many white christian folk that aren't interested in 'Australian values' as there are new Muslim immigrants. The latter just get more publicity for their wrong doings.

'African youths 'perceived' that he was roughing up the youth.. interrogating him.. denying him help (An ambulance had already been called) and so on.. because the youth was black and the Policeman was white.'

How do you think that stereotype might have come about? How do you think the 'Males of Middle Eastern appearance' stereotype has come about. I think it's pretty easy to see the source of the problem.

“Boazycrap…”

Aaaah haaa hahahhaaa...haha….ho…… huh……....oow! . . . . . .not nice CJ!

But funny. Aaaaaaahaaaahahahahaha!

“My answer is, that I do not have the right not to do so.”

Enoch Powell said this in reference to the expression of his concerns about multiracial immigration in Britain. This statement was followed by an apparently unanimous ‘here here’ from the audience and sweeping applause. So he was speaking to an audience that was very much onside with his views.

He was sacked the following day.

But support for him within the community quickly became monumental.

“If Enoch Powell had stood to be leader of the conservative party, he’d have had a landslide at that weekend [after his speech] and I dare say if he had then stood to be prime minister, he’d have had a national landslide. It was that dramatic; the degree of support and the intensity of it” [Lord Heseltine] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_jXoTpPnzU&feature=related

Given the amount of support that he received, and the fact that he undoubtedly presented his views with the quality of life of his constituents in mind, as is the role of an elected representative, he should not have been sacked…and should most definitely have been reinstated.

From that day to this, comments like his can’t be made without many people crying absolutely foul about the very expression of those views. This is extraordinary. The debate needs to be entertained….and the person who delivers an opinion that some don’t like should not be vilified for it.

.
“…you fail to see how dangerous your opinions can be.”

Pericles, I’ve got to disagree with your criticism of Boaz, um Boazycarp.. noh I mean Polycarp. Do you really think that the expression of opinions such as those of Powell or Polycarp dangerous? What about the complete non-expression or suppression of views like these, which a large section of the [British and Australian] community clearly share? How dangerous would that be?

Ludwig, it is not the opinions that matter, it is the manner in which they are expressed.

>>Do you really think that the expression of opinions such as those of Powell or Polycarp dangerous?<<

Enoch Powell was a highly intelligent but emotionally complex character. He was convinced that the level of immigration into the UK was detrimental to the country's wellbeing, and had every right to express those opinions. Where he overstepped the mark was not in the holding of those views, or indeed the representation of those views as being in line with those of his constituents, but in the manner in which he chose to express them.

"Rivers of blood" was both over-emotional, and highly inflammatory. That was the reason he was fired.

Sir Oswald Moseley was a highly intelligent but emotionally complex character. He was convinced that the impact of Jews and foreigners on the UK economy was detrimental to the country's wellbeing, and had every right to express those opinions. Where he overstepped the mark was not in the holding of those views, or indeed the representation of those views as being in line with those of the British working class, but in the manner in which he chose to express them.

Holding mass rallies to inflame the "patriotism" of those workers was wrong, regardless of the fact that his Fascist counterparts in Europe turned out to be a bit on the nose. That was the reason he went to jail.

Boaz has a morbid fear of Islam. That is his prerogative. What I object to is his constant use of arcane and irrelevant material to justify projecting his fears onto other people.

>>What about the complete non-expression or suppression of views like these, which a large section of the [British and Australian] community clearly share?<<

These views are not suppressed, in either country. It follows that they are not being expressed.

Given that they are not being expressed, what evidence is there that these views are actually held?

Pericles, very well put.

“…it is not the opinions that matter…”

Ok Pericles, glad to hear it. But this does sit in stark contrast to your earlier statement;

“…you fail to see how dangerous your opinions can be.”

Never mind. Thanks for the clarification.

“…it is the manner in which they are expressed.”

Well, maybe so. But only if there is incitement to violence or hatred, or abject hatred expressed or defamation or grossly incorrect information purported to be factual, etc.

Apart from obvious misdemeanours like these, don’t we all have the right to express our opinions in such a manner as to have the maximum impact? That is, with real conviction and passion.

I don’t think that there was anything wrong with Enoch Powell’s speech. I can’t imagine how he could have said what he needed to say in a manner that would have been more acceptable. I think it was purely his opinion that saw him dismissed from his position by Edward Heath. Heath said that Powell was dismissed because he interpreted his views as “racialist”. So it was pretty clearly Powell’s opinions that got him sacked, and not any untoward expression of them. Indeed, he was a most eloquent orator.

I doubt that there would have been any way that he could have delivered that message in such a manner as to have it count for something without being rolled for it, within the political climate and immigration-supporting political mindset of the time.

continued

“These views are not suppressed, in either country.”

You reckon Pericles?? I’d say they are highly suppressed. There are very few people who would be willing openly express them, beyond a small circle of their buddies. Sure, there is a pretty open expression on OLO, but mostly by those who write under a pseudonym. No one in an influential political position dares express such views. But I bet there are some who hold them. I’m sure Pauline Hanson wasn’t alone.

“…what evidence is there that these views are actually held?”

OLO and various other forums where people can speak their minds (openly but mostly anonymously).

Ludwig, selective editing is impolite.

For example, if I said to you...

"Ludwig, first you claim '[these views] are highly suppressed',

A moment later you say 'there is a pretty open expression'

Which do you mean, Ludwig?..."

...you'd be a little miffed at my deliberate selection of phrases out of context.

So allow me to put what I said, and you sneered at, back into context.

I first pointed out the following to Boaz:

"So utterly convinced of your own rightness, that you fail to see how dangerous your opinions can be."

As I had made clear in the post itself, and on many previous occasions, it is the manner in which Boaz chooses to deliver his opinions that causes me to react to his rabble-rousing antics. I know many people who hold similar views to Boaz, and who express them at every opportunity, but who do not stand on a soap box (literally as well as metaphorically, apparently) to harangue anyone who passes by with their bilious invective, designed to inflame passions and to incite aggressive action.

His opinions are dangerous because of the manner in which he transmits them. Ergo they are, in this context, dangerous in themselves.

"Ludwig, it is not the opinions that matter, it is the manner in which they are expressed."

In context. Totally consistent.

And yes of course there are some people who share Boaz' views, and who express them quite forcibly on this forum, and in many other places too. Piers Akerman springs to mind, as does Mark Steyn. But both stop short of incitement to hatred, fear and loathing.

Our politicians may well hold similar views - I suspect John Howard was deep down more rabidly racist than Hanson - but they repress it.

But only because if they admitted it, they'd be unelectable.

But the beautiful fact of the matter is that they are very much allowed to speak their minds in Australia, should they indeed have the courage of their convictions.

Only, not by invoking "rivers of blood".

The INFAMOUS Enoch Powell. Oh Yes.
When he was the Conservative Health Minister it was his policy to recruit West Indians to Britain to fill the Labour Intensive Jobs within the National Health Hospitals. He was an out and out Hypocrite who created racial hatred within Britain. Sacked by Prime Minister Edward Heath he joined the Ulster Unionist and continued with his politics of hate within Northern Ireland. This helped the INFAMOUS Margaret Thatcher for eighteen years which kept her in office while she sequestrated Trade Union Funds and divided the Nation while closing down British Industry and Privatising all the Utilities placing them into foreign hands. While her Husband and Son were reaping the benefits privately to the detriment of the British People. Enoch Powell will only be remembered as the Sir Oswald Mosely the Second. Nothing was so frightening watching his boot boys the skinheads going around beating up anybody with a brown or black skin.
We in Australia have witnessed here in Australia the views of Pauline Hanson a woman who was just as dangerous but fortunately could not string two words together.

“…sneered at”?

Oow (:>(

Hey my friend and long-time compatriot on this forum where we have crossed paths many times with no bad blood, all I desire to do is debate the issues with you in a friendly or at least neutral manner….and I think I am achieving it nicely, if I do say so m’self. There is no impoliteness at all, or at least none intended.

“highly suppressed”, “pretty open expression”, “Which do you mean, Ludwig?..."

There is pretty open expression of racist, antimulticultural, anti-Muslim, anti-immigration, etc beliefs of OLO, where people can escape the suppression by writing anonymously! But when it comes to expressing this sort of view openly and becoming known for your views, there is indeed a great feeling of suppression or adverse consequences that is felt to exist by most people.

Oh, you were only presenting an example of the “deliberate selection of phrases out of context”. So you knew this anyway. Crikey, there was no deliberate out of context selection….. Please!

“In context. Totally consistent.”

Alright Pericles. Thankyou for the further clarification.

One’s intended meaning is not always easy to get across in ~200-word posts. An exchange such as the one you and I are having here would probably take some considerable amount of conversation on the phone before each party really knew with confidence where the other one was coming from – perhaps the equivalent of 20 written posts each.

I’ve seen apparent contradictions in your writings and you’ve seen the same in mine. But both of us will swear that there were no contradictions in our respective posts. That’s just the nature of the English language and of this medium. If we perceive contradictions, then surely the thing to do is to seek clarification.

There is tremendous scope for ugly relations to develop as a result of this sort of misinterpretation or poor initial presentation of views, whichever the case may be. But us experienced old sods should be able to handle it and maintain an even keel.

continued

Oh uh Pericles, I see what looks like at first impressions to be another contradiction in terms. But I’m sure I won’t see it as such once you have clarified it:

“But only because if they admitted it, they'd be unelectable.

But the beautiful fact of the matter is that they are very much allowed to speak their minds in Australia, should they indeed have the courage of their convictions.”

Yes pollies would be unelectable fit they expressed Boazy/Powell-type sentiments. And many others in the general community could have their future employment prospects and current quality of life threatened if they did the same.

So, I think that we very much are not allowed to speak freely in this country…and that those who have the courage of their convictions would be seen by many to be fools.

Pericles,

You say "Boaz has a morbid fear of Islam. That is his prerogative. What I object to is his constant use of arcane and irrelevant material to justify projecting his fears onto other people."

Many of Boaz's posts cite the Quran and acts of Mohammad as found in the hadith. How are these "arcane and irrelevant" if 1.2 billion people consider these words / actions to be a guide to their lives? Why is this "fear" or dislike irrational when their god (Allah) tells them to kill, torture, mutilate, conquer, and subdue non-Muslims? Why should we trust or believe in the goodwill of people who say "Praise be unto him" after the name of a man that murdered, raided, plundered, enslaved, tortured, raped and even beat his own wife? Even so, Mohammad is considered to be a great moral example. Figure out, if you can, what that means. These things are all easily found online yet Muslims prefer not to talk about them (except for the radicals) but consent to these things by their actions. Boaz (or Polycarp)also cites current events about problems caused by immigration and Muslims. How are these irrelevant? Or do you blame everything on racism? (and so end of discussion)

What you call "projecting" fears is better known as freedom of speech. Just as Powell was silenced so is anybody that talks about these things. Non-PC opinions must be silenced, because they offend or incite against... (name of offended group here).

One last thing, the ones that "inflame passions" and "incite aggressive action" are the NOT those like Powell, Boaz, myself and most Westerners. They yell the truth and express their honest opinion. It is the immigrants, Muslims, multiculuralists and the PC folks that carry violent signs in the streets and preach intolerance and demand special privileges. They are the ones you defend, or look the other way. It is strange that people who see "hate," "oppression" and "racism" everywhere cannot see it under their own nose. It is ironic that people demand perfection from some but have absolutely no moral standards for others.

Kactuz

Yeah, I may have been a little edgy on this one Ludwig. But it must be the umpteenth time I have waded through Boaz' diatribes on race hatred, and they invariably get my back up.

But we are at least entering some more interesting psychological territory here.

>>when it comes to expressing this sort of view openly and becoming known for your views, there is indeed a great feeling of suppression or adverse consequences that is felt to exist by most people<<

My question to you would be: why is this so? Why do you feel that expressing "this sort of view" generates opprobrium.

Because you are right, it does.

And much the same goes for:

>>pollies would be unelectable fit they expressed Boazy/Powell-type sentiments. And many others in the general community could have their future employment prospects and current quality of life threatened if they did the same.<<

This is not, in my view, a matter of freedom to speak your mind. We have this freedom, both in this forum and outside it.

You may express such views in Australia - that Islam offers a threat to our way of life, that Jews are running corporate Australia for their own benefit, that China's exploitation of their working class gives them an unfair advantage over Australian workers, that Greeks who still support Panathinaikos rather than Melbourne Victory should return whence they came - but you must also remain accountable for them.

But it does require you to stay behind the line between personal distaste, and vilification; between stating your case and vilifying others.

And if you are in the public eye, you must gauge whether the audience's sympathies are with you or against you. If you campaign for the suppression of religious belief in those who have different religious leanings than yourself, for example, you must accept the electoral consequences.

While we live in a democracy, politicians are elected at the will of the people. If these people dislike your attitude towards racism, they will not elect you.

Punkt.

Sadly the real and unintended effect of Powell's speech was that all the political parties and the media colluded to exclude discussion of immigration from the national agenda and all reasonable discussion of the issue was stopped. The multiculturalists were given free rein and no one dared oppose them for fear of being immediately branded as racist. Free speech on such an issue was effectively prevented.
Multiculturalism has failed abysmally in Britain and what has occurred is the creation of multiple ethnic enclaves, each suspicious and afraid of each other. They have learnt nothing from the events in Yugoslavia in the early 1990s when the thin veneer of political control of such diverse communities was removed. Nor have they learnt from the many other conflicts in the world in countries where separate ethnic groups share a common territory - it does not work and always ends in bloodshed. But no doubt the multiculturalists will find someone else to blame when it happens - probably the inherent racism which they claim to see in all of us.

G'evening ALL...

After my discharge from the regular army and prior to joining up with the coppers, I took a 'Gap' year (as you do) to the UK. This was about sixty nine, seventy.

During this period, Enoch POWELL was at his most vocal, with speeches of 'Rivers of Blood' et al. and other less memorable material he presented to the British Parliament.

I'm certainly not an academic, period! Nor am I a racist. However, as a very keen (amateur) student in human behaviour, I've gotta admit that EVERYTHING that Powell prophesied or forewarned the British Govt. about, actually came to pass.

He exclaimed loudly and often. If the government continued to allow unconstrained immigration to accelerate and escalate unchecked, the British community would not and could not successfully coalesce the many different cultures into the broader community.

In my humble opinion, I do not believe that Black can ever be cleaved with WHITE. Both cultures are so very divergent, disparate. I'm on my second marriage, and prima facie it's quite successful. She's Asian, sixteen years my junior, and I'm a lumbering Aussie. Notwithstanding I did two tours in SV, I still have very little knowledge of the oriental ways. Or many other cultural specific nuances or subtleties for that matter. Yet after eighteen years or so of marriage, we still love each other (gee, heart on sleeve stuff!). Though, I still manage to make (unintentially) blunders with her oriential mores.

When I was still working, I was based for a time at an inner city (suburban) station, in Sydney. I reckon almost seventy five percent of our work, was racially based. Very sad, but very true.

I honestly don't know what the answer is ? I really don't. I do know what Enoch POWELL said those many years ago, was pretty right though.

If governments' ever try to pressure or coerce the people to accept other cultures, creeds, colours and nationalities, then in the not too distant future POWELL'S regrettable predictions could well come to pass here too, then God help us!

Here is a relevant posting related to this issue...

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_the_great_victim_hunt/

It is about the victimology industry. It is about why certain people need things like hate, discrimination and racism. It not only gives meaning to their lives and makes them feel good, but puts money in their pockets and power to control others. This is why the government, the media and academia love 'racism'.

This is what Powell was talking about. This is why the problem will never end, because too many people have an interest in perpetuating problems and conflict, or enhancing differences. Solving the problem would mean the loss of power and money for some.

Things are getting worse. The only solution is to be honest, brutally honest, about issues that affect our lives and those of our children. People need to put PC-ness in the trash and talk seriously about immigration, culture, assimulation, basic values, welfare, etc... We need to tell immigrants that if they want to come to a country they must respect that country. If they want to bring their values (or lack thereof) and customs then we should do them a favor and send them back to where they will be happy. Our governments, however, tells us their customs and principles are just as good as ours and we should respect them and do everything possible to make them feel good and suceed, including special favors and protection denied to others. Autralia has had immigration for 200+ years. It wasn't until this last generation that this became an issue. What happened? A different type of immigrant and a PC-based immigration policy. I blame the policy more than the immigrants. They, for the most part, are only following the official multi-cultural directive.

People can live together, but only if the government backs off and stops making things worse. From personal experience I have seen how 'help' from welfare, government and even good-intentioned people has destroyed lives and doomed people to discrimination, poverty, dispair and crime, all this to benefit the do-gooders that pretend to want to end these things.

Kactuz

“My question to you would be: why is this so? Why do you feel that expressing "this sort of view" generates opprobrium.”

Pericles, it is the psychological power of labels. If someone gets called something vehemently by even a small number of vocal people, the majority will come to believe it or suspect that it must be true if some prominent people are loudly saying it is so.

So, those who care about population growth for environmental reasons were branded racist, Fascist, elitist, etc, which pretty much skittled the ZPG movement in the 70s….and antimulticulturalists and anti-immigrationists who care about threats to the Australian culture, social harmony and way of life were similarly branded.

‘Greenie’ has been another very effective label. Those with good motives (if at times a little misguided), copped this and other labels such as 'tree-huggers' and 'bleeding-heart lefties', which caused them to be distanced from mainstream society very considerably.

One of the amazing things that I have encountered over the last decade when visiting hundreds of grazing properties, cane farms, mines, etc throughout north and central Qld, is landholders who say words like; “I’m not a greenie but….” and continue to talk about population growth and all sorts of other environmental issues. Many demonstrate a high level of awareness and a strong desire for us all to live sustainably.

The label ‘greenie’ really was strongly and quite falsely divisive, as much environmental concern existed in the general community, but the community was reluctant to listen to those perceived to be greenies, which meant that their concern wasn't harnessed and environmental progress has been much slower than it should have been as a result.

The dominant social paradigm can pretty easily suppress minority opinion with simple labels like this.

However, as the dominant opinion switches, as it certainly is with population growth and overall environmental issues…..and soon with high immigration and multiculturalism, I’d reckon the labels will start sticking to the new pro-growth anti-environmental minority, which will accelerate the rate of change. Here’s hoping anyway.

Enoch Powell a man behind his time.
Through Education Racism will be a hatred of the past.
The world is hoping that Barack Obana will become the President of the United States. The tribalism will not be fought between different shades of skin it will always be fought between religions the opium of the people. While the impressionable continue to place a spirit on a pedestal then the world will always be divided. While world leaders openly support a God then their will always be division. The struggle should be between the haves and the have nots. The rich should be helping the poor and not building arms to murder people.

Wellll the feeding frenzy is pretty much exhausted..and good to see some effort in discussing the issue.

One rather imporant point.. given that I thus far have only opened with ONE post.. and have not responed to the 'reign of terror' inflicted...

It has been a very enlightening experience and study in human nature.

Brother Pericles as raving on about 'my opnions' and how I seem to look up to Powell.....?

My last words in the only post I've thus far presented were:

"History is history, make your own judgement about the validity of Powells words."

I think the key part of that last sentence bears repeating:

"make...your...own...judgment"

All I did was report the speech and show the historical increase in race related riots since it occurred.

I disagree that his speech had much to do with increased racial tension.. The degree to which it did, should be the subject of some serious research and study.

The SOUTHALL RIOTS are a good example of how the dynamics of racial tension work.
1/-High concentration of migrants
2/-Polarization of this into 'them/us' based primarily on 'difference'.
3/-Racist perceptions of legitimate police work in an area of high crime.
4/-The tyranical "we will stop it" attitude to a lawful peaceful BNP rally scheduled for the area.

It appears New Labor have at least tried to solve the problem of 1 but it still backfired in Wrexham when about 40 Kurds in an Caia Park estate of 3000+white Anglo's decided to take on 'the lads' and attacked the pub with iron bars.(One Kurd had been beaten up by Anglos the night b4) The 200 or so Anglos who came out the next day and fought pitched battles with police who tried to protect the Kurds was quite predictable.
I hardly think Powells speech had anything to do with that.

For once the Socialists seem to have nutted the dynamics out
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jul2003/asyl-j09.shtml
As opposed to the PC version here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/north_east/3016678.stm

Pericles: "I have waded through Boaz' diatribes on race hatred,"

Now...this is quite fascinating.. and as P says "we are entering new psychological territory here"

Actually ...not so, we are in the same old territory where a person can read a fairly unemotional opening post.. and project onto it a host of opinions assertions and prejudices which they themselves hold...

Quite worthy of inclusion in a 'required reading' course for trainee therapists.

ChazP..you seem new to OLO.. your comment was welcome as are you.

All readers should understand that Pericles understanding of information is colored very much by his world view.
His world view does not allow for 'ancient/obscure' manuscripts to influence modern behavior. Given that presupposition..anything Kactuz or others say about Islam will simply not register on his horizon.
It is rejected by default.

Re Powell.. it was interesting to note his activities regarding importing black migrants to assist in various roles. I feel Powell was not against Immigration as such, but unconrolled and expliotative use of it.

My only concern for immigration is that it be controlled in our own interests....rather than the interests of certain political groups, particularly that of the International Socialist movement.

BUGSY's post illustrates admirably the nature of 'difference' and how communities react to it.. worthwhile contribution.

Ludwig..your points about Powell's support are new to me.. I'll see that vid.. thanx

I think that Enoch Powell was a d!ckhead of his time.

Clearly, he was an inspiration for others of similar cranial disposition in our time.

LUDWIG... I watched that video. fascinating mate.

How strange.. and also how 'telling'...that 1000 labor dock workers were on the streets the following day!.. all yelling support for a radical right wing Tory -Powell..and meat workers from Smithfield market in London saying:

"This race relations issue goes well beyond the field of politics and trade unions matters, it is an issue of national importance, as important to us as Dunkirk...(this is a labour unionist speaking) The issue is not about colored immigration but about denial of free speech to us the English in our own land"

I suggest...that if ever a time bomb was set.. it was set by this supression of free speech...and if anyone thinks the sentiment has dissappeared.... perhaps they might like to do more reading.

I sometimes wonder what the outcome would be if the various large contingents of soccer hooligans(10s of 1000s) stopped fighting among themselves and focused their rage against 'the other'? The timer seems to be counting down.. but who knows...

Perhaps the English will simply read OLO and Pericles posts and become instantly enlightened..... and it will all go away.

Powell said:

"Some say this is impossible.. others say that is impossible.. but I say anything which is in the true interests of this country is always possible"

He was referring to voluntary repatriation of some migrants.

His demise was orchestrated by the Left..which suddenly became organized.

Considering the volume and breadth of his true support "If he stood for leader that weekend.. he would have had a landslide" (Hesseltine)

Then..it rather begs the question.. "if the 'right' became more organized....?"

By 'right' here..I'm speaking of those to the left of stormfront and white pride groups.. i.e.. those who actually do have a broader less overtly racist view of people.

Comments like those of CJ are simply parroting of the same leftist rants which subsequently followed Powell at his public meetings.

Who were these people ? who's interests were they serving? how much of what they did was done to achieve a political socialist agenda, which depended on the migrant vote?
So in the end.. once is forced to ask "How valid" was that outrage and how representative?

The old story of looking, walking and sounding like a duck comes to mind, Boaz.

>>All I did was report the speech and show the historical increase in race related riots since it occurred<<

Given your history of support for "ONE NATION, ONE RACE, ONE CULTURE" (your caps, by the way, not mine), I assumed that this was just another trawl for the same conclusion.

Have you perhaps resiled from this position? If so, do tell. It will save me a lot of time.

>>I disagree that his speech had much to do with increased racial tension<<

You clearly were not living in the UK at the time, as I was. The increase was instant, palpable and vicious.

Your summary of Southall is straight from the BNP propaganda machine.

>>Racist perceptions of legitimate police work in an area of high crime... The tyrannical "we will stop it" attitude to a lawful peaceful BNP rally scheduled for the area.<<

You assume that the attitude of the London bobby was invariably racially benign, which flies in the face of history.

The phrase “peaceful BNP rally” is also a contradiction in terms. Their entire objective was to create as much disturbance as they possibly could. And bash heads along the way.

Your naivety – or deliberate self-delusion – is particularly apparent here:

>>How strange.. and also how 'telling'...that 1000 labor dock workers were on the streets the following day!.. all yelling support for a radical right wing Tory -Powell...<<

The parallels with the Whitechapel marches will have escaped you Boaz. Both Mosley and Powell were masters at reaching the bigotry and fear of the working class.

The term “National Socialist” was not coined by accident, Boaz. It was born of an awareness that if you want to reach the working man, the engine-room of dissidence and revolution, you do not call yourself “Tory”.

This is also classic:

>>if ever a time bomb was set.. it was set by this suppression of free speech<<

The Smithfield meat workers' concept of free speech was the freedom to shout “go home n!gger”, I'm afraid.

Enoch Powell was a highly intelligent man. He was M.P. for Wolverhampton which had seen a huge influx of Afro-Carribeans and other foreign nationals and he was reflecting the concerns and anxieties of his constituents.

I could not agree with the florid language in this speech, but what he was trying to do was alert the government and the general population of Britain to the immense infrastructure problems which such a large population increase brought, and the loss of social cohesion which resulted.

When the native population are unable to find affordable housing to buy or even to rent, are unable to access health and hospital services, are unable to find places for their children in schools, and roads and public transport are clogged and overcrowded, these are the things which raise public ire and concern about immigration, and not the nationality of the immigrants. The same situation has arisen with the more recent huge influx to Britain by Poles, Bulgars, and Romanians etc, so this is not about colour of skin but about the diminution of the quality of life of native inhabitants.

It was convenient for the anti-racists at the time, as now, to see this situation solely through the prism of their liberal monocles although at that time the anti-racists were largely talking through their pockets as the immigrants were a source of cheap labour in jobs in shops, as housemaids, cafes and restaurants thereby keeping costs down for the middle classes. It was the middle classes who protested so loudly about Powell as they saw the possibility of losing their domestic servants and they could no longer exploit such a labour market. Much the same is blatantly happening in North America with the Mexican and Latin-American immigrants who are similarly being exploited as cheap labour by plantation owners, farmers, and the wealthy as cheap labour. But of course they would not wish this to be widely known, so they jump on the anti-racism bandwagon.

So howls of `Racism' on these issues have to be taken with a very large pinch of salt.

Chas it was actually the Enoch of our time that brought in Labour from third world countries to fill the mundane jobs in Health and Transport. After this creation he then artfully blamed them for the countries ills.
Conservatives are inclined to create racism or engineer it to divide working people. While working people are looking over their shoulder feeling hatred for their neighbours they are not aware of those that are ripping them off the Capitalist and Ru;ing Classes. The Ruling Class Media will always create scapegoats in Society they did it with the Jews and the Irish in the thirties, The Blacks in the Sixties and the Arabs in the nineties. Next it will be the Polish or Russions in the twenty first century. Working class people now adore negro footballers and singers the clolour of the skin is no longer an issue because the black and white children mingle and grow up together at school. Religion is now the divider whether it be Catholic, Protestant, Muslim unknowingly it is a form of tribalism or RACISM.