Was Enoch Powell a "racist" ?

In an interview with David Frost.. he said as follows:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LKHAkpv22o&feature=related

FROST "Some people say you are a racialist" (not a typo)

POWELL "First we must define it.. if by that you mean someone who is conscious of the differences in men and nations some of which coincides with difference of race..then we are all racialists ...I would have thought.. but IF by racialist you mean a man who despises a human being because he belongs to another race..or a man who believes that one race is inherrently superior to another......then the answer is emphatically NO"

Clearly.. Powell was not a 'racist'.. his views were not based on 'race' but on social and cultural difference and the potentially negative impact of those differences when brought close together with an established population and culture.

On the evidence.. and his own confession, it would a great disservice to honesty and credibility to call this articulate man 'a racist'...

The only people who could do so, would be doing it in direct contradiction to and denial of, the facts. That, is bigotry of the most pernicious and obscene kind.

I hope no-one here is bold enough to own up to such overt bigotry and obvious denial of what is there for them to see on video.

The question thus is raised.. "Is a person who does NOT believe in the inherrent superiority of any race.. a racist"?

Boaz, do you understand the meaning of the word "sophistry"?

>>On the evidence... it would a great disservice to honesty and credibility to call this articulate man 'a racist'<<

It is important to understand that Powell did not perceive himself as "racialist". But it is the most clichéd of clichés, is it not, to preface your remarks on the topic with "I'm not a racist, but..."

Look more carefully at the definitions Powell puts forward.

On the one hand, he is happy to identify himself as "someone who is conscious of the differences in men and nations some of which coincides with difference of race”

But not as “a man who despises a human being because he belongs to another race..or a man who believes that one race is inherently superior to another”

(You will of course notice that the two definitions are not in any way mutually exclusive.)

What Powell did was to promote the first view as his public face, while protesting that this did not, of course, automatically assume the second.

But when you look more carefully at that second, you start to detect the sophistry.

There is in fact a logical continuity between being “conscious of the differences... which coincide with differences of race”, and believing that “one race is inherently superior to another”.

But let me say again, I don't believe that Powell was aware of the power that he possessed to engender these feelings in others – his was a purely intellectual fear.

By the way, I refuse to be bullied:

>>The only people who could [call Powell racist], would be doing it in direct contradiction to and denial of, the facts. That, is bigotry of the most pernicious and obscene kind. I hope no-one here is bold enough to own up to such overt bigotry<<

Boaz, of course Powell was a racist. He denied it, but as a contemporary of his pointed out in slightly different circumstances, “he would say that, wouldn't he?”

Powell was a racist, and fear-monger, in the image of Oswald Mosley.

Vastly intelligent, but emotionally blind.

Is David Polycarp so short of new ideas that he has to dredge up this tired old stuff? Come on man, get into the new century.

History has made its assessment of Enoch Powell (and Hitler and Moseley) and a selective reference to old footage on UTube is not going to change that.

Now, what contemporary issue can you lead us to tomorrow, David?

Boaz is now looking up the word "sophistry" in his dictionary, to enable him to reply to Pericles.

Polycarp, I dipped in to the other thread on Powell, and more or less dismissed it as another stalking horse for your anti-immigration ethos.

Though I figured, it's a point of view and I guess we all have the right to make those heard - I didn't comment there because yet another turn on this merry go round didn't interest me.

Though when I see you make yet another thread on Powell, I can't help but feel you're overdoing it.

Honestly, post this on the other Powell thread.

You know, the one you already started on this. I mean, come on. If you're going to keep posting threads with only minor variations to the same theme over and over, be a little more subtle about it.

'Enoch Powell.. Much more to be said'

And yet, it all sounds the same.

Gentlemen... (part 1 of 2)

the point to which I wish to draw your attention is not so much whether Powell was a racist.. I don't believe him to be so, that's my opinion..and my opinion is based on the evidence..not arguments from implication or silence.

Powell is way wayyy above the stupid and empty "I'm not a racist, I have many Asian/Muslim/name the race/religion friends.." lament....

His was to own the grand plan.. the big picture.. the sweeping brush stroke of history.

Pericles is logically incorrect in saying:

There is in fact a logical continuity between being “conscious of the differences... which coincide with differences of race”, and believing that “one race is inherently superior to another”.

It certainly does not follow in any way that awareness of difference is directly connected to belief in superiority of one over another.
Mankind has matured enough by now to recognize that 'difference' is just that. Superiority is a relative term.. the more appropriate and accurate term is 'preferred'... this doesn't make a value judgement on 'the other' but simply asserts one's own familiarity with and preference for..one's own. (culture,language, race,tribe) The degree to which each of those bracketed items is held by any individual is a personal thing and cannot thus be projected onto the broader community.

HIS POINT...

Was..that 'uncontrolled' immigration would lead to much racial strife.
..and.. it did.

In this video, the admission by the now defunct multiculturalist leaders that "We didn't realize it would lead to this" (please take the time to actually witness this stark, frank and honest confession)

Of all people who should know exactly what can happen by uncontrolled "immigration" he should.. he is WELSH.. by ancestry..and he was born in Birmingham... a site of horrific race riots later. Obviously, he was able to see the transformation..the change.. bit by bit.. as Birmingham became more ethnicized. His ancestors would know how Pericles ancestors came as Anglo Saxons (?) and took the land.. driving the Celts into the Western corner of England..where even today they prefer to speak Welsh in the presense of English.
(cont)

Polycarp,
In essence Powell although a brilliant orator he was when viewed in context a man of his time. (When God was still believed to be an English man). His semantical argument is indeed sophistry. it gave the 'intellectualized' basis for Apathism.
If he were a live he would be rightly accused as being out of touch and an eloquent bigot. Not in touch with the realities of globalization.
Keep in mind he was pre the EU and by his rationale England would be in more survival hot water today than they are.

As a principle for anti immigration and therefore somehow diminishes supernationalist conflict it fails miserably. Conflict is based on perceived differences and is relative.
The UK today has issues of conflict between the Scots, Irish, Welsh and between regions within England all wanting to individualize.

Looking more closely the rivalry in Scotland extends to Catholics V Protestants and still generates conflict. Interestingly this conflict tends to be most evident between those of the lower sociological stratus. There are interesting papers on the sociological need for exclusivity in belonging and social improvement opportunities V exclusionary (defensive) rationale.

If Australia were to stop all migration deport all not whites we would simply generate conflict on smaller identity groups.
I've know of culturally based violence between extreme violence between WASPs from Collingwood and St Kilda.

Therefore stating that there would be racial conflict in a sociologically imbalanced UK is a no brainer and true sophism and irrelevant in 2008.

A new justification for fear and intolerance is needed.

So Powell was admirably qualified to comment on history as he saw it.

One has to wonder why?.. if.. in the words of one commentator, on the weekend of his speech he would have been elected party leader by a landslide, and Prime minister by an even greater landslide.. -what happened to alter the this natural and understandable and desired course of history?

From my observations there were a number of factors.

1/ The party machine deliberately decided to bring him down even though the popular party faithful adored him.
2/ The Left and Immigrant communities quickly organized and haunted his every public appearance.

So, it was not by the will of the people that Powell was brought down.. but by the insidious will of very vested and evil interests which saw him as a danger to whatever they were trying to achieve in the country for their own selfish benefit. Such monsters will have their place in history.... as the voice of Powell 'reverberates' from the wildnerness of political exclusion.... and rides triumphantly into the new “Jerusalem” and they are consigned to the scrap heap of human waste by name if not in person. 2m:52s in the vid. Check out the look on his face.. pure quiet relaxed confidence :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LKHAkpv22o

THEREFORE.... given that Powell had:

-Massive Popularity
-Broad based support (from Unions and others)

It stands to reason that a major cultural crime against humanity has been perpetrated by the machievellian machinations of the Tory Party inner workings in flagrant opposition to the popular will, and that the only thing needed to rectify such a grievous outrage against English people... is that they become organized.
I believe this is happening now.

MULTICULTURALISM FAILED
at 6:12 in the video.. the words “anger in immigrant communities” is used about Marggie Thatchers reference to the fears of the English. Question.....why are there 'immigrant' communities rather than 'the community' ? The answer is obvious.. the racist self separation of immigrants from the mainstream, based on feelings of superiority?
Immigrant complaints
-No jobs (why_let_them_in_then?)
-Harsh Policing.(Don't_commit_crime?)

And yet polycarp, still no reason given for why you couldn't continue this on the other thread - unless of course, the other thread had its run and people stopped listening, but you decided you weren't finished pushing this wheelbarrow and wanted to start a new one.

In future, bear in mind it's more polite to keep to a thread, instead of using spamming tactics to keep your agenda running.

I don't have an issue with you continuing your crusade even though I disagree. I dislike this way of going about it however.

That may be so, Boaz.

>>HIS POINT... Was..that 'uncontrolled' immigration would lead to much racial strife...and.. it did.<<

This is yet another of your trips down "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" lane, Boaz, as you should by now be able to recognize.

Powell knew very well, as does every politician, that if you set up a stalking horse beforehand, when the event you are predicting occurs - for whatever reason - you can say "I told you so"

My point is that Powell was himself a significant contributing factor to the racial strife. His effort fanned the embers of xenophobia, and continued for many years to nurture the consequent flames of envy and hatred.

>>whether Powell was a racist.. I don't believe him to be so, that's my opinion..and my opinion is based on the evidence<<

Your evidence is a blind acceptance of Powell's own apologia. That isn't evidence upon which an acquittal necessarily follows

There is no shortage of examples where neighbours can't get on. Ireland. The-countries-that-used-to-form-Yugoslavia. Rwanda. In each case, there is an argument that says "it is because they are neighbours that the strife is inevitable".

There is an equally compelling argument that says until and unless someone stands up on their soap-box and exhorts one side or the other to violence, they will tend to muddle along.

Which is exactly why I keep coming back to the same conclusion, Boaz.

You are a stirrer, a fear-monger and a rabble-rouser, along exactly the same lines as Mosley and Powell.

Not as smart, as I mentioned before. But with the same emotional blindness to the fear and hatred that you stir up. Theirs in the name of politics. Yours in the name of religion.

And please, if you are going to use examples, please get your facts right.

>>Pericles ancestors came as Anglo Saxons (?) and took the land.. driving the Celts into the Western corner of England<<

The Celts invaded the British Isles and Ireland from mainland Europe between 2000 and 1200BC. They were gradually overrun by the Romans - the Anglo Saxons came later, I'm afraid.

Enoch was right Part 3 contains the clear confession of the abject failure of MC by its own architech..... and promoter.

ARCHITECT: Roy Jenkins "Immigrants no longer need to integrate, they may keep their own values"

PROMOTER: Lord Lester of the 'Racial Equality Commission'

After 7/7..both expressed dismay at where MC had led Britain.

see it at 7:20 in the video below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp2lorGQV0o&feature=related

Lord Lester:

"MC has left Britain sleepwalking toward segregation"

"We expected people to embrace democracy and the shared value of being British"

"What we did NOT expect...were unwise calls for sharia law etc"

ROY JENKINS at the end of his life also uttered dismay about where it had lead the country.

Now..we have:
1/ The prophetic call of Powell
2/ The convicing record of history.
3/ The confessions of the MC angels of darkness

We can now revisit the issue and begin all over but THIS time.. get it right.

EXAMINATOR... if ur in Melbourne we should hook up some time.. I'm most interested in your views about the Collingwood and St Kilda thing.

Please understand something.....

I am not against "all immigration" nor am I for deporting people here.
(unless they play up and are non citizens)
I am "for" controlled immigration which reflects our national and cultural interest....
Though as I look at our water levels this year.. I am tempted to be agin all immigration on the basis of 'not enough water' alone.

DAVID Polycarp

You reveal the essential difference between Enoch Powell and Adolf Hitler. Powell could not take his political party with him, Hitler could and did. Whereas Hitler led his party, his country and the world to disaster, Powell fell quickly into obscurity (so much for his adoring flock!)

That's it really.

Now go away and take your evil and insidious racist ideas with you back to the swamp.

G'day all...

I wouldn't have a clue as to whether Enoch POWELL was a racist or not. However, as I stated in the other thread where POWELL'S veracity or otherwise was discussed (at length). He was pretty spot-on with his predictions apropos attempting to integrate and assimilate the many races and cultures in a small, crowded country like England.

When I was in the coppers I saw an abundance of evidence reflecting a similar situation emerging here in OZ.

I dunno, I really have grave disquiet as to the direction we as a nation are heading. I'm nearly at the end of my life, but I really worry as to what sort of world my grandchildren are facing. With so much uncertainty confronting us all.

The absence of quality leadership, coupled with the loss of basic values and a society with little or no probity or rectitude. This is the type of community in which we seek to try and raise our children and grandchildren.

A world where, should we dare have the audacity to even murmur a quiet dissent or ever so slightly demur at the propositition of unchecked immigration...we're branded a racist ! It beats me ?

Do some people have personality patterns that
make them more prone to prejudice than others?
A classic study by Theodore Adorno and his
associates (1950) tried to answer this question.

Adorno concluded that some people have a
distinctive set of traits, including -
conformity, intolerance, and insecurity.

Those who have this personality pattern,
he found, are submissive to superiors
and bullying to inferiors. They tend to have
anti-intellectual and anti-scientific
attitudes; they are disturbed by any
ambiguity in sexual or religious
matters' and they see the world in very rigid
and stereotyped terms.

Adorno claimed this type of personality
was a product of a family environment in
which the parents were cold, aloof,
disciplinarian, and themselves bigoted.

Another factor that can contribute to
prejudice is scapegoating. Placing
the blame for one's troubles on some
relatively powerless individual or group.

We've got examples of the Jews in Nazi
Germany who were conveniently blamed for
the country's economic troubles. Then
in Great Britain, where chronic unemployment
among working-class white youths caused them
to attack Pakistani immigrants, whom they
believed to be competing for the few
available jobs. Unable to strike at the real
source of their problem "the system," they
struck out at the Pakistanis instead.

The irrationality of prejudice is that it
shows people hostile towards groups they
may never have met or even heard of.

It's the fear of the "unknown." And it is often
simply a matter of conformity to the norms of
one's own group.

What an incredibly pompous rant (or five) from Boazycrap. Of course Enoch Powell was racist, just like Boazy is - and he lied and obfuscated about it in just the same ways that Boazy does. Correction: Enoch Powell didn't hide his odious ideas behind various pseudonyms.

I first became aware of Enoch Powell as a kid, when he was regularly the butt of TV comedy shows like 'Monty Python's Flying Circus' and 'Til Death Us Do Part'. My parents used to laugh at him in much the same way that we used to laugh at Pauline Hanson's media antics (mind you, Powell had a brain and could speak well in public, unlike Pauline). After he was deservedly dumped by his party following the 'Rivers of Blood' fiasco, he managed to suck off the public teat as a benchwarming MP for another couple of decades.

While it's hardly surprising that Boazy is a big fan of the late and unlamented Powell, I agree with TRTL that it's stretching it a bit to start a new thread about him just because nobody much was interested in the first one. Boazy seems to have shifted focus from preaching the gospel to the more primordial messages with which we're all too familiar.

Mind you, one wonders why he persists in his pretence about his identity, given that absolutely everybody has outed him. Weird.

The worst thing is that I now have an unfortunate mental image of Boazycrap as a kind of religious Alf Garnett type... not pretty :0

Well put Foxy there has been several other research papers that modify the basic 1950 conclusions but only peripherally. The one addition significant amplification of this is the comparative psychology of violent gangs in New York, LA and in the Caribbean. It was noted that the more insecure (powerless) the individual is the more extreme (violent) the group they identified with. The paper went on to also note the more authoritarian lacking in personal power the group more comfortable the individual became and the less lightly they were to relinquish their quasi religious comfort zone. The implications are both fascinating and depressing.

CJ Morgan I agree with you Powell’s views were that of a rationalized bigot an agent provocteur apealing to the uneducated and simplistic disalusioned of the time. His apeal was simply for the reasons as mentioned by Foxy and I. He was a product of his times. To day his views are out dated and as asinine as they are contemptable. Best remembered as a warning from the bad old days and a subject of ridicule.

To resurrect Powell’s philosophies is supiciously Skin Head in tone as they generally revere him. The equivelent to the kiss of death
to any protentions of intellectual or moral value.

BTW The Peter Sellers union character in the movie “I'm alright Jack” was supposedly inspired by Powell.

I think that all Polycarp was trying to do, (regardless of how many posts or threads he has used to achieve this), was to make the salient point that Enoch Powell was right in what he was saying with regards to projected racial integration in Britain at that particular time in history!

It may be classed as "racist" by some "who cannot see the wood for the trees!"....however it was a fact of life and proved to be relatively true in historical outcome! Thus I think that Polycarp was trying to point out to everyone that the self-same situation is occurring today here in Australia and we should therefor heed the warnings by reducing immigration and encouraging those already here, alienated by race and/or culture to accept and endeavour to integrate successfully into our society,....failure of which will inevitably lead to racial strife in the long term!

We should all take a good look around us and see what is going on, and see what a lot of us do NOT want to see!....."The Emperor wears NO clothes!"

There are THOSE above who have a vested interest in fostering unrest and instability to enable the implementation of stricter and more intrusive laws and regulation upon an a gullible community!

In this current climate of diminishing resources, world overpopulation and increasing racial tension and vilification, ....we should be encouraging EVERYONE to stay in his or her own country and simply "make the best of it!"

Cuphandle,
Polycarp's intentions are clear to me. I just don't accept his premise that things are any worse that at any other time. Basic humanity is the same what has changed (hopefully) is our collective wisdom in relation to dealing with these issues independent of sensationalised hysterics.

Polycarp has the right to express his views providing they don’t wander into pure racial vilification, personal insult as his previous incarnation had a tendency to do. He has the right to live in what ever paranoid delusion of his own making he desires.

Likewise I have the right to pour the cold water of rationality on such odious VIEWS. I simply deny has the right to adversely impact others.

It is unlikely that he will experience a burning bush epiphany of humanism therefore HE isn’t the issue the VIEWS are. My intention is to point out to OTHERS the contextual, logical and moral deficits in such views regardless of the identity of their author.

Examinator:
With such a burst of meaningless "gobbledygook" in your response to my comment, ....I would suggest that you be nominated for the wording of the next Preamble to the Australian Constitution, or even the clarification of the now famous John "Nuisance`s" explanation of his lack of understanding of the "Birthday Cake" issue in his "vision" of the then projected GST!

None of your responses dealt with the pertinent issues that I had commented on! ....If I was a Politician and you were a member of my Party and you had been "waylaid" into answering a question on the floor of the House ....I would say to you "Well done, lad!....keep `em in the dark and never give a direct answer to their questions!... otherwise they might just realise how little you really do know.....and refer the matter to the people behind the scenes, who actually do all the research and write the draft answers, so that you can give them the idea that you really do know something about the subject after all!....again,....well done!

I dunno Cuphandle. Examinator's response seemed like a pretty reasonable one to me, and much more straightforward than many of Polycarp's.

Ultimately, all these people who like to stand on their soapboxes making prophecies of doom about immigration don't seem to realise that those exact same prophecies could be made at any point in history, albeit with minor changes to suit the times.

The truth that eventuates is never as extreme as is made out, and when the worst does happen there are always a thousand and one reasons for it instead of a single cause which can be arranged neatly to fit with pre-existing prejudices.

Cuphandle - like Examinator and TRTL, I think it's pretty obvious what Boazycrap's up to here. It's just the same old "racially" based rabble-rousing that he's regaled us with for years.

I'm disappointed that you seem susceptible to it. Don't tell me - you supported Pauline Hanson too?

Cuphandle: '...we should be encouraging EVERYONE to stay in his or her own country and simply "make the best of it!"

Would that apply to the 5% of all Australians who are today living and working in another country? The world has changed since the color bar worked in Australia and plenty of Australians are seeing the benefits of being cosmopolitan, of being citizens of the world.

In what sense was Enoch Powell 'right' (other than in ideology)? His 'rivers of blood' speech has turned out to be a nonsense projection. The people of Britain turned out to be far more accepting and appreciative of differences than Powell hoped.

No matter how often people like you claim that '....however it was a fact of life and proved to be relatively true in historical outcome', there has been no racial bloodbath. Britain is doing better than ever.

To claim that 'the self-same situation [sic] is occurring today here in Australia' is to fly in the face of reality. Australia has never been so at peace with its diversity.

Let's have your list of 'THOSE above who have a vested interest in fostering unrest and instability'. It should make for interesting reading. I'll nominate David Polycarp for starters.

Cuphandle
Sorry that my writing is so hard to understand.
Regarding your challenge, everyone has answered it. In essence we’re saying that Powell's conclusions used unrelated facts as justification. i.e. People don’t like anything different and act hostile to it until they understand the differences are actually non threatening.

In terms of a debate or logic. One gets the facts and THEN determines the conclusion i.e. what the facts tell you.
Both Powell and Polycarp are coming up with a conclusion and then finding facts that suit that conclusion. A form of Sophistry.

Think of it like this.
Suppose I put it to you that Electric globes don’t send out light as people believe but rather suck up the darkness (dark suckers). When a dark sucker ‘blows’ it is simply full of dark and no longer any good. This is amusing, the facts seem to support the conclusion but what is done here is simply coming up with the conclusion then misinterpreting the facts to justify the conclusion.

Polycarp has an agenda and is simply doing the same thing.ie Powell was clever...Powell said black immigration would cause conflict...there is conflic... therefore he was right...= no more immigration.
Powell did seem to believe this and was popular (in certain circles) but that doesn't mean he was right. In context he was from a time when it was generally thought by the great unwashed British that white was superior. Britian still had an Empire.

Polycarp is trying to enlist others in his deliberate mischief.
Powell is the ‘intellectual ?’ justification used by most racists including the Skin Heads.

Polycarp is entitled to have his views but I have the right to warn others of his false reasoning.

In short The aggression in England or here is only BLAMED on migrants by the ignorant or mischievous it is simply not the true cause that is simple ignorance.

hope this helps

Examinator

Interesting comments.. Spikey, your observation about Hitler and Powell should lead to some useful discussion. Add Mosely into the mix.. and 'compare and contrast' would be quite educational for all of us.

"My point is that Powell was himself a significant contributing factor to the racial strife" (Pericles)

What he misses.. is that the feeling among migrants in response to Powells comments are from a context... which is.

1/ Migrants tended to congregate in areas which became "migrant communities" rather than part of THE community.

2/ The reaction of fear and anger to Powells statements must be seen in the light of the racist communalism of migrants.

IF..they had just dispersed among the white community..and were not 'seen' to be 'A' community....then Powell probably would not have said 'boo'.

IF.. the numbers had been controlled and balanced in relation to job opportunities.. Powell would have been irrelevant.

A REPORT done around that time seems to conclude that it was 'migrant disadvantage and lack of employment opportunities' which were at the bottom of the problem.

Which of course raises the obvious question WHY the heck bring people into a country where there are no jobs ?

Multiculturalism was now a reality.. they threw money at the 'disadvantaged' migrant 'communities' and thought it would all be ok.

STRANGELY.. that, just like Hansons many policies embraced by the Coalition (and defacto by Labor) here is what was done in 1971 just 3 yrs after Powell called for 'voluntary repatriation'....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/24/newsid_2518000/2518513.stm

1971: UK restricts Commonwealth migrants
Commonwealth citizens will lose their automatic right to remain in the UK under the government's new Immigration Bill announced by Home Secretary Reginald Maudling.

Amazing stuff?

Roy Jenkins(home_secretary/chancellor_of_Exchequer).. at the end of his life.. after kick-starting the whole MC process said "We never realized that the struggle for racial equality would also mean a struggle to maintain a secular state"

In other words.. having viewed migrant religious values as capable of embracing British 'brotherhood of man' ideals.. they found the opposite.. and Jenkins had to eat his words after a lifetime of damage and carnage.

Dear Spikey.. please don't express you're racism here... truly it is shameful...

Why express anti Australian racism in a public forum?

How did you come to hold these racist ideas anyway?

Slough at one point around Powell's time had 80% plus who were in support of him.

How can you support the blatant undermining of British/English identity as follows: (Slough Today)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/apr/06/immigration.britishidentity

At Lea nursery school in Wexham Road, Slough, it's story time. Fourteen children sit on the carpet, attention rapt, as Khairan Nisa reads The Little Red Hen. First, she tells it in English, and then repeats it in Urdu. Finally, her assistant Wioleta Kostecka translates it into her native Polish.

Of the 120 children on this year's pupil roll, 12 have English as their first language. Of the rest, the biggest group - 79 in all - arrived at the school last September speaking only Urdu or Punjabi.

COMMENT:
TWELVE? have english as their first language? What madness is this?

Perhaps that kind of situation is why THIS is now being done by the Government which inherited the shambles of the anti Powell MC forces of evil....

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/15/immigration_bill_tag_plans/
Detained illegal immigrants are the latest to fall victim to the Home Office's bizarre love affair with electronic tagging. The draft immigration and citizenship bill, published this week, puts forwards proposals for "large" but unspecified bail bonds along with tagging as an alternative to detention.

and in all this... I hear the faint but increasing echo.. reverberating though the land.. "Enoch.. Enoch.. psst.. he was right"

David Polycarp is at it again.

If you challenge his racism, he accuses you of...racism! Absurdist comedy! Surreal, David.

David, your arguments are so lightweight. Adding hysteria to them makes them even more ludicrous.

1. Popularity is not the same as being right. That's why I drew the analogy with Hitler who was extremely popular with his people and with his fanaticism put millions to death including his followers and led his country to ruin.

2. Since when was speaking other languages, to use your term, 'madness'? Rudd's Mandarin is madness? Being bilingual is madness? Must tell that to BHP executives trying to make a dollar in Asia.

3. And do you really think that reciting 'The Little Red Hen' in Urdu or Polish is MC evil? Would it be OK in French or Latin? Should we burn all books that aren't in English? What will we do about the cantankerous Welsh who insist on retaining their home language? Clap them in irons?

Polly, you say "... I hear the faint but increasing echo.. reverberating though the land.. "Enoch.. Enoch.. psst.. he was right". Hearing voices, eh? I can give you the name of a good shrink.

Boaz, you are playing the same game as you always have. Changing your name on this forum certainly hasn't changed your rabble-rousing instincts, has it?

In the interest of providing balance ("balance? wot''s that?" asks Boaz) why did you not provide us with the opening paragraph of the article you quoted?

Your contribution was:

>>"Of the 120 children on this year's pupil roll, 12 have English as their first language". COMMENT: TWELVE? have english as their first language? What madness is this?<<

But the thrust of the piece, its headline and its first paragraph read:

"How migrants fuel Britain's boom town.

David Rose has spent the past two months investigating the effect of immigration on one town, Slough in Berkshire. And while last week's report by a House of Lords committee found that immigration has no economic benefit, he has come to a very different conclusion. The local economy is booming, property prices are rising, schools and hospitals are working well. Is this town showing the rest of the country the way forward?"

I'm not surprised that you left out this part, because of course it does not support your doom-and-gloom predictions of strife and conflict, does it?

Or are you more concerned that they are in fact being successful?

Perhaps in your view, these people should remain an underclass, since they are so... foreign.

That sentiment places you much closer to Oswald Mosley than should be comfortable, Boaz, or even palatable. His entire platform was that these nasty furriners and evil Jews were conspiring to keep the British working man (read: white man) from gainful employment.

By focussing on the purely ethnic issue of the scarcity of english speakers in the classroom, you display your colours for all to see. And it still is not a pretty sight.

But that has never worried you before, so I doubt it will worry you now.

Priceless.

Boaz, have a think about this, from the ALR review by Carmen Callil of Sandra Hall's book "Tabloid Man: The life and Times of Ezra Norton".

"When it came to White Australia, communism, homosexuality and most other matters related to Truth's house attitudes and style, Ezra was his father's son. In 1927 Truth complained that 'black n!ggers are entirely foreign to the clean healthy outlook of the average Australian and must remain so'"

Sounds eerily familiar. Updated into whack-a-mozzie format, of course.

But wait, there's more

Callil continues:

"[according to Norton] Communists would destroy us all 'in a bath of blood'."

Wow... "in a bath of blood'.

So as it turns out, Enoch Powell was merely quoting from Australia's favourite Sunday newspaper, Truth.

Who'd a thunk it?

Are you in any way related to Ezra, by the way?

Because:

"'Poofters' - a favoured Ezra expression - were given short shrift and relentless coverage was given to arrests at Sydney's public lavatories"

To complete the picture, Ezra's father used to beat him, a practice that, as we all know, you thoroughly approve of.

I think we may have found a cultural spirit guide for you, Boaz.

Is it still published in Melbourne? If so, I expect to see it replace YouTube as your major source of social commentary material.

Spooky, isn't it?

Spikey,Pericles,Examinator,CJMorgan,TRTL:

So you lot really believe that Enoch Powell was wrong, do you?

You would also have us believe that Britain is now a wonderful place?

Well maybe all the friends, relatives and my 92 year old Mother that are still living there could give you the real picture as to just how wonderful Britain is today, with back streets full of uncollected rubbish and when you have to eventually go out to do some shopping you dare not look at any of the "new Brits" or you may just suffer a severe kicking or stabbing!

In most parts of Britain today, the white Anglo Saxons are a very insignificant minority group, battling to keep what is left of their country as it is gradually swallowed up by Aliens!..where then was Enoch Powell wrong in his predictions? During the Notting Hill riots the combatants were running around kissing each other? Birmingham, Leeds, a couple more of the UK "places of interest"!

My own mother who is renting a flat above a shop in Lancashire ( and has spent lots of money furnishing and decorating it to suit her situation of being partially crippled ) was visited one morning by a Pakistani "gentleman" who had just, unknown to her, purchased the place and many others in close proximity. He said that he was just inspecting his investments and was considering "upping" the rent on her flat as it was now such a nice place!Mum asked him how many other places that his people had purchased in the town, to which he replied "Quite a few Mrs ......, and in a couple of years time we will own it ALL!"

NO! I am sorry to argue with you all, but Powell was right, in principle!

No! CJMorgan.I did not support Pauline!I prefer Aborigines, and after all she was only playing the anti-Aboriginal card to gain votes!...Now there you have a racist/opportunist! (and you brought it up NOT I!)

I'm sorry to hear about your mother, Cuphandle.

But you are generalizing from the particular. Just a little.

>>you dare not look at any of the "new Brits" or you may just suffer a severe kicking or stabbing!<<

I get back to the old Dart fairly regularly, mostly on business, sometimes on holiday. My old mum is well into her eighties, and lives in a small bungalow on the fringes of a provincial town. I have many friends and relatives, scattered the length and breadth of the UK, from Cornwall to Inverness via Birmingham, Manchester and London.

None of them is by any stretch of the imagination well off, but equally, none of them have had problems remotely like those of your mother. None has been vandalized, mugged, or even threatened.

Not one.

>>You would also have us believe that Britain is now a wonderful place?<<

It is, actually, a genuinely fun place to be, if you can afford the train fares. It is not without its problems, but they are pretty much the same as they always have been.

Incidentally, the "back streets full of uncollected rubbish" you refer to are more likely to be caused by the lunatic decision of many local councils to only collect every fortnight. Nothing to do with immigration, everything to do with a creaking socialist power structure.

>>I am sorry to argue with you all, but Powell was right, in principle!<<

Don't apologize. Arguing is good. All it means is that we see things differently. And as I see it, Powell was part of the problem, and his proposals were never going to be part of the solution.

Cuphandle,

"So you lot really believe that Enoch Powell was wrong, do you?" Yes, history has shown that.

"You would also have us believe that Britain is now a wonderful place?" Yes, it's a wonderful place which thousands of Australians enjoy every year.

Pericles is right. You are asserting a worst case scenario based on particular cases. Pericles easily matched your cases with cases from his own first-hand experience. I can do exactly the same with my daughter who has lived and worked in the UK since the mid-80s and her family has never had a negative experience of the sort you depict as typical. Nor have my scores of British friends.

I have visited the UK about 12-15 times including one residential period of 15 months during Mother Thatcher's time. I felt entirely safe at all times. I saw no more evidence of civil dislocation than in the cities of Australia. No rivers of blood flowed anywhere I travelled - and I have clocked up the miles over many years..

Your claim that: "In most parts of Britain today, the white Anglo Saxons are a very insignificant minority group, battling to keep what is left of their country as it is gradually swallowed up by Aliens!" is simply preposterous. Cloud cuckoo land maybe, but not Britain!

You say: "I am sorry to argue with you all, but Powell was right, in principle." What's the principle? I'm happy to argue with you, but you've got to stop living in a parallel world and look at the facts.

Cuphandle, Spikey, Polycarp.
"So you lot really believe that Enoch Powell was wrong, do you?
You would also have us believe that Britain is now a wonderful place?"

"...believe..."?? There in lies the flaw to your reasoning. One believes in The tooth fairy, or God. Neither requires facts or scientific proof in fact either would get in the way.

I don't believe Powell's ideas were/are wrong the SCIENTIFIC facts prove it.

One asks where is your *SCIENTIFIC* evidence that his views are/were right? Remember to qualify for scientific evidence it must be OBJECTIVELY reasoned and ideally been reviewed by scientists trained in the area. Both Foxy and I have supplied Scientific corroborated proofs.

Cuphandle, the absence of accuracy of Powell’s views doesn’t prove nor does anyone imply that Britain is a wonderful place!
Realistically the idea that anywhere is wonderful in the context you imply is nonsense a contradiction in terms.

Both our views have been clearly put and understood

Bye

examinator, <<I don't believe Powell's ideas were/are wrong the SCIENTIFIC facts prove it. >>

Let's see. Here are four of Powell's ideas: Which 'scientific facts' (or any other sorts of facts) prove Powell was right on any of them?

1. India could not become a democracy. It could be kept and would remain within the British Empire (1946).

2. If Britain continued to accept immgrants from the old British Empire, there would be 'rivers of blood' flowing in the streets of Britain (1968).

3. Voluntary repatriation was the only practical solution that would prevent the rivers of blood (1968).

4. "In this country in 15 or 20 years time, the black man will have the whip hand over the white man" (a direct quote from Powell's 1968 speech).

Exam question 1: Which particular SCIENTIFIC facts can you refer to that show that Powell was right on any of his claims?

Exam question 2: Which of these ideas of Enoch Powell's has turned out to be right?

HINT: Focus on the historical facts which are not too hard to track down.

Good luck, your time starts now

Dear Team

Spikey gets the prize for.. (not sure how to term this :) "woffle"?
He expresses anti Australian racism.. and anti Anglo racism.. and then.. when he is exposed.. he claims it is a hysterical reaction to being branded racist :)

Well thanks dear spikey..now we know that the only racists at the ones YOU declare and any that 'we' declare are the victims of hysterical rabble rousing and overreaction.

The one major point which Powell (who by the way.. was right) made was

-Mass/uncontrolled immigration will lead to 1/ Segregation (it did) and 2/ Race riots (it did) contrary to the rather silly statement of one poster saying "History showed him to be wrong" when in fact the opposite is true.. amazing.. 1+1 does in fact=3 afterall..I thought only Michael Moore was inflicted with that disability.

Dear Foxy.. you are quite right to make some analysis of prejudice...
the only thing I would add to it.. is it's universality.. ie.. it exists on all sides of the racial/cultural divide. The danger when reading (or writing) a post such as yours is that we might think in error..that it only applies to the white man when in fact it applies to all..including the migrant.

Please understand.. all.. that it was not 'immigration' that Powell was opposed to.. it was UNCONTROLLED immigration.

Now.. can any person here actually say with honesty and a straight face..and a clear conscience..that they favor and applaud UNcontrolled immigration from anywhere....anytime.. for all time?

Which of course leads to the question "What" is 'controlled' and how much control should we exercise? Well..that point/line is the one we will most likely all have a different view on...right?

Actually Boazy, I think what at least you need to define is 'what is a race' and try distinguishing that from a nationality.

Quite so, Bugsy. But we've been here before - ad nauseam - with Boazycrap's prior incarnation. It seems to me that the "Polycarp" sock puppet is an instrument by which Boazy can pursue his baser imperatives, apparently in the absence of God.

Has anybody else noticed that "Polycarp" is identical to "BOAZ_David" in virtually every respect, *except* for the inevitable sanctimonious references to Jesus and the Christian Bible?

I recall that Boazy claimed he was being unfairly censored just before he morphed into Polycrap. At the time I inferred that it was by OLO, but I now think that he's been muzzled by his Brethren - after all, he's been a pretty appalling advertisement for Christianity via his posts to OLO over the years.

So now we appear to have a "born again" Boazycrap, who apparently regards himself as free to reiterate all the same old hateful and paranoid ideas that he did under his former persona - only without the constraints of Christianity.

Oh joy.

Dear PolyBOAZ

I know your attack on me is a strategy of deflection. But nevertheless, I'll take the bait. I am Anglo in ethnic origin and my family first came here from Britain in the 1840s. I'm 5th generation white Australian. I'm curious therefore to know how you deduce that I express 'anti Australian racism.. and anti Anglo racism'. Can you cite the words that led you to that weird allegation?

Now to the real debate. No matter how many times you say Enoch Powell was right, the facts of history all go the other way.

Let's have your evidence for your latest claims:

1. "Mass/uncontrolled immigration will lead to 1/ Segregation (it did)". What parts of Britain are segregated?

2. "Race riots (it did)". When was the last race riot in Britain?

As for your ahistorical claim that "... it was not 'immigration' that Powell was opposed to.. it was UNCONTROLLED immigration", you are plain wrong. He was opposed only to immigration from the non-white nations of the old British Empire. You yourself in your first post on this forum linked us to his speeches where he is clear on that point. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LKHAkpv22o&feature=related

He never spoke out about immigration from white Australia,white Canada or white Africa.

No DavidCarp, It was not UNCONTROLLED immigration that Powell opposed. It was immigration of people of colour he opposed. He tried to whip up fear and hatred with claims like this: "In this country in 15 or 20 years time, the black man will have the whip hand over the white man" (Powell 1968).

His racist appeal to impoverished whites had its moment but when people saw it for what it was, he sunk quickly into obscurity. The people of Britain were not fools. They had seen what racist demagogues could do in Europe and wanted none of it.

I was wondering pretty much the same thing, Spikey.

>>I'm curious therefore to know how you deduce that I express 'anti Australian racism.. and anti Anglo racism'<<

I thought earlier on that Boaz had mistaken you for someone else, but now he has repeated the slur.

Not that you will get an explanation, of course. The Boaz reaction to finding himself in a cul-de-sac is to walk away and pretend that nothing happened.

Unfortunately, as well as having a strong whack-a-mozzie tendency, our Boaz has an equally vicious - and equally uninformed - whack-a-pom streak in him. Most often, his chosen attack vector is via the Irish, about which he knows as little as he does about the English.

Except what he reads in Wikipedia and sees on YouTube, of course.

He occasionally slips in a little gratuitous barb, but usually misses his target completely. He did this earlier in this thread...

>>Pericles ancestors came as Anglo Saxons (?) and took the land.. driving the Celts into the Western corner of England..where even today they prefer to speak Welsh in the presense of English.<<

Apart from the fundamental ignorance of Celtic history, the idea that "they prefer to speak Welsh" is a hoot. Only one in five of the population speak the language at all.

The irony of this is, of course, that his hero Powell went on to represent the Ulster Unionists in Westminster, where he advocated the full integration of Ulster... not with Ireland, but with Great Britain. Here's an excerpt from Powell's obituary, written by Mike Phillips:

"As Ulster Unionist member for South Down (1983-87) he lived in the world of absolutes, of jet blacks and shining whites. In that sense if in no other, he was at home. Asked in an unguarded moment during an interview how often he went to Ireland he replied coldly that he never went to Ireland but frequently went to Ulster."

The other key aspect of Boaz, which he has carried forward into his new persona Polycarp, is that his research is inevitably lazy, and frequently contradicts his intended message.

Dear Polycarp,

Not all people accept the prejudices of
their communities.

Social scientists have learned that some
people are more likely to form prejudices
than other people, which is the point I
was making in my previous post.

Education is part of the key in fighting
racism, another is changing the system
which produces the conditions that allow
it to grow.

Hi Foxy
you mentioned "not all people accept the prejudices of their communities."

Fair point indeed.

One would need to place some boundaries around 'not all'...and give it a percentage for that to be more useful.

Bugsy.. 'race' .. tribe.. good grief.. you know what that means.
If you like substitute 'tribe'.... A tribe usually begins with a family.. a strong man with lots of wives.. flocks.. herds.. they build up over time and develop particular characteristics which are closely related to the founder, patriarch, king.. what have you.

They usually will have a common language and custom, and perceive themselves outside the rest of humanity. For obvious reasons of survival, they would be suspicious of non them, and if a threat arose, would tighten ranks and their 'they' consciousness would ramp up significantly.

Language..Culture.. color..physical features in various combinations constitute the various 'races'.

Georgia and Russia are currentl an example of 2 'tribes' manifesting the above.

The anecdote about Welsh preferring to speak Welsh in the presense of English, was passed on by "Mick" a pom at my gym.

Spikey.. I simply gave you a dose of what you were dishing out.
Powell was correct, and all the race riots (see wikipidia for a full list) testify to it.

BZZZZT, wrong answer try again.

You've been listening to Franky Goes To Hollywood again haven't you?.

"Australian" is neither a tribe nor a race. Australians cannot be defined by colour or culture. Australia is a nation.

I take it we must be post-"Rivers of Blood" then, if the race riots have already happened ages ago and not much since. So much for relevancy.

Polycarp,

I think you're having a touch of the Collywobbles. Your last half dozen posts have been abysmally poor; and I've noticed you're now squibbing it a lot more than the old BOAZY used to. You're not even trying to answer the questions that posters raise. And your erratic illogicalities are now more obvious than ever.

Time for another break and a comeback in another new disguise?

Hi Spikey.. well I don't answer many questions.. because many stem from adhominem motives.

I'm not spending as much time here these days.

BUGSY... within the nation of Australia.. we have many tribes.
This is particularly so of those migrant groups who came here from..and to.. their own tribe... particularly where cousin marriage is a custom.

The good thing about Australia though..is that we English/Scotts/Irish/Welsh have rather forgotten our 'racial' roots and don't find it hard to describe ourselves as 'Australians' with that not meaning 'our' particular tribe.

RACE RIOTS ? All gone?

Not a chance.

British police now are 'cowed' and use video rather than force.(emboldening the migrants)

Here is a classic example of why 'multi' culturalism has not, does not and will not work.. ever.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6550725.stm
Italian riot police have broken up a violent protest in Milan's Chinatown by scores of Chinese immigrants.

About 10 police officers were injured and a similar number of Chinese people received hospital treatment.

The trouble began when a Chinese woman was fined for illegally transporting goods in a private vehicle.

More than 100 Chinese shopkeepers and members of their families, many waving the national flag, massed in the street claiming racial discrimination.

COMMENT:
Notice the dynamic?
1/ Ethnic Chinese Woman does illegal act.
2/ Police (host) take action against her.
3/ Suddenly the reason is not about law..but about race.

Exactly as began the Brixton riots.
Exactly as began the Southall riots.
etttttcetera.

CHINESE ANTI ITALIAN RACE RIOT IN MILAN....

deserves much closer scrutiny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hks5n0ZfaIo&feature=related

Waving the chinese flag... fighting with police upholding the law...
Not.. a good look. Claiming racism.. what a joke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zfm51eWW8lE&feature=related

In that link.. the chinese are arguing among themselves about whether to have the Italian flag over the chinese in their protest....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcZ31BBT0nA&feature=related

In this one.. there is no ambiguity.. it is outright SEDITION and should be treated as such with the full force of the LAW.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xnJNeWkV14&feature=related

More Chinese racist sedition...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QdYSyfBukM&feature=related

More chinese racist sedition... is there no end?

Enoch....was right.. not just about UK.

Pollybabble<<...well I don't answer many questions.. because many stem from adhominem motives.>>

Let's see what's ad hominem in these questions that I put to you:

1. What parts of Britain are segregated?

2. When was the last race riot in Britain?

I think you just squibbed it and then invented the ad hominem excuse.

You do sneak in a reference to a riot in Italy in 2007 with these editorial comments: <<Exactly as began the Brixton riots. Exactly as began the Southall riots.>>

The Brixton riots occurred in 1981 (the same year as the Springbok tour riots in New Zealand). The Southall riots occurred in 1979 (the same year as the San Franciso gay rights riots). Both more than a quarter of a century ago. Not exactly Enoch Powell's "rivers of blood" eh?

Riots occur for all sorts of reasons as you can see from my parentheses above. You don't refer to other British riots such as the Poll Tax riots of 1990 or more recently the big football riots where English fans rampaged in Belgium and in Denmark in 2000.

In very recent times, in various locations there have been riot over food prices, petrol rationing, police shootings, inflation and fishing riots among other things.

So I think you put too much store in the incidence of race riots, espcially in Britain where peace keeps breaking out all over the place.

Spikey:
Wakey, wakey, wakey,...extractus hand from snakey!

There are reports of "racially motivated violence" nearly every day in the UK newspapers!

A few days ago there was the report on the ABC News website here of a "racially motivated" murder committed in the UK by two "aliens",...but then I suppose according to your mode of reasoning, that was NOT an example of the sort of problems that Enoch Powell would have been speculating
about,...(way back then!)

Some people see the cup as half full, some see the cup as half empty!...in your case you cannot even see the cup!

Get off Polycarps back and get a life!

Cuphandle, rushing to a beseiged Pollybabble's aid: <<There are reports of "racially motivated violence" nearly every day in the UK newspapers!>>

Polly was chattering on about race riots (he called them RACE RIOTS) and it was he who introduced this thread by alleging the Enoch Powell's prediction of "rivers of blood" flowing in British cities was coming true.

At any rate, the best you can do to help him out is: <<A few days ago there was the report on the ABC News website here of a "racially motivated" murder committed in the UK by two "aliens",...>>

So you got one thing right, the murder: <<...was NOT an example of the sort of problems that Enoch Powell would have been speculating about,...(way back then!)>>

I was in England in Feb-March and I don't recall any racial violence.

<<Some people see the cup as half full, some see the cup as half empty!...in your case you cannot even see the cup!>> But the cuphandle seems to have come adrift from the cup.

Dear Polycarp,

In my previous post I wrote:

"Not all people accept the prejudices of
their communities."

You replied:

"One would need to place some boundaries
around 'not all,' and give it a percentage
for that to be more useful."

We are currently waiting for a world wide-
survey on the issue in question to determine
the percentage results. When the data is
available it shall be published on the
World-Wide-Web. If you're interested - keep
checking for results.

Hi Spikey...

I'll address those questions now,

1/ Which part of Britain are Segregated?

Birmingham, Bradford,Brixton, South London and numerous other areas such as Sloughe.. (google that one.. most interesting)

2/ The Last race riot....

Ok.. fair point which deserves a serious answer.

A) Policing Methods.. (the 'when' is moot)

Due to the backlash of the migrants to 'get tough on crime' policing...the police now tend to 'video' race or religious based events, and identify trouble makers and grab them in the early mornings.

This are much less obvious 'Police' actions which can be used as a trigger for such things as happened in the previous major riots.

B) This is a new phase..but if you don't think Powells words are coming true simply because you don't see it 'now'.. all I can say is 'keep watching'.

The very serious issue which my posts seeks to address is this.
"Uncontrolled" immigration will have exactly the same result as it did in Milan.
That riot was caused by exactly the same 'reaction to police' as for Brixton, Southall etc.

The formula is exactly.. to the dotted eyes and crossed tee's of Powells speech "First segregation..then violence".

If there were not 'concentrations' of migrants of similar ethnicity in these places.. they could not and would not cry "They are picking on US.. because we are xyz race"

If you don't see very worrying omens in the Milan riots, then I hereby send you back to school for a real education :)
(stick to the medical stuff mate.. ur probably better at it, leave the sociology to those with clear minds)

Polycarp,

What a great comedian you are. You of all people telling others to "leave the sociology to those with clear minds". I fell off my chair in hysterical laughter. I've read a lot of your posts and evidence of a clear mind in your writing continues to elude me.

To claim that Birmingham, Bradford, Brixton, South London [a massive area] and "numerous other areas" such as Slough are segregated is to stretch credulity to breaking point. You must be using a wondrous definition of "segregated". Pray tell what it is.

My daughter lived in Croydon and whenever I visited I saw a full range of people from all manner of heritage backgrounds. I was in England again earlier this year and visited some of the places you claim are "segregated". I don't know where you get your "facts". But you can't just claim something is true because you'd like it to be true.

On alleged race riots you don't give "a serious answer" despite your declared intention to do so. What you are basically saying (against your earlier claims) is that there are no race riots but there might be sometime somewhere in the future.

So, Enoch Powell's prediction of rivers of blood in British streets has turned out to be totally wrong. But you rationalise that away by saying that just because his prediction hasn't come true yet, we must keep watching because it will/might/could/ one day/some day. "Keep watching", you advise.

But how long do we watch? His prediction was made in 1968 - forty years ago. To paraphrase a great writer: the past is another country; come up to the present, David, they do things differently here.

I strongly suspect that you haven't set foot on the shores of Blighty, Boaz. Probably Ireland has escaped your wandering feet also. You certainly demonstrate an armchair observer's knowledge and understanding of what goes on there, rather than someone such as I who has family and friends scattered the length and breadth of that fair land.

We are indeed fortunate that this does not stop you from pontificating at length about rivers of blood, segregated towns and cities, Brixton riots and many, many other topics.

If you were to stick to things that you know about, instead of what propaganda you garner from YouTube etc., the world of OLO would be a far less colourful place.

There are very few "no-go" areas in the UK. Those that do exist are typical run-down city-centre phenomena, and could equally be populated by white English "hoodies" as by any other colour or nationality.

Enoch was just plain wrong, whichever way you look at it, and no amount of wishful thinking on your part will change that.

My brother-in-law in Birmingham, my cousin in South London and my ex-workmate in Slough would like to add their own comment on your description of their home town [add sound of raspberry here].

I don't have any contacts in Bradford though. Perhaps you should focus there, I'm sure you could find vast tracts of useful "facts" on YouTube.

I'm interested in hearing any justification you might have for continuing this thread, Boaz. Your views as a distant observer, coloured as they are by your extreme prejudice, have very little value.

Pericles, Spikey:
Why don`t you go and join them if you think it is SO GOOD living in Britain,.....or are you another of the many traitors who left to come here and spend your leisure time "rubbishing" other people!
I would bet that you have a photo of "Baroness" Maggie Thatcher ( the fastest Greengrocer`s daughter in the west!) hanging on your walls!
By the way, I could send you A$40 so that you can take a couple of your mates with you, to help you on your way to your "paradise"!

Oh, great.

>>Why don`t you go and join them if you think it is SO GOOD living in Britain<<

We've finally arrived at the "if you think it's so good, why don't you live there" argument.

So intelligent. So persuasive.

There are any number of countries in the world where I would happily live, Cuphandle. The UK is one of them. Australia is another. France is another. I enjoyed working in the US, and would happily do so again. Germany is delightful, especially Bavaria. Ireland is great - I haven't lived there, but I have visited enough to know it's a great place. Italy - especially Rome - would attract me. And I frequently felt, after a trip to the Greek islands, that chucking it all in and becoming a ferry captain would be the dogs' wotsits of a life.

I'd probably draw the line at Zimbabwe, though. Most of Africa, I'm afraid - call me precious, but I'd have a great deal of difficulty adjusting to that particular lifestyle. And I'd find China a bit intimidating at my time of life, with all those millions of highly intelligent go-getters building their businesses.

When the time comes, Cuphandle, I probably will head off again, if only to stop myself becoming insufferably smug and self-satisfied.

Cuphandle

What sort of 'argument' do you think that is? A person creates a false description of another country, we refute that description and the only response is for you to tell us to go and live there. What an intellectual powerhouse you are.

No, I'm wrong. It's not you only response. You also have the silly suggestion that we might be "traitors" (although it's not clear what the treason might be).

And a third peurile and disconnected inspirational 'thought' that we might have a picture of Maggie Thatcher on the wall. Whatever has the Baroness got to do with the price of a bar of soap?

I'm not so sure that you don't now outrank Polybabble in the quest to find OLO's most asinine commentator.

Spikey.. 'segregated' .. it seems we need to define this much more tightly.

Perhaps 'ghetto' would be a more appropriate term? or.. "high concentrations of non caucasian migrants"?

I'll go with the last one at least.

Now.. there is nothing wrong with non caucasian migrants.. but there is PLENTY wrong with 'high concentrations' of them. The 'wrong' bit is an increased self perception of 'us' and 'them'... which, predictably and historically resulted in the very thing Powell predicted.

It is plain nonsense to say he was incorrect simply because the streets did not become rivers of 'blood'... that they became 'blazing infernos' means nothing? of course it does.

So I have to reject you're and Pericles 'Alice in Wonderland' denials as some kind of surreal mind game you are playing with yourselves.

You appear to have missed a most central point in my previous response.

1/ Given that most of the previous real riots occurred as a response to perceived harsh policing by 'white' police...
2/ The 'new' policing approach which is to hold back and just take video....
All that is happening in the 'lull period' is that the trigger is absent, but during this time, the ethnic and possibly the white groups are becoming further polarized..

The Westminster Muslim protest is staggering .. calling for death to the Pontif.. abusing Christians/Catholics and.. all the Police did was...
a) Take video
b) Claim "no substantive offenses were committed"

So.. you don't even need to have prophetic/predictive tendencies to know where that line is going.....in time.

Pericles,Spikey:
Let us put this whole discussion into it`s true perspective!
I believe Polycarp was simply trying to tell you, (in a nice sort of roundabout way), that the warnings offered by Powell at that time in history, could now be applied to Australia`s situation today, as we see more and more ethnicisation and we become more and more the "melting pot" of the South Pacific region!

If you choose to argue against it, then so be it, but I am sure that you could both put your combined literal genius to a more pressing cause!....."Oh look!....Is that a tree I see over there?"

Your fear and loathing are showing again, Boaz.

>>there is nothing wrong with non caucasian migrants.. but there is PLENTY wrong with 'high concentrations' of them. The 'wrong' bit is an increased self perception of 'us' and 'them'<<

The irony here is, of course, that you are one of those people who is intent upon increasing that perception of difference.

But you have, I'm glad to see, withdrawn from your earlier position:

>>I'll address those questions now... Which part of Britain are Segregated? Birmingham, Bradford,Brixton, South London and numerous other areas such as Sloughe<<

We now know that what you really meant was that there are areas in these cities that contain “large concentrations” of immigrants.

Which is true.

But as ever, your immediate assumption is that this is a problem of greater magnitude than any of the others that naturally occur in large cities. Slums and poor people have been a feature of English cities for centuries.

As have immigrants. As have “large concentrations” of them

Here's a description of London in the middle of the nineteenth century.

“Lascar and Chinese communities sprang up among the docks, while the Irish population grew to number hundreds of thousands. In 1841 less than two thirds of the capital's inhabitants had been born there. Jews, Blacks, Chinese, Indians, Poles, Frenchmen and Italians were common figures on the streets of London.”

http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/oldbailey/history/london-life/london-life19th.html

Or if you want to go into more detail:

http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/oldbailey/history/communities/index.html

If you were honest with yourself, Boaz, you would be forced to recognize that your Powellism is nothing more nor less than yet another manifestation of your fear of Islam.

Whichever way you look at it, Powell was just one of a long line of rabble-rousers, who fuelled the fears of ordinary people of “otherness”. History, however, tells us that more often than not, people in big cities tend to rub along, with only the occasional spat.

To use these rare occasions as evidence of Enoch Powell's foresight is to infer pneumonia from a summer cold

Thanx for the support Cuphandle. These bright sparks become incredibly pedantic in direct proportion to the weakness of their position. They feel that to attack the applicability of a word...and point out that it was only 80% right means the whole argument falls to bits.. well it doesn't eh :)

Pericles knows jolly well that there have been HUGE race riots in the UK.. and only seeks to minimize them and lay blame for them on those actually pointing them out.. rather than the nature of ghetto's themselves. He finds only a sniffle where there is terminal pneumonia.. to borrow something of his metaphore.

Furhter.. he clouds things unfairly by comparaing Powell with Mosely as just "another rabble rouser".. but the important thing in all this.. is.. to L E A R N from them.. aaaah..that's the secret.. and to learn even from dear aunty Pauline H..

The biggest lesson I learned from Pauline.. is.. well there's 2 actually.
1/ Learn to speak articulately.
2/ Attack the opposition first.. with the same weapons they will be using on you. i.e.. don't get publicity from your own rallies..get it from ATTACKING the other mobs :) by yelling 'RACISSSSST' etc

From Powell..I learn 'having a sound argument and trusting in history'
From Mosely I learn "Don't wear Jackboots or have symbols looking like those of the 3rd Reich" :) but from some of his speeches..I find many lessons on 'delivery'...good grief.. we can even learn that from Adolph.. his delivery was first rate...in fact it was the key to his success.

But the most important lesson probably...is don't become the focus yourself.. aaah..leave personalities out of it. IDEA's..and the creative means of imparting them,-strategically.. to create an atmosphere... that's smart thinking.... I think :)

You are wandering off again, Boaz. Getting vague.

According to you, I...

>>...point out that it was only 80% right means the whole argument falls to bits.. well it doesn't eh<<

80% right, Boaz? Where did you pluck that figure from?

On second thoughts I don't want to know.

>>Pericles knows jolly well that there have been HUGE race riots in the UK.. and only seeks to minimize them<<

Tell me about these (sorry, I won't stoop to capital letters) huge race riots, Boaz, that you seem to know about and the rest of us don't.

>>he clouds things unfairly by comparaing Powell with Mosely as just "another rabble rouser"<<

Unfairly, Boaz? In what way is the comparison unfair?

Your reference to Pauline is obviously sarcastic. You don't do good sarcasm, by the way, it's just a little forced.

But learning "sound argument" from Powell is an interesting concept.

I can actually believe that, but only in the sense that Powell understood that using sound in order to create words, which in turn can inflame an audience to dig deep into their inner prejudices, is a good idea.

>>From Mosely I learn...<<

You have learned nothing from Mosley, Boaz. Mosley was an intellectual, even more so than Powell. I still encourage you, even after all these years, to pick up his autobiography and find out more about the way he thinks.

>>...don't become the focus yourself.. aaah..leave personalities out of it.<<

I look forward to the day you begin to follow your own advice.

Polly

I heard there is a ghetto in London - near Shepherd's Bush and Kensington. Expatriate Australians.

What's that you say? That doesn't count as a ghetto? Not non-Caucasion? Oh I get it.

So we can't count Elizabeth in Adelaide where all those ex-Poms gather in high concentrations?

<<Now.. there is nothing wrong with non caucasian migrants..>> Yes, I'm waiting for you to say, "Some of my best friends are non-Caucasian, but...".

<<It is plain nonsense to say he was incorrect simply because the streets did not become rivers of 'blood'... that they became 'blazing infernos' means nothing?>>

So, "a most central point" in your previous response was that it wasn't the large concentrations of (I won't mention the n-c word in case it causes heartache to you and Robin Cupcake), but rather the harsh policing that caused all the rivers to run or the flames to flicker.

And now the new methods of the police have caused a "lull period". But according to Prophet Powell sanity will be restored in time and the blood will flow again in the streets, the great Fire of London will have a Second Coming and faith in the Prophet will be restored. Hallelujah brothers!

Deputy Cupcake,

What if we brought home all those hordes of Australians from the ghettos of England? Wouldn't that counteract the "ethnicisation" and prevent Australia becoming the "melting pot" of the South Pacific region?

Well haaah thay-re Spaaarky...

I must say that even though your priceless posts are critical..they are entertaining to read.. I must lift my own game here :)

Au Contraire regarding the Aussie or Pommy Ghetto's in London and Elizabeth.. I guarantee.. human nature does not change with race or national origin.

If the Aussies in the UK were lacking in employment opportunities and subject to a sense of alientation due to their very different cultural background (which of course they don't really have in the UK).. and they were resorting to high petty crime rates, and the police came down hard on them.. of COURSE they would be saying "aaah the blardy Poms..they are picking on us because we're from Orrstraya!" etc.

Now.. the 'lull' of which I spoke would be a good time for the UK to actually get it 'right' and work on some policies which will see it through to a point where they can improve integration and head off the next wave of racial tension.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya9xypqB5eo

If you have a close look at this vid.. and note the 'bewilderment' of the very VERY placid and peaceful British Catholics.. you don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize that there will be an element among them.. and the broader white community, who will take this kind of thing rather seriously..and it will only need a trigger event to set off a rather bloody and violent comeback.

Times have changed..but people have not. There was a time when Tasmanian Catholics took to protestants with mattock handles, bats and any weapon they could find.. simply because they held meetings with an apostate Catholic in a public building.. which Catholic tax payers had partly funded.

Can you imagine the reaction of Arabs if disgruntled Christians in Riyadh gathered at the central mosque held up signs "God curse Mohammad" and ranted "SOme day, you will take over Mecca"....I mean.. can you ? :)

Dear Spikey...

please have a look at this vid.. it's most interesting.. unless you listen closely, you will not catch the words "Londonistan and Birminghamistan"..but unless I'm mistaken.. I think they actually say that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQLpG5b18pk

"We begin with your cross....

we end with your BLOOD"

Now.. let's take the 'skeptical view' of this.. and rather than blame the Muslims.. lets say its a fabrication.. a complete hoax.. produced by right wing neo Nazi's... or some other group.

Ok.. that said... what impact will it likely have? It will be the same as if it was produced by Muslims. "Excacerbate racial, religious and cultural divisions and ill will"

Sure.. it won't turn on the next wave of race riots.. but.. over time it will surely contribute to it. Imagine if soccer club hoons started to look at this..and dwelling on it...hmmmmm

Now..the critical question... "Whether REAL.. or FAKE.. on what grounds could it prove dangerous?"

ANSWER.. the reason is.. 'difference'. by emphasizing or encouraging difference rather than unity.. such material is always at the disposal of those who can see some kind of benefit from creating problems.

I am of the view..that this vid is genuine..produced by Muslims to express their outrage at the British for foreign policy which takes British troops to Muslims lands.(even when it is legitimate to shut down terrorist training camps in Afghanistan) I say this on the basis of the terminology and arabic used.

Boazycrap: << over time it will surely contribute to it. Imagine if soccer club hoons started to look at this..and dwelling on it...hmmmmm >>

About the only person I know who "dwells on" this kind of crap on YouTube is poor old Boazy. I guess it's unsurprising that fundamentalist religious nutcases seek each other out though.

Pollyana

<<ANSWER.. the reason is.. 'difference'.>>

But have you forgotten the question?

Here's another one for you: What do you have in mind when think difference is a bad thing? Skin colour? Colour of hair? Body shape? Gender? Religion? Moral worth?

And another: If difference is the problem, and assuming you like to solve problems, how would you go about eliminating difference? I assume you see yourself as the benchmark of moral worth, for example, so the people who are 'different' are 'different' from you.

But what a thought: all OLO posters being the same as Polly.

Remember Shylock's sameness speech in The Merchant of Venice? Was Shakespeare being subversive or racist?

Dear Spikey...

I find it interesting how your own presuppositions and biases are clearly evident in the structure of your posts... boringly predictable to be honest :)

They seem to typify easily identifable ideas held by certain groups in the same way that you are seeking to attribute well known ideas about racial superiority and skin color to what I'm saying.

Let me try to state it succintly:

1/ THE PROBLEM.
Difference.... i.e. difference in 'VALUES'

2/ THE SOLUTION.
a) Acceptance (in immigration) only of those (whatever color or race) who share our own values. i) Moral ii) Religious to the extent that none would be accepted where they have clearly defined religious ideas which are in conflict with ours and where history shows that ideological conflict generally results in physical violence and political struggle. ii) Secular Values are acceptable as long as, they do not include the idea of marginalization of and hostility to Christian values. (i.e. Politicized homosexuals would fit this category)
b) The active encouragement of unity, shared values, shared culture and ideas at the political/policy level.

MULTI-CULTURALISM will be replaced at every level of government with 'Assimilation, unity, integration'.

Reward and encouragement will then be offered to those migrant groups who demonstrate a desire and active agenda to 'Australianize' new migrants of their own community.

It is plain silly to encourage and reward cultural difference.

Government policy can be:

i) Neutral
ii) Actively 'against'
iii) Actively 'for'

Cultural assimilation and integration.

I hardly think any politician will like to be named and shamed as a person who seeks:

DIVISION..
SEGREGATION..
CONFLICT..
RACISM..

because the growing movement for Australian Identity will surely be using that method of achieving compliance :)

Now..let's invent a good word to utilize in this :) "Austrophobe" and "Austrophobia"..aah.. I like it.

CAMPAIGN AGAINST AUSTROPHOBIA.

EVENT 1.....

Gather at State library Vic....

-Declaration of Intent.
-Declaration of Values.
-Naming and Shaming of spineless anti Australian politicians.
(Placed on youtube, myspace, facebook, Viddler of course)

EVENT 2

-Specific politicians targeted.. peaceful demonstration outside their homes.. banners.. a bit of noise.. nothing too harsh.. again.. to youtube etc :)

EVENT 3

Steps of Parliament house.. similar sort of thing.

EVENT 4 Demonstration outside Trades Hall.. or. "Resistance Victoria" at Druids house... calling for an end to Austrophobia and the denunciation of 'Austraphobes'

Current Affair
Today Tonight
7.30 report

Imagine.. just imagine.. if all these demo's have the following participants.

Black (like realllly black)
Arab
Jew
Caucasian
Asian.

hmmm I'm warming to this :)

<< hmmm I'm warming to this :) >>

But Boazycrap, you'd have to actually go out into the real world and be identifiable to the objects of your hatred, rather than hiding behind various pseudonyms and spouting vilification quasi-anonymously on the Internet.

Hmmm - can't see that happening. What's the weather like in Kilsyth today anyway?

Woolly Poolly

You really don't think very clearly, do you? If you diagnose the problem incorrectly your solution is not going to be much good, is it?

The problem according to you is difference in 'VALUES'.

Now, whether you take a contemporary view or an historic view you've got major problems with the concept of values difference. Contemporary values across any democratic nation will be diverse (look at OLO - an example close at hand).

Historically, values change (for example, the majority of Australians no longer support White Australia as they did in 1901, nor do they want to belong to the 'Mother' country as they once did).

So what do you do with values pluralism? Wind back the clock to the good old days when white Christianity (except those pesky Catholics) was the only right? Deport all those Australians who now disagree with you?

I clearly don't share your values Polly whether they be moral, religious, or secular. What are you going to do with me and my family?

You say: <<It is plain silly to encourage and reward cultural difference.>>

So was it wrong to allow the Irish to migrate to Australia in the 19th century? Or the Italians in the 20th? Or the Greeks? Or the Vietnamese? Look around, BOAZ, Australia is a vastly different nation now compared with 50 years ago - and I'd say clearly a richer and more enlightened one (there's always the exceptions, of course who still think we're in the 19th century).

So I look forward to seeing you on the Library steps with your CAMPAIGN AGAINST AUSTROPHOBIA banner. You should stand alongside the guy who wears a sandwich board labelled PREPARE TO MEET THY DOOM.

Spikey.. quite funny ur post.. and as usual.. entertaining.

Let me relate an experience from yesterday. Myself and Col Rouge wandered around the State Library but it was a non event so we went to Melbourne Central, and had a good old natter over a cuppa. After this we went our ways and on the way out I re-checked the Library steps for 'action'.. and to my surprise.. it was happening. "Speakers Forum" ..

There was this old couple raving on about 'The Republic' and had a little lecturn and a small PA system. Their audience consisted of some ..err 'colorful' people.. many different types, but it included one 'rabble rouser' who for some reason incurred the wrath of the lady from the couple..and they came to blows.. slap slap kinda thing. I noticed some other blokes.. and moved along to chat with them...asking 'What what that all about'.. turned out they were 'Anarchists'... and blow me down.. strike me lucky and knock me over with a postage stamp.. the 17 yr old anarchist has virtually identical views as myself.. AARRRGH.. SO..to my horror.. I now must confess.. "My name is Polycarp..and I am an Anarchist" :)

They had the same views on MultiCulturalism .. totally stunned me.
Dennis.. a Greek and Scot the Anglo.

Scot, the young bloke only 17, said in response to 'What triggered your passion on all this'... said "Cronulla".

Later, I went to a thriving Church in East Doncaster.. with a friend.. and we began planning for an evangelistic event at the Lib with representatives from many denominations.

I want to get as many races as possible to it, and all colors.. and our theme will be "all one in Christ Jesus" With testimonies from various ones. I'd like to get a Tibetan Christian and Chinese, a South Sudanese and an Arab and a Messianic Jew..to show how, in Christ.. the problems of these places dissappear, at least between Christians.

Polly

You do mix with some strange people (Polly want some crackers?).

Is that where you do all your survey work? You ought to be careful going to the Library - ideas are infectious.

<<I want to get as many races as possible to it, and all colors.. and our theme will be "all one in Christ Jesus" With testimonies from various ones. I'd like to get a Tibetan Christian and Chinese, a South Sudanese and an Arab and a Messianic Jew..to show how, in Christ.. the problems of these places dissappear, at least between Christians.>>

Maybe you ought to contact the ABC. The 'Collectors' is a very good show. And I can recommend Flemington if you want many races - and colourful too!

Ur right about flemington.. I drove in the High rise on the way back from an event in Sunshine.. and wooooo.. I thought I'd lobbed into Pakistan..or Nigeria. I might do a survey there.. with the following questions:

1/ Do you know that Australia does not allow polygamous marriages?
2/ Do you know that Australia does not allow wife beating?
3/ Do you know that Australian law prohibits sexual abuse of children?
4/ Can you condemn outright as sexual abuse, the act of a 50+ old man marrying a child of 9?
5/ Can you condemn outright the unfairness of a 50+ man making a 'marriage contract' with a 6 yr old and claiming that her silence constitutes consent?
6/ Do you believe the Islamic call to prayer should be able to be made in Australia from local mosques? (it appears some definitely do who I've spoken to recently)
7/ If Australia was invaded by a Muslim nation.. would you kill Muslims in defense of it?
8/ Can captive women be sexually used by their masters as 'possessions'?
9/ Do you believe that under an Islamic Kalifah.. the Muslims have a duty to make war on non Muslims to bring them under Islamic rule?

why not come with me and we can do the survey together? :)

annnnd so it goes on .....

So.. ur in Melbourne eh :) sounds like we should meet up so I can sort your fuzzy ideas out *sideways look*

Polly, you delicate flower.

Flemington high rise was too much for you, eh? All those dark skins tell you what wicked things those people do behind close doors, eh?

(Incidentally, did you drive in by invitation or did you just trespass because they're only non-whites?)

The Flemington I alluded to has races of a different kind to the ones you're obsessed by.

Thank you, but I won't join you in your offensive and disrespectful survey at Flemington but I thought with a bit of tweaking of your questions I might go out to Toorak or Park Orchards and give it a go.

How about:

1/ Do you know that Australia does not take kindly to adulterous marriages?
2/ Do you know that Australia does not allow wife beating? (No change needed there.)
3/ Do you know that Australian law prohibits sexual abuse of children? (No change needed there either.)
4/ Can you condemn outright as sexual abuse, the act of a 50+ old man pouring over digital photos of a child of 9?

Am I on the right track (so to speak)?...

On another thread, you recommend a daily reading of the Bible. I'll read more of the Bible if you read one or more of:

* Ki Meekins, "Red Tape Rape" which reveals the systemic sexual abuse of children by high-powered pillars of the Adelaide establishment or
* Diana Georgeff's "Delinquent Angel" which recounts the exploitation of toddlers by the dysfunctional Melbourne branch of the wealthy, high-profile Darrell Lea family (the same family that has just copped a $120,000 fine for breach of IR laws involving placing vulnerable young workers under duress; or
* The Mullighan Report Commission of Inquiry into Children in State Care in SA http://www.service.sa.gov.au/ContentPages/sagovt/mullighaninquiry.aspx

Then you can come back and tell me about the wondrous cultural practices of Anglo-Christians.

Boazycrap: << I might do a survey there.. with the following questions... >>

Don't worry Spikey. There is zero probability that Boazy will follow through on his latest social action proposal. From time to time he says he is going to air his odious views in public in some way or other, but as far as I can remember he's never actually displayed any semblance of having courage in his convictions. We've witnessed several fizzers of this kind from Boazy over time.

It's all blow and bluster - the poor fellow is clearly seeking attention online that he's not game enough to attract in real life. Mind you, he is very proud that he's attracted Col Rouge to coffee at Macca's, which is undoubtedly a good thing since they both apparently need friends.

CJ Morgan

I know I'm safe for the reasons you give. I'm also pretty assured of not having to read the Bible because BOAZY is not likely to read any of the references I suggested to him because they show so-called Christians from Anglo backgrounds shamelessly exploiting vulnerable kids. His reading is restricted to the Good Book, youtube and Wikipedia.

In BOAZ's cosseted world it's only non-whites, and especially Muslims, who are barbaric.

I rather got the impression that BOAZ and Col Rouge form a mutual admiration society of two. No make that three - Cupcake swells the crowd.