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.