Posted on 02/09/2011 10:31:58 AM PST by HMS Surprise
The news from England is unexpected, but its cause was predicted decades ago. First, lets look at the newsmaker, then we’ll examine his little-noticed prophet. There is a lesson to be learned here…
British Prime Minister David Cameron recently stunned the politically-correct wing of punditry by stating plainly what could not be more obvious: England’s multi-cultural experiment is an abysmal failure. This comes on the heels of a similar pronouncement from German Chancellor Angela Merkel in October. (Did they flip a coin to see who would go first?)
Cameron’s comments, while courageous, pale in comparison to Enoch Powell’s though, for one really important reason: Powell’s speech was over 40 years ago.
(Excerpt) Read more at teapartytribune.com ...
I remember Powell’s speech. I can’t recall where he made it, maybe some university but no one has ever been so viciously attacked as he was.
If one does any research on him, Powell was one of the most brilliant men of the 20th century.
Great Britain comitted mass cultural suicide when in 1945 it elected this POS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Attlee
More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_Blood_speech
The problem with Powell is that he wasn’t just warning about the evils of multiculturealism - he was a stone racist.
Even if muslims in Britain don't outnumber West Indians and those of West Indian descent they certainly make their presence felt to a significantly larger extent.
Still no rivers of blood. White people don't get enough credit for their restraint.
Calling him a racist misses the very point of his speech.
“Powell defended his speech on 4 May through an interview for the Birmingham Post: “What I would take ‘racialist’ to mean is a person who believes in the inherent inferiority of one race of mankind to another, and who acts and speaks in that belief. So the answer to the question of whether I am a racialist is ‘no’—unless, perhaps, it is to be a racialist in reverse. I regard many of the peoples in India as being superior in many respects—intellectually, for example, and in other respects—to Europeans. Perhaps that is over-correcting.”
So? Meaning what?
->”Calling him a racist misses the very point of his speech.”
“The black man shall have the whip hand over the white man.”
England has it’s own native, white, underclass whose values are every bit as “ghetto” as its imported black underclass. Condemnation of multiculturalism must focus on behavior, not skin color. If Powell had made that distinction he would more fully deserve our praise. Instead he loads the speech with emotion-driven appeals to white victimization. That’s why he gets lumped in with the British National Party, skinheads, etc.
It’s a fine line. Stereotypes persist because they usually contain some truth. Compare Powell’s speech with similar prognostications by Danial Patrick Moynihan - one is a thoughtful, thorough analysis of the problem. The other sounds, to me, like rabble rousing. Truth, spoken carelessly, causes as much damage as lies.
Come on. You can do better than that. Why not put it into the context of the speech? Powell never said that. He was quoting one of his constituents.
A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries.
After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said: "If I had the money to go, I wouldn't stay in this country." I made some deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn't last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: "I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan't be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas. In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man."
I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation?
The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth living in for his children.
I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking - not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.
----------------------------------------------------
England has it’s own native, white, underclass whose values are every bit as “ghetto” as its imported black underclass. Condemnation of multiculturalism must focus on behavior, not skin color. If Powell had made that distinction he would more fully deserve our praise. Instead he loads the speech with emotion-driven appeals to white victimization. That’s why he gets lumped in with the British National Party, skinheads, etc.
You either did not read the entire speech or you failed to comprehend what he said. It has nothing to do with white victimization. It has to do with integrating people from other cultures and assimilation into British culture and identity.
The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word "integration." To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members.
Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction.
We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population - that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate.
Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population.
----------------------------------
It’s a fine line. Stereotypes persist because they usually contain some truth. Compare Powell’s speech with similar prognostications by Danial Patrick Moynihan - one is a thoughtful, thorough analysis of the problem. The other sounds, to me, like rabble rousing. Truth, spoken carelessly, causes as much damage as lies.
This speech was made in 1968. It is remarkably prescient. Many of the problems the UK is now grappling with are the result of its immigration policies. The speech was precipitated by immigration legislation being considered by Parliament. Powell was courageous and patriotic. He was warning his country about an unwise policy that would eventually destroy it.
Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen."
Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.
At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.
Powell was not a racist. As someone who works on the immigration issue, I am also the target of such charges from the Left and some "moderate" Reps. Being called a racist, bigot, and nativist is part of the game of personal destruction to avoid discussion of substance and demonize your opponent. This country is similar to the UK in terms of unwise immigration policies that are slowly destroying this nation and the vision of our Founders. Multiculturalism is not a strength.
Rather than using a source that quotes bits and pieces interspersed with commentary, here's the full text
Nowadays, I no longer care if a statement is deemed "racist" -- I only care if it's true. The essence of political correctness is to declare that a viewpoint is evil, and to even examine whether it might be true makes te examiner evil.
That was helpful. His oft-quoted remark from the speech, (paraphrasing) that; the black man will have the whip-hand over the white in a generation, was not his words. He was merely reading a letter that one of his constiuents had written. And of course the lie is repeated even to this day (as in the instant case) that the words were his. His intention was to communicate the depth of feeling English common-folk had an contrast that with the seeming indifference the political class had to their concerns. Regardless, I am sure that Cameron would have been called a racist for uttering the same speech he recently gave if he had given it ten, five, or even one year ago.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.