'Only in his hometown and in his own house...'
Friday, April 17, 2009 at 12:06PM The days of protest are unfortunately long past. Of course, when I talk of protest, I talk of legitimate protest against real targets. Why, do we ask; why did Duncan’s Fruit & Nut get assimilated by Cadburys? Why was it truly necessary to change Marathon to Snickers?
But of course I jest! We are just a few days away from the anniversary of the only protest which, if recognised and acted upon, would have made a real difference to the way we live, we react and, most importantly, rule ourselves. I am of course talking about the enormously gifted classical scholar, Brigadier, politician and above all else, a patriot of the finest order; and his speech regarding his personal view of the one Act of Parliament which has done more than any other to betray and alter the basic nature of British Democracy as we used to know it!
The politician was of course the Rt. Hon. John Enoch Powell, MBE, and the speech was what was labelled as the ‘Infamous Rivers of Blood’ speech. If you wish, his words can be found here, and believe me, you won’t find any mention of the phrase ‘Rivers of Blood’! You shall find the phrase ‘Like the Roman, I seem to see ‘the River Tiber foaming with much blood’, which I think you would agree, is subtly different to the previous phrase which of course was the one used by every tabloid and broadsheet newspaper, every opposition politician and of course many of Powell’s own Party in their excoriation of one of the finest political minds this country has ever had the privilege of nurturing.
This man, now disowned by his own Party for telling the exact and literal truth, had established beyond any doubt that, if the extrapolation of the (then) immigration rates was carried forward to it’s logical conclusion, some one tenth of the total population would be of either immigrant or immigrant descent. This has come to pass, but what Powell did not, and of course could not have foreseen that besides the migrant flow from the Commonwealth countries which he was talking about, there would also be the huge influx of migrants from the expanded conglomerate which was christened the European Union. Now the problem is that besides people coming from, say, Poland, who are really just like us, you also ‘have’, I repeat ‘have’ to accept the Roma gypsies from Romania, the Bosnians, Croats, Kosovans and Serbs, who just a few years ago were busy trying to kill one another in some god-forsaken ethnic cleansing exercise fomented by one of half-a-dozen miniature megalomaniacs. We also have given ‘ASYLUM’ to a cross-section of the whole of the Continent of Africa, from the savagery of Darfur to the rolling hills of Malawi, all busily fleeing their dust-bowls, and mostly intent on leeching off the State as best they can. The last accounting does not, of course, include the approximate one million (1,000,000) illegal and totally bogus ‘asylum seekers’ who have slipped, hidden, clung and crawled through our porous Border defences; many of whom are of course working in the black economy to pay off the huge debts owed to the cynical mobsters who trafficked them into the country in the first place.
In 1968 he predicted that by the year 2000, seven million people living in Britain would be of ethnic descent . The Census in 2001 showed 4.6 million people living in the UK were from an ethnic minority, or 7.9% of the population, that Census being notorious for its' ability to get things wrong, or counted short!
We see and hear the changes in our towns and cities; the changes such as the plethora of mosques, each of course coming with it’s own (usually Saudi-funded and approved) imam and set of loudspeakers for the interminable wailing of their calls to prayer which have besmirched our highways and suburbs. We see the proliferation of the so-called Black Evangelical Churches, which are the outward sign of a communities which is in fact usually in thrall to either a set of Nigerian gangsters or their Jamaican ‘Yardie’ equivalents. We also see the influence of the various stages of the QUANGO which is now called the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. As taken from their web-site, they promote a ‘fairer, more equal Britain’ but behind the slogans lie a literal welter of law and regulation which deny the right of say, a hotelier to bar people from his establishment because he does not like their sexual orientation or practices! We see the inroads on our very society by the inclusion of the Brussels’ inspired ‘Human rights’ legislation; all of which was possible very good in theory, but perverted in practice so that we literally cannot get rid of undesirables once they get their feet across the threshold of our crowded little country! I doubt if even Enoch Powell could have foreseen the fact that we now shelter nine Afghani hi-jackers who took control of an airplane at the point of guns; who landed and surrendered to officials and were subsequently tried and imprisoned for their deeds; and who now live in Britain. They had their convictions quashed last summer, and the Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA) ruled that sending the nine back to Afghanistan would breach their human rights, as adjudicators said that the men would be in danger of attack from members of the deposed Taleban regime if they were deported. Oh, and just as an aside, all their families are allowed to stay as well!
The clarion call of all liberals and socialists in this now benighted society of ours is ‘Integration’ and the magic buzz-word so beloved of all the soft-lefties, ‘Multiculturalism’. What they pretend it to mean is that we all can live together in harmony and peace, as long as we ‘bend’ a little in the way we live! In actuality, all the ‘bending’ has and is being done by native British people, as we are forced to watch as our cities are ‘Balkanized’ into Pakistani, Indian, Black, and most often Muslim ghettoes. They mostly do not mix, they do not speak our language, they do not respect our ways of life and of law. They wish to import their own foreign beliefs and practices into a country which was foolish enough to say, ‘We are not strong enough to defend our way of life, so come on down, Sucker Country is open for business!’
When Powell said in reference to an Englishman who was planning to emigrate because of Black immigration was, "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.
The other undying shame which I am of course forced to admit is this ruthless rejection of an honest man was achieved under a Conservative Government. Mind you, the leader of that administration was the same Edward Heath who manoeuvred Britain into the Common Market on the lying premise that it was a ‘trading bloc’ instead of a gargantuan Federalist monster, organised by bureaucrats of the member nations for bureaucrats of the member Nations! Margaret Thatcher, for some strange reason further ennobled the grip of Europe on our lives by signing up to the Single European Act, an document which she later was to bitterly regret as she often said she had been ‘misled’ as to it’s purpose! The Labour Party grabbed the handles of power with both hands once they finally got their hands on the British purse-strings, and extended both immigration numbers and classes, including the infamous ‘family members’ component, whereby if one gets in, everyone allied or related to him comes along as well for the free ride!
So as some of us, patriots all, who remember the ideal of Britain for Britons, who regret the vitriol which was poured so liberally over the head of one of Great Britain’s major minds and of what surely was a giant amongst the pigmies who opposed him; hopefully when a newer and harder breed of Conservatives finally retake the reins of power from the tired bunch in Westminster and Whitehall, we might see the return of sensible and steady controls on the mass immigration which has so badly soiled our once green and pleasant land!
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (48)
Oh! You! Wash your mouth out with soap. Such words are long since forbidden by the Gramsci-ZaNuLabour/LibDim/Con axis of evil!
On the other hand every word is the God's truth. Enoch was an intellect way beyond the political class Gollums now in existance.How on earth did it come to this, our country parcelled up, raped, sold to criminals and the EU by our "elected representatives".
Feel better now?
The principle we should have spotted at the time was that debate was shut down on an issue of importance. That has continued across a range of issues - EU membership/primacy of EU law, Islamic terrorism, promotion of homosexuality, immigration.
That has continued across a range of issues - EU membership/primacy of EU law, Islamic terrorism, promotion of homosexuality, immigration.
You feel that these subjects are not talked about enough?
"promotion of homosexuality"
A little unfair. Powell generally kept pretty quiet about his experiences batting for the other side.
JS,
Another urban myth! - that he voted to decriminalise the act does not mean he was necessarily a practioner, - maybe he was just more tolerant than many would like to think.
Perhaps you should get a job working for Brown, I hear he has a vacancy or two!
Powell is an extraordinary figure - one of those people who manage to piss off just about everyone with his views. His race views, to me, are utterly repugnant - but his views on a large range of other issues were remarkably liberal - capital punishment, divorce, abortion, homosexuality, education, etc.
For others who would champion his views on race, I dare say might find his views on those subjects unacceptably liberal.
Enoch Powell must be turning in his grave at what has happened to his country. He saw the future but nobody listened to his warning. More than 40 years on that prediction has become a reality.
Mike Cunningham's post is the best thing I have ever read on the subject.
Beautifully written, Mike.
Jaz, you talk of his race views - what do you think they were?
My understanding (which may be entirely false) was that he believed that if you had a country that had an established population and you settled another population there this would be likely to lead to problems. Which doesnt seem controversial to me.
What seems so odd to me is that what is so strange and wrong (i.e. mass immigration) is accepted by so many people as normal and uncontroversial and even desirable. Some will even attack others sometimes ever for not wholeheartedly agreeing and often viciously for disagreeing.
To my mind this is conditioning. It has been prolonged and very effective because it works on peoples best instincts rather than their worst.
When you read the speech it is, literally, xenophobic - an irrational fear of foreigners. The whole speech is built on the assumption that immigration is wrong and that having a mixed race is, of itself, bad.
Take, for example, the line:
At no point does he explain what is wrong with an immigrant-descended population - it is just taken.
Then there is the line
Is it? Or is it to ask, 'so what?'.
Powell was an exceptionally clever man - he was a brigadier at the age of 24 - and he knew exactly what he was saying, he knew exactly what the consequence of this speech would be. It was designed to be divisive - and so it proved. It is to the great credit of this country that he was shunned (eventually) for having made it.
"It is to the great credit of this country that he was shunned (eventually) for having made it." You have got to be joking are you simple minded or what. If we had listened to him we would not have been put through this cultural madness nor on the constant alert for fear of being blown up by home grown foreigners.
The interesting thing in all of this is that still today for some people Powell's assumptions remain in place - that of itself immigration and mixed-race is wrong.
There is no explanation as to why - it is just assumed that it is.
So Maggie, when you say "cultural madness" I am not at all clear what it is you mean by that. What cultural madness?
As for the constant fear of being blown up - well you only have to read Conrad's The Secret Agent to realise that the threat of bombs from internal agents has been something that we have lived with for decades.
'Cultural madness' is when trying to buy a place in south London or many areas in the North where you maybe the only indigenous person/people in the street. i.e. the culture is alien to you. Dress, religion, way of thinking now what part of that do you not understand. As for Conrad and his secret agents I know we have lived through the IRA shits who planted bombs and now we are constantly defending ourselves from aliens of another culture.
"His race views, to me, are utterly repugnant - but his views on a large range of other issues were remarkably liberal - capital punishment, divorce, abortion, homosexuality, education, etc.
For others who would champion his views on race, I dare say might find his views on those subjects unacceptably liberal."
The point about Powell is that he was a liberal but he refused to toe the party line on immigration as he believed it to be wrong. He was a conviction policitian.
"It was designed to be divisive - and so it proved."
Just because he predicted it, doesn't mean that he caused it! He was right to question it just as it should be questioned now.
Immigration should be controlled as control benefits both the indiginous population and the immigrants.
What's wrong with that?
Nothing at all, the key word being CONTROL.
you maybe the only indigenous person/people in the street. i.e. the culture is alien to you. Dress, religion, way of thinking
I still don't understand why that, of itself, is bad. Would you feel the same way about, say, punks or hippies, or nuns - all of whom may well dress differently? Or what about Scientologists, or Catholics who may have a different religion? Why is difference something to shun?
If an individual doesn't respect the law, then they should be held to account for that - but their race/colour/religion is irrelevant in that matter - it is their law breaking that matters in that case.
Maggie, I quite agree - without these mad policies our enemies would be halfway across the world and external, rather than internal. To have senselessly settled people herewho want to kill us is a terrible thing.
Jaz, firstly the one thing I agree with you on - that Enoch Powell was very gifted - he was also a professor of Greek at a young age I believe.
You write a couple of times of "mixed race" - do you think this is the intention or a necessary outcome. This is social engineering at a whole new level - a weird sort of eugenics (I believe the Fabians and the Guadian were always keen on eugenics) -and of course genocidal in the eradication of one race to create a new one.
You say the fear is irrational, I believe the fear is rational. Indeed even if it is misplaced it is hard to argue it is irrational.
I read somewhere he was the youngest professor in the Commonwealth - clearly an exceptional mind.
When I said "mixed race" I was quoting from Powell's speech. He seems to imply that of itself a mixed race is a bad thing. What I am questioning is why? What does it matter?
I wonder if this is where the division lies - between those who believe that racial purity is irrelevant, and those who believe it is of concern?
Or am I missing the point?
"At no point does he explain what is wrong with an immigrant-descended population - it is just taken."
I think this is indeed a (if not the) key issue.
Actually he does says various things on this:
"areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history"
"Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by different sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population. "
"The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming."
"the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country."
"The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine."
"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. But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one to boot. "
"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."
"To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society" (quoting Stonehouse)
"Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organize to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow-citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided."
"That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect"
"I wonder if this is where the division lies - between those who believe that racial purity is irrelevant, and those who believe it is of concern?
Or am I missing the point?"
My view is that the racial purity thing is a straw man used to try to delegitimize opponents.
I also think the question of whether immigrants are just as good as Britons is another similar straw man used to attack opponents by suggesting they are racist - even if immigrants are better people they still affect the society.
For me it is enough that people dont like it and that it is not necessary. Rather it is for those that support it to argue why it is necessary.
I think there are several fault lines.
Whether changing the people matters in any way.
Whether the effects of changing the people are for teh better or for the worse.
Whether, even if society is changed to another form that is equally good but different, this is accceptable.
My view is that changing the people in Britain does have effects, that these arent positive and that even if the changes were not for the worse they would not be acceptable.
"that he voted to decriminalise the act does not mean he was necessarily a practioner"
Did anyone suggest otherwise? Personally I don't care about his bedroom habits but the fact that he swung both ways infuriates his followers.
JS,
Quite the fabricator aren't you! - a perfect candidate for Brown's team.
You made the implication, now provide a link to prove that it is anything other than yet another of your sleazy assumptions.
Francis - your second post is very clear - thank you.
I still don't see anything in Powell's speech - and I read the others on that site - where he explains the deleterious effects of immigration above and beyond the fact that it means the make up of society changes. Clearly he views that as a bad thing in itself - and I think, if I am right - that you do to? If I have over-simplified your argument then I apologise.
My main worry with an argument like For me it is enough that people dont like it and that it is not necessary. is that it takes you into some quite difficult places - the persecution of a minority by a majority. If, for example, there was some major issue with left-handed people the danger with an argument like that is that as long as all of the right handed people don't like it, well fair game. And I am not sure that is where we want to be, is it?
I don't see why change is bad of itself. Bringing in different people with different experiences and traditions enriches our society, surely?
Which particular experiences and traditions are you thinking of, Jaz, when you mention that immigrants will 'enrich' our society? What was so bad about our society that it required 'enriching' by immigrants? Note that I assume that you mean immigrants from the 3rd world and not Australians, Canadians etc of British root.
You don't have to be ill to get better. Society doesn't have to be bad to need enriching - it just makes it better. And I mean anyone and everyone.
What about food, or dance, or art, or music, or sport, or literature - how about that for starters? All of those things have been enriched because of outside influences.
Do we really want a society that is closed off? That is how culture dies.
Jaz, if I draw water from a polluted well, I get ill. If the UK imports people from the 3rd world, it gets the 3rd world's disease, criminality and all those things which make the 3rd world the 3rd world - as we see with our own eyes. Conversely, if the UK had held its doors open to 6 million of the most entrepreneurial, intelligent people on the planet, then we really would have been enriched. Unfortunately, that didn't happen. We got Africans and muslims instead of Hong Kong Chinese.
all those things which make the 3rd world the 3rd world Not quite - the things that make the third world the third world are grinding poverty, corruption and exploitation, but that is an aside.
As for disease and criminality, yes we will get some diseases and some criminals. But we have plenty of our own so I am sure they will fit in with them.
But we also get all of the other things I mentioned as well - and we get rid of our little England mentality as well.
So you are not against immigration - just against Africans?
Why are the people of the 3rd world poor, corrupt and diseased? If they were exploited, then they would be in work.
We will get some diseases and some criminals, Jaz. Obviously you see that as a price worth paying for our enforced, involuntary 'enrichment', it's just that people like you want others to pay the price through Hepatitis B, C, HIV, TB or robbery, rape or murder. How thoughtful.
As for little England, yes, England is little and I just want to keep that little part of the world safe, clean and crime-free and as unlike the 3rd world as possible.
apparently Mike is from South Africa or Zimbabwe or somewhere.
He is probably still bitter about being kicked out by blacks.
HA! HA!
"England is little and I just want to keep that little part of the world safe, clean and crime-free and as unlike the 3rd world as possible."
Is that why you moved to Aberdeen?
"your second post is very clear"
Thanks (i am often not) Sorry about the long list of quotes - i didnt think i would find so many.
When I said that it was enough that some people dont like mass immigration what I had in mind is that no one loses from not having it so that there is a choice being a) very limited immigration - ie no change.
b) mass immigration - change which will not benefit and may do damage.
Given this view of the choice the fact that it upsets some would be sufficent reason not to have mass imigration - as there would be no down side to not having it. Some people may want immigration but they would not suffer from not having it.
The people who suffer from not having immigration are those who want to move in - but they arent British and it is not their interests which ought to be the principal consideration.
There are other groups who in reality benefit from immigration - marxist who want to weaken society however they can, and existing immigrants who want to feel the greater sense of belonging that a greater proportion of immigrants will bring. They will also tend to have an ideological commitment to believing immigration to be correct (as it is part of their history and identity)
Leaving aside these groups and considering the rest of society there is an argument that immigration is beneficial. I am not going to say that there are absolutely no benefits but I believe that they are massively outweighed by down sides.
Certainly it is not proven - in my mind it is necessary to show that is in fact beneficial in order to justify it - the default ought to be no change which can do no harm.
With the internet and cheap travel the benefits (if they exist) of encountering other cultures are widely available to those that want them so why not leave Britain as somewhere safe and boringly British for those who want to be among others like themseleves?
Powell is worried about communitarianism or the balkanization of society into different groups - he mentions the problems of racial division in the US and he was in India at some time where the effect of independece and partition was to unleash conflict between the different groups (millions died). People often say that the more you mix different peopl the better they get along as they know each other better. Experience tells us simething different - that putting two different peoples in the same area will lead to conflict as in the Balkans or Rwanda. Even if not genocide or ethnic cleasing tehn lesser tensions and hostilities. It may that sometimes mixing peoples works or will in the future but the record is grim - one lot tends to subordinate, kill or expell the other lot.
I tend to look at it like families and homes - we know the best way to have concord between different families is for each family to have their own space which is theirs - everyone is happier that way.
Powell is sceptical that all immigrants will assimilate - what is less clear (to me) is what his view would be if it could be guaranteed (in any case a theoretical situation). He does seem to show a humane concern to what people actually feel about what was going on. This seems rather rare (and this is what demonstrates real good character not the easy support for immigration at the expense of those people politicians are supposed to protect)
You are correct in thinking that I believe that changing the make up of society is itself bad (i have no idea what Powell's view is). I happen to believe that British society and culture needs to be improved and built upon not changed and that any change would be for the worse. However even if (theoretically) the change was to an equally good society and culture I would not like it becasue it would no longer be the one I was used to, wanted to keep and to which I belonged. So even if objectively it was equally good it wouldnt be so good for me. It is of course unfair to change people's society against their wishes and without their consent so it is wrong in that respect as well. Also cahnge through immigration increases numbers which decreases standard of living and destroys yet more precious countryside.
The potential consequences of mass immigration are worrying. Already we have had riots, bombings, voting along ethnic lines, dimunition of the culture and cohesion of society. At the moment the centre holds. However the future holds out the fear of ever greater Balkanization (with ever lowering standard of living) and increasing tension - what happens when the centre no longer holds? There is a fundamental threat to teh existance of the state as well as the nation.
However, even in the best case scenario, there is great social change, and the destrcution of one people to form a new one.
It makes me think - why not just not do it (though its too late now anyway)
That, I think, was too long.
That, I think, was too long. - lol ...
I think - boringly and inevitably - the solution (if there is one) lies in some middle way. I am not so pessimistic about the weakness of British society as some (not you) to think that it will be lost. I think our society is pretty robust and will stand change. After all this country has absorbed immigration ever since the Romans. I think we will manage.
I also happen to think that change is good. A society that doesn't change, is a society in stagnation, and eventually it will die.
Unfettered immigration is not going to work - there is only a limited amount of resources here in the UK, so we have to decide how to manage immigration. And that is where everything gets terribly dull.
But I do think that immigration brings huge cultural benefits to the country and broadens horizons. I think that we are a richer nation for having people from a wide range of cultures and experiences here.
But I think we have a duty, simply by virtue of our common humanity, to accept people in need, so people who are genuinely fleeing persecution for example should be given the opportunity to stay here.
jaz,
I read through and the only thing I didnt disagree with was "Unfettered immigration is not going to work - there is only a limited amount of resources here in the UK" - shall try to keep it a bit shorter this time though.
On the question of change, the issue is what change. Society always changes (and people aretn always keen on that even if its for the better) but there are different types of change. Its not as if Britain before mass immgration was Egypt under the phaoroahs - we were the most successful and dynamic civilization the world had ever known. Of course a society should adapt to new tehnology and so but it does not need to destroy itself.
I am unonvinced by the cultural enrichment argument - the benefits are available in other ways and there are plenty of downsides as well. But most of all what about what is lost? If one family has a house and then aother family moves in the first family no longer has its own house.
If you build a post British scoiety on the ruins of Britain, you have to destroy Britain, at least in part, to do so and teh result however good will be less British.
Finally, what of teh unhappiness and the fear, and the lack of mercy from the politicians? It can never be justified.
To quote Powell's reasons for raising the topic "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 this 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."
If you build a post British scoiety on the ruins of Britain, you have to destroy Britain, at least in part, to do so and teh result however good will be less British.
Hmmm - possibly, but I am rather more optimistic and confident in the abilities of this country. I don't think it is a post-British society - it is just a changed British society, in the way that British society has constantly changed and evolved. Is that less British, or just different British? I don't think we need be so gloomy about our prospects.
As for Powell's call to history, hmmm.
I am always reminded of that great line from Blackadder III when he sacks Baldrick. "But my liege," protests Baldrick, "my family has been with you for hundreds of years". "So has syphilis," replied Blackadder.
Jaz,
'But I do think that immigration brings huge cultural benefits'
Sorry, but I do not believe this. In my opinion the entire cultural contribution of all the people/peoples from the third world who have settled in Britain since the Second World War is not worth one tenth of what the Jewish refugees who fled from Germany brought with them.
The downside of this continual immigration is going to be Europe wide social conflict, soon.
I agree that British society has always changed but I think mass immigration is different. I think it is bigger than the reformation and unparralled since the adventus Saxonum (the last significant immigration to Britain - and where is Celto-Roman society in England now?).
I agree with you last point (if I understand it) that how you feel about change depends on how you felt about what went before. No on is claiming that Britain has ever been perfect (very far from it) and everyone is entitled to their own view. If it does not seem so precious then the risk of losing it does not seem so frightening.
I think there are lots of people especially among the media and politicians who dont mind especially. They might feel a little sad but lack the attachment to really care. For them it wasnt a bad society but its not the only scoiety and they will happily adapt to the society that replaces it.
These things are a matter of opinion - but I wonder why you say that? Do you not think that people from other cultures bring benefits to the country? On a trivial level Chicken Tikka Masala is the national dish practically.
Just on the level of trivia curries have been in Britain since the 18thc - a legacy of empire (now thats a good means of cultural enrichment!). Actually my knowledge of this is maily based on a scene in Vanity Fair but I think its true.
Sorry - cocked up the italics thing - that was a response to Richard's "In my opinion the entire cultural contribution of all the people/peoples from the third world who have settled in Britain since the Second World War is not worth one tenth of what the Jewish refugees who fled from Germany brought with them."
Francis - I think your middle par is pretty close to my position. I think that this is a great country - not without its faults (which country isn't?) and there is a massive amount about which we can rightly be proud. But I don't fear change - quite the opposite, I embrace it.
(just to test)
is this how you do italics?</i)
I think its easy not to know what you ahve until its gone.
I cant see that there has ever been such a civilisation and fear the folly of deestroying it without clear ideas of what is to replace it. I think there may be interesting times ahead. In any case it doesnt seem there will be the security and stability that to my mind seem to have been so tragically undervalued. Future generations will never be able to take fro granted the things that we, and our ancestors for countless generations, have taken for granted.
I guess I feel diametrically the opposite.
hmmm seems thats how you start italics but not how you end them - how about this test
I don't think that EP was xenaphobic. He didn't approve of native cultures being swamped by others and that incudes Western cultrues doing it to others.
I think he was probably one of the most misunderstood and mis quoted politicians thre has ever been.
I often remember seeing headlines about what he was supposed to have said and dosapproving, only to find that out when getting his won words that he didn't say it at all. That some commentator, eithre maliciously or becuse of intellectual deficit got him wrong
(a bit like when Tebbit ws reported as tekking the unemplyed to get on their bikes, when he didn't)
I think that EP's amin fault was that he was incapable of dumbing down to the average level to see how basically stupid people would interpret what he said.
One of my favourite moments was when Ludovic Kennedy was interviewing him and brought up his support for majority rule in Nothern Ireland. LK asked him if he supported that principle in SA, clearly expecting him to say no. EP just said "yes". LK was so thrown! EP just looked at him, not elaborating at all and waiting for the next question. He didn't seem to realise that he wasn't supposed to have that view.
I suspect that he had Aspergers and have read a few things that have suggested that. He once said that he regretted not having studies more Mathmatics, which is a very Aspy subject.
Francis,
To start italics - type left arrow (<) then a lowercase (i) then a right arrow (>).
To end italics - type a left arrow (<) then a forward slash (/), then a right arrow (>).
Obviously do not type the brackets, they are there to stop the symbols working while typing these instructions.
If you wish to check that what you have typed is what you want post, then click the 'Preview Post button under the typing box.
You can also use a lowercase (b) rather than the (i) within the same format to make text bold
They can even be combined to make a word or phrase both bold and italic - but I'll leave you to work that one out - it is very easy to do.
instructions for Francis
I would recommend reading a tutorial on basic HTML, - it really is amazing what can be done. - Good Luck!...
Francis - disregard that post - I thought I had done the correction but hadn't - apologies!
However the following post is correct:
-------
Francis,
To start italics - type left arrow (<) then a lowercase (i) then a right arrow (>).
* To end italics - type a left arrow (<) then a forward slash (/), then a lowercase (i), then a right arrow (>).
Obviously do not type the brackets, they are there to stop the symbols working while typing these instructions.
If you wish to check that what you have typed is what you want to post, then click the 'Preview Post button under the typing box.
You can also use a lowercase (b) rather than the (i) within the same format to make text bold
They can even be combined to make a word or phrase both bold and italic - but I'll leave you to work that one out - it is very easy to do.
instructions for Francis
I would recommend reading a tutorial on basic HTML, - it really is amazing what can be done. - Good Luck!...
* the original paragraph was wrong - this is the correct version....I wont even make the excuse of the late hour...:-)
Ernest, thanks very much for taking the time to explain. If I had had any sense of course I would have experimented using the preview.
Actually more than a decade ago I used to know quite a bit of html but in the intervening time I seem to have forgotten it pretty much entirely.
Have experimented in preview and seem to have at least got the hang of bold and italic now.
Francis,
Glad to be of help. Re computer techniques, haven't we all been there? Unless we use once learned techniques regularly, they are easily forgotten...