Posted By: pugwash
Re: UK - breakdown of society - 03/07/08 04:36 PM
What a sad state of affairs. How come no one on the left is clamoring for “hate crime” status, when an attack is motivated solely on the victim belonging to an specific group or sub sect?
When I travel to Belize, it’s usually through DFW with a 2-3 hour stopover, and more often than not I am happy to buy breakfast or lunch for some of the uniformed service men and women I see passing through the airport on their way to deployment.
I further note than when sitting and eating, there are numerous fellow travelers who will stop and thank these young men and women for their service, even though the national media will never report this sort of thing .
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: UK - breakdown of society - 03/07/08 04:56 PM
Pugwash - there are two fundamental differences with the USA. Firstly, you still have something approaching democratic rule, whereas that has all but gone in the UK. Its demise has been very rapid over the last few years. In most things we are now ruled by non-accountable bureaucrats in Brussels, and the British parliament now doesn't even see most of the new laws (thousands of them each year) imposed on us.
The other difference, which may stem from the first, is that in general US citizens have pride in their soldiers/sailors/airmen. That wasn't always the case of course - look at how Vietnam veterans were treated as second-class citizens, especially those so injured they couldn't work. Morale in Britain is now generally pretty low, as is inevitable when people sense they are gathered up in a huge machine that they have no power over, and they can't even see out of the windows to see where they're going. Add to that the near universal feeling that the war in Iraq (in particular) was entered into for very shady political reasons that had nothing to do with what was announced to the public, and with no political clout all these people can do is express their frustration to those few people who are recognizably part of the system - the people wearing uniforms. Just as you or I might complain bitterly to a shop assistant about some defective goods, knowing full well that she is only the front person and those responsible are hidden round the back somewhere. You hit out at the only available target.
No, the malaise in Britain and the way these servicemen is being treated goes way deeper than it might appear. And it's correspondingly far more serious.
Posted By: CROC
Re: UK - breakdown of society - 03/11/08 10:53 AM
ABSOLUTELY SPOT ON
20Th April 1968 Birmingham UK River of Blood Speech by Enoch Powell
The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature. One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.
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.
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.
In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General's Office. There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.
As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase. Already by 1985 the native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact which creates the extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is hardest for politicians to take, action where the difficulties lie in the present but the evils to be prevented or minimised lie several parliaments ahead.
The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by such a prospect is to ask: "How can its dimensions he reduced?" Granted it be not wholly preventable, can it be limited, bearing in mind that numbers are of the essence: the significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent. The answers to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational: by stopping, or virtually stopping, further inflow, and by promoting the maximum outflow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the Conservative Party.
It almost passes belief that at this moment 20 or 30 additional immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every week - and that means 15 or 20 additional families a decade or two hence. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fianc้s whom they have never seen.
Let no one suppose that the flow of dependants will automatically tail off. On the contrary, even at the present admission rate of only 5,000 a year by voucher, there is sufficient for a further 25,000 dependants per annum ad infinitum, without taking into account the huge reservoir of existing relations in this country - and I am making no allowance at all for fraudulent entry. In these circumstances nothing will suffice but that the total inflow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative measures be taken without delay.
I stress the words "for settlement." This has nothing to do with the entry of Commonwealth citizens, any more than of aliens, into this country, for the purposes of study or of improving their qualifications, like (for instance) the Commonwealth doctors who, to the advantage of their own countries, have enabled our hospital service to be expanded faster than would otherwise have been possible. There are not, and never have been, immigrants.
I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the population would still leave the basic character of the national danger unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten years or so.
Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the Conservative Party's policy: the encouragement of re-emigration. Nobody can make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous assistance, would choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent. Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted. I can only say that, even at present, immigrants in my own constituency from time to time come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such a policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity of the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter the prospects.
The third element of the Conservative Party's policy is that all who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority. As Mr Heath has put it we will have no "first-class citizens" and "second-class citizens." This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendent should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.
There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it "against discrimination", whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right up over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong. 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. This is why to enact legislation of the kind before parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match on to gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is that they know not what they do.
Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth immigrant in Britain and the American Negro. The Negro population of the United States, which was already in existence before the United States became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they have only gradually and still incompletely come. The Commonwealth immigrant came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knew no discrimination between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free treatment under the National Health Service. Whatever drawbacks attended the immigrants arose not from the law or from public policy or from administration, but from those personal circumstances and accidents which cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to be different from another's.
But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, 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.
They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. They now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by act of parliament; a law which cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their grievances is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent-provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.
In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people, writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had expressed, and that they would risk penalties or reprisals if they were known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine. I am going to allow just one of those hundreds of people to speak for me:
'Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.
'The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7am by two Negroes who wanted to use her 'phone to contact their employer. When she refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her door. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying rates, she has less than ฃ2 per week. She went to apply for a rate reduction and was seen by a young girl, who on hearing she had a seven-roomed house, suggested she should let part of it. When she said the only people she could get were Negroes, the girl said, "Racial prejudice won't get you anywhere in this country." So she went home.
'The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house - at a price which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. "Racialist," they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.'
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.
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. The cloud no bigger than a man's hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly. The words I am about to use, verbatim as they appeared in the local press on 17 February, are not mine, but those of a Labour Member of Parliament who is a minister in the present government:
'The Sikh communities' campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.'
All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive that, and the courage to say it.
For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise 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. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood."
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. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century.
Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
TALK ABOUT A GUY THAT COULD SEE THE FUTURE AND HE WAS SPOT ON
Posted By: collyk
Re: UK - breakdown of society - 03/11/08 01:59 PM
Oooh if you really want to get into admiring Enoch Powell (I'm sure that my black British friends fighting in Iraq would be delighted to hear that people think his Rivers of Blood Speech was a good thing), lets look at some of the other things he said.
"...the thought struck me for the first time today that our duty to our country may not terminate with the peace – apart, I mean, from the duty of begetting children to bear arms for the King in the next generation. To be more explicit, I see growing on the horizon the greater peril than Germany or Japan ever were; and if the present hostilities do not actually merge into a war with our terrible enemy, America, it will remain for those of us who have the necessary knowledge and insight to do what we can where we can to help Britain be victorious again in her next crisis. "
"...We simply do not need to go chasing up and down after the vagaries of the next ignoramus to become President of the United States. "
" I just don't like America or Americans. It is like saying you like sugar in your tea."
I've just come back from London. Most of the foreigners there right now are white and from Eastern Europe. But I suppose white immigrants aren't a threat eh?
Posted By: pugwash
Re: UK - breakdown of society - 03/11/08 07:08 PM
I've just come back from London. Most of the foreigners there right now are white and from Eastern Europe. But I suppose white immigrants aren't a threat eh?
An unbiased or non agenda based reading of the actual content of the speech posted above could not fail to understand that the point being made was that any
unregulated immigration into any
country will irrevocably change the lifestyle of the citizens of the country receiving the immigrants.
It isn’t about skin color, it’s about culture: would a dark skinned Texan, from Dallas or Brownsville feel more comfortable and at home in predominantly white Wyoming, or in the Brighton Beach area of New York (almost entirely Russian descendants) or perhaps in the Muslim dominated areas of Michigan? Whenever there is no integration of immigrants into the community they adopt, life for the prior resident’s changes beyond all previous recognition, yet any reasonable complaints are decried as xenophobic!
The beautiful country of Belize has a wonderfully varied ethnic mixture, and yet has strong regulations in place to stop the influx of illegal Guatemalan, Honduran and other Central American immigrants who speak a different language and would potentially take jobs away from Belizean Citizens. I don’t think that is unreasonable to wish to preserve one’s own culture rather than to submit to the cultural leanings of an uninvited guest?
In my travels, I have been lucky enough to meet and befriend many wonderful people from many creeds, cultures and ethnic groups, but unfortunately have also met many stupid and ignorant people who throw out the idea of “racism” with little or no thought to the harm caused by continued ignorance.
I hope that I will “one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
Posted By: Bobber
Re: UK - breakdown of society - 03/11/08 07:29 PM
Well put, Pug. The original intent was regarding wholesale immigration, not to denigrate other races/creeds/cultures/whatever. If they choose to come to us (or the UK, or anywhere)it is for a reason. It might be apparent that previous immigrants to the US did go through a painful assimilation, but it is what made the US what it is. Pandering to the immigrants, giving them special privileges in the name of "diversity" (beyond a reasonable sensitivity period) is asinine. In spite of opinions to the contrary, the US does have a culture. It is a mixture of many cultures, each slightly modified to allow us minimum social friction. When any culture is given special considerations, we are in trouble. I see children in TX being REQUIRED to take Spanish. WTF? And yet it seems that non-English speakers cannot be required (or even suggested) to take English. We must cater to immigrants who do not speak English. Here in MN, medical facilities are required to provide translators (but cannot pass the cost on to the patient or provider). We're not talking just Spanish here, we are talking a number of African and Asian dialects. No wonder all those other countries hate us (or do they)?
Posted By: pugwash
Re: UK - breakdown of society - 03/11/08 08:58 PM
The visit by an individual into a new and different culture, and the comfort levels of that individual, is not the same as the imposition of a new culture upon residents of an established area. It was an example that someone (?) is stubbornly refusing to envisage.
When I inserted myself into Dallas culture, (yes there is!), it was a wonderful experience.
I found that I had somehow managed to transform my self overnight from an arrogant prick into somewhat of a celebrity guest at most gatherings (this was 1981, when being English in Texas was not as common as it is now).
Although there was a small language barrier, I found it a wonderful opportunity. Comments that would have got me slapped in London were enthusiastically received on Greenville Avenue, and remarks such as “What magnificent mammaries, I’d love to fondle them all night” were typically greeted with “Oh, you’re English, I just love the way you talk”
Of course, I didn’t hang out with the real smart women, just those from the Public Defenders Office…..
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: UK - breakdown of society - 03/12/08 05:25 AM
I see that Pugwash introduced Enoch. I wouldn't have done as he is still too controversial, but as he's been brought up I'll have my 2p worth.
I think Enoch chose his words poorly and brought on himself all the approbation he suffered for the rest of his life. He was a brilliant academic (as was Harold Wilson, though that's another matter) and was quite out of place in politics. As P1 pointed out, he was very successful in most things he did.
Except the one thing he is remembered for. He should never have entered politics. I think he never intended a simple classification based on colour, but he made the mistake of using the language of the day. Let's not forget what was going on in the USA when he was active. I believe he was warning against immigration so massive that the people concerned could not be assimilated and would necessarily form ghettos. Of course, there were and still are immigrants who have no intention of blending into the local population, and it was those people he thought should be sent back. I think he was right - it is these groups who are responsible for the "immigrant problem" as it is perceived. We now have the obvious case of some Muslims who refuse to integrate and want special schools/workplaces etc. With that attitude they will NEVER integrate. But of course they don't want to - their intention is to change British society to THEIR model We didn't have that problem in Enoch's time - there was a substantial Muslim population in the UK even then, but there was no Muslim "problem" as they were effectively integrated into the wider society. Sadly there now is a major problem.
Enoch was a visionary and I'm sure he had this sort of issue in mind, not the simple one of colour. What he was really concerned about was the breakdown of society, which has little to do with racial origins and everything to do with cliques and ghettos.
I know it's not "PC" to speak of Muslims as a group, and in fact in the UK what I've said so far would probably constitute a criminal offence, but I am sure it is the biggest social problem we have. It used to be said that there was a "Jewish problem", but in reality there never was, not in the UK at any rate. The number of strict Jews who refused to integrate was and still is tiny, so small a group as not to be an issue. Jews, Muslims, immigrants who do integrate and take part in the wider society they have been admitted to are not a problem - they become a part of society and greatly enrich it by their presence.
There is no such thing as a pure Englishman, any more than Hitler's Arians ever existed. Everyone is descended from immigrants whatever country they live in. You don't need to study European history for long to become quite confused as to what "nationality" means.
And finally, all colour means is that a person's ancestors came from certain parts of the world, where they were exposed to more or less direct sunlight. It is now believed that early humans were all "black" because they emerged in a hot climate. "Whites" emerged through genetic selection in those northern climes where there was no need for black pigment in the skin. It's the whites who are the oddballs, not the blacks.
Posted By: Inplub
Re: UK - breakdown of society - 03/13/08 12:23 AM
2 tough questions - are you all ready?
If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had syphilis, would you recommend that she have an abortion?
Read the next question before looking at the response for this one.
It is time to elect a new world leader, and only your vote counts. Here are the facts about the three candidates.
Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologists. He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.
He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.
He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and never cheated on his wife.
Which of these candidates would be our choice?
I'll post the answer on the next line from me while you think about it