Jim Ratcliffe - claims the UK is being “colonised”

[The perfect fumble]

The essential thing is that, whatever Powell really thought, his stated fears were misplaced. Integration is working fine and the only people talking about "rivers of blood" are people who don't like foreigners. In the present case, people who talk about being "colonised" which is simply daft, politically and linguistically.

I get the impression that what Powell was banging on about was race, and in my humble opinion he was completely wrong. Raw racism, the belief in the superiority of one race over another, the incompatibility of different races to live together, socialise, marry and so on, that somehow that was undesirable, and would lead to societal collapse is just pure racist bullshit.

But whatever is happening now is not that, racists might be harnessing the zeitgeist, but they're not the drivers. I keep banging on about this but back in the day when I was heavily involved in the Anti-Nazi League, the racists were tiny in number, screaming mostly into a void, there was a heavy East End influence to them but they had little broad appeal and beyond the odd councillor no electoral clout.

This is different and it's in the difference that this will be won or lost. Claiming there's no difference, references to Powell, calling everyone who disagrees with you racist is a dead end, more important still and this is the kicker, it's not working.

 

[The perfect fumble]

So you spent all of yesterday outraged that I compared your rhetoric and language to Powell because it was a ridiculous comparison, and today you've woken up and say you've actually got no idea what he thought and have never read anything he said. You're still 100% sure it's not relevant though, despite no knowing anything about it.

Brilliant.

I don't know the content of Hitler's speeches, but I don't need to know to know I'm against whatever was in them.

I don't judge people on the basis of race and while not knowing anything about the contents of Powell's speech beyond the oft quoted "rivers of blood" I believe Powell did, if I'm wrong then I'm sure you'll correct me.

 

[SWP's back]

I'm not sure easy is the right word, beyond the oft quoted "rivers of blood" I've no idea what the content of that speech was, and I suspect neither do you, but I'm sure Google will be your friend once again, either ways it has no more relevance to what's happening now than the Limehouse Declaration, or the League of Empire Loyalists, you can look them up as well.

So when someone accuses you of more or less word echoing Powell and you immediately deny that and accuse them of ad hominem, you don’t actually know if they were in fact quite correct? Got it.

Maybe google should be your friend before you rebut in future?

 

[domalino]

I get the impression that what Powell was banging on about was race, and in my humble opinion he was completely wrong. Raw racism, the belief in the superiority of one race over another, the incompatibility of different races to live together, socialise, marry and so on, that somehow that was undesirable, and would lead to societal collapse is just pure racist bullshit.

But whatever is happening now is not that, racists might be harnessing the zeitgeist, but they're not the drivers. I keep banging on about this but back in the day when I was heavily involved in the Anti-Nazi League, the racists were tiny in number, screaming mostly into a void, there was a heavy East End influence to them but they had little broad appeal and beyond the odd councillor no electoral clout.

This is different and it's in the difference that this will be won or lost. Claiming there's no difference, references to Powell, calling everyone who disagrees with you racist is a dead end, more important still and this is the kicker, it's not working.

This is different and it's in the difference that this will be won or lost. Claiming there's no difference, references to Powell, calling everyone who disagrees with you racist is a dead end, more important still and this is the kicker, it's not working.

I don't know the content of Hitler's speeches, but I don't need to know to know I'm against whatever was in them.

I don't judge people on the basis of race and while not knowing anything about the contents of Powell's speech beyond the oft quoted "rivers of blood" I believe Powell did, if I'm wrong then I'm sure you'll correct me.

This isn't different.

I asked you to finally actually say why this was different 2 days ago, and everything you came out with was Powellist. White flight - tick; lack of integration leading to segregated communities - tick; the government ignoring the average man's thinking - tick; the idea that plurality is "a lie", the idea we're at a tipping point - tick.

The only difference between your reasoning and Powell's is you've replaced his term "multi-ethnic" with "multi-culturalism".


So it inherently can't be different when everything you've said is to blame was also said by crackpots 60 years ago, which is why your ignorance to what past right wing people said is so ridiculous. You're pretending you know about past waves of anti-immigrant sentiment when telling everyone this one is *definitely* different, and then in the next comment boasting that you don't know what they actually said.

More broadly, there's massive paralells between Powell and Reform et al

- Framing immigration as a threat to British culture and national identity.
- Claiming this period of high immigration is a national turning point beyond which we'll reach a point of no return.
- Claiming to speak for a silent majority.
- Populist framing that they're challenging established power systems and positioning the debate as political elite + immigrants vs the working man.
- Linking immigration to crime and national security and warning of mass conflict if they're ignored.
- Claiming that "ordinary working people" were being screwed over by immigration economically and that we're all subsidising immigrants to our own detriment.

That's the rhetorical similarities, we've already spoken about the fact that this was spurred by the economic similarities - preceded by a decade of slow growth, weak £, anxiety about Britian's reduced status in the world. A massive housing shortage, lower quality of public services. An economic climate where people are struggling, and far right populists can arrive and tell them that one, highly visible minority group like immigrants are to blame for everything.


It's honestly ridiculous that you've spent the last few months railing against the idea that there's any comparison between today's far right narratives and those of the 1960's and early 70's only to then admit you're ignorant to the arguments that were being made back then but still think you're right that there's no comparison.

 

[The perfect fumble]

So when someone accuses you of more or less word echoing Powell and you immediately deny that and accuse them of ad hominem, you don’t actually know if they were in fact quite correct? Got it.

Maybe google should be your friend before you rebut in future?

You really are something.

I don't give a flying fuck about race, Powell made a speech about race, I don't need to know what's in it to know I'm not for it, coz, and I repeat, the speech was about race, and I don't give a flying fuck about race.

Whatever conclusions Powell came to, whatever his predictions were they are premised on race, but unlike you it would seem, I don't see what's happening through the prism of race, in fact I struggle to think of anything that I see through the prism of race.

 

[The perfect fumble]

This isn't different.

I asked you to finally actually say why this was different 2 days ago, and everything you came out with was Powellist. White flight - tick; lack of integration leading to segregated communities - tick; the government ignoring the average man's thinking - tick; the idea that plurality is "a lie", the idea we're at a tipping point - tick.

The only difference between your reasoning and Powell's is you've replaced his term "multi-ethnic" with "multi-culturalism".


So it inherently can't be different when everything you've said is to blame was also said by crackpots 60 years ago, which is why your ignorance to what past right wing people said is so ridiculous. You're pretending you know about past waves of anti-immigrant sentiment when telling everyone this one is *definitely* different, and then in the next comment boasting that you don't know what they actually said.

More broadly, there's massive paralells between Powell and Reform et al

- Framing immingrations as a threat to British culture and national identity.
- Claiming this period of high immigration is a national turning point beyond which we'll reach a point of no return.
- Claiming to speak for a silent majority
- Populist framing that they're challenging established power systems and positioning the debate as political elite + immigrants vs the working man,
- Linking immigration to crime and national security and warning of mass conflict if they're ignored.
- Claiming that "ordinary working people" were being screwed over by immigragtion economically and that we're all subsidising immigrants to our own detriment.

That's the rhetorical similarities, we've already spoken about the fact that this was spurred by the economic similarities - preceded by a decade of slow growth, weak £, anxiety about Britian's reduced status in the world. A massive housing shortage, lower quality of public services.


It's honestly ridiculous that you've spent the last few months railing against the idea that there's any comparison between today's far right narratives and those of the 1960's and early 70's only to then admit you're ignorant to the arguments that were being made back then but still think you're right that there's no comparison.

The difference between multi-ethnic and multi-culturalism is fundamental to what's happening right now, the fact you can't see it says more about you than it does about me.

Back in the day the fight was about race, it was fringe, that's not whats going on now and I repeat, that's why you keep losing and it's the reason I and many others have run for the hills to escape you're cultish ignorance.

 

[domalino]

You really are something.

I don't give a flying fuck about race, Powell made a speech about race, I don't need to know what's in it to know I'm not for it, coz, and I repeat, the speech was about race, and I don't give a flying fuck about race.

Whatever conclusions Powell came to, whatever his predictions were they are premised on race, but unlike you it would seem, I don't see what's happening through the prism of race, in fact I struggle to think of anything that I see through the prism of race.

Powell made a speech (lots of them) about IMMIGRATION.

He viewed it through the prism of race because that was the flashpoint of the day, the immigration was coming from majority non-white countries in the commonwealth. Today's far right have lost the battle over race, it's no longer acceptable to promote racial bigotry so they are framing the exact same arguments through the lens of Islam, which coincidentally, correlates pretty closely to race.

Genuinely take @SWP's back's advice and go spend an hour reading about it. This is obviously a topic that matters to you as you talk about it most days on here and you often mention being worried about the future and the rise of the far right. Go and read about the similarities between today's climate and the late 60's and you'll see we already have the roadmap to fight this. Reform are just recycling a 50 year old playbook and they will be stopped the same way.

 

[hcblue95]

So when someone accuses you of more or less word echoing Powell and you immediately deny that and accuse them of ad hominem, you don’t actually know if they were in fact quite correct? Got it.

Maybe google should be your friend before you rebut in future?

YouTube is The perfect fumble's friend. He's not found his way to Google yet.

 

[SWP's back]

You really are something.

Thank you.

I don't give a flying fuck about race, Powell made a speech about race, I don't need to know what's in it to know I'm not for it, coz, and I repeat, the speech was about race, and I don't give a flying fuck about race.

Race/nationality/ethnicity/culture - all the same thing. You don’t like people that are different to you coming into the UK. If we’d have been in the EU when most of Eastern Europe joined and every server and plumber was now Latvian or Polish then Powell have been framing it the same way you are.

And let’s face it, you wouldn’t have mentioned “white flight” if race had nothing to do with it.

 

[hilts]

Thank you.



Race/nationality/ethnicity/culture - all the same thing. You don’t like people that are different to you coming into the UK. If we’d have been in the EU when most of Eastern Europe joined and every server and plumber was now Latvian or Polish then Powell have been framing it the same way you are.

And let’s face it, you wouldn’t have mentioned “white flight” if race had nothing to do with it.

Race/nationality/ethnicity/culture are absolutely not the same thing.

 

[SWP's back]

Race/nationality/ethnicity/culture are absolutely not the same thing.

If you’re unhappy with people of a different (insert any of the four) then for me they absolutely fucking are.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Powell made a speech (lots of them) about IMMIGRATION.

He viewed it through the prism of race because that was the flashpoint of the day, the immigration was coming from majority non-white countries in the commonwealth. Today's far right have lost the battle over race, it's no longer acceptable to promote racial bigotry so they are framing the exact same arguments through the lens of Islam, which coincidentally, correlates pretty closely to race.

Genuinely take @SWP's back's advice and go spend an hour reading about it. This is obviously a topic that matters to you as you talk about it most days on here and you often mention being worried about the future and the rise of the far right. Go and read about the similarities between today's climate and the late 60's and you'll see we already have the roadmap to fight this. Reform are just recycling a 50 year old playbook and they will be stopped the same way.

What you're saying is that the racists have changed their tactics in order to promote their racist agenda and you are absolutely correct, but they've changed their tactics in response to changed circumstances. It's the circumstances that have changed that should be the topic of conversation, not racist chancers like Robinson or casual racists like Ratcliffe.

Powell had no concept of critical race theory or DEI, multiculturalism wasn't a thing, this was a man who had in his youth wanted to be Viceroy of India! His speech is nearly 60 years old! Whatever was in it might be prescient it might not, but it's immaterial, it doesn't speak to what's happening now and the big difference now is the ultra right realise that the ground has changed and are capitalising on it and the left, as they do time and time again, do not, they are happier fighting the last war, looking for parallels with the late 60's, de-industrialisation, the Pound in your pocket, back then the bad guys were the Gnomes of Zurich! It's a dead end. What you're doing is making comparisons because your politics tells you that you must, because if there aren't parallels then your analysis is flawed and that seems to be something you are incapable of countenancing. It's essential for the blinkered dead end of left wing politics to continue to fixate on a speech made by a long dead politician in another age, to ignore all evidence counter to the accepted dogma and plough on accusing anyone who disagrees as a racist.

But you're right, enough already, we're talking past each other and it's going nowhere and life's too short.

 

[hilts]

If you’re unhappy with people of a different (insert any of the four) then for me they absolutely fucking are.

If you're unhappy with someone based on the colour of their skin you are a ****, there is no exception to this. You can be unhappy with a culture that treats women poorly or a culture of wearing lederhosen. One of those seems fair enough the other more of a why are you arsed you dont have to wear them scenario. Neither would make you a ****.

 

[The perfect fumble]

If you’re unhappy with people of a different (insert any of the four) then for me they absolutely fucking are.

I lived in Nigeria and was unhappy with the cultural norms of misogyny there and the acceptance of female genital mutilation, I'm unhappy about the homophobia in Catholicism, I travelled to Saudi Arabia a lot and was unhappy about Sharia, I used to sell agricultural equipment in the southern states of the USA and was unhappy about the culture of casual racism.

So they are absolutely fucking not.

I accept diversity but fuck me I refuse to embrace it as an unalloyed good and if you gave a little more thought to your posts you'd agree.

 

[SWP's back]

If you're unhappy with someone based on the colour of their skin you are a ****, there is no exception to this. You can be unhappy with a culture that treats women poorly or a culture of wearing lederhosen. One of those seems fair enough the other more of a why are you arsed you dont have to wear them scenario. Neither would make you a ****.

Racism isn’t defined as solely the colour of someone’s skin mate.

 

[SWP's back]

I lived in Nigeria and was unhappy with the cultural norms of misogyny there and the acceptance of female genital mutilation, I'm unhappy about the homophobia in Catholicism, I travelled to Saudi Arabia a lot and was unhappy about Sharia, I used to sell agricultural equipment in the southern states of the USA and was unhappy about the culture of casual racism.

So they are absolutely fucking not.

I accept diversity but fuck me I refuse embrace it as an unalloyed good and if you gave a little more thought to your posts you'd agree.

You can have whatever feelings you like towards that but if you believe someone, that you don’t know, of a particular culture, ethnicity or nationality living in the UK, based on their assumed culture, ethnicity or nationality then it’s no difference to Powell talking about race.

Side note but of all religions, the priests in the Catholic Church are on record as far too often being the polar opposite of homophobic.

 

[hilts]

Racism isn’t defined as solely the colour of someone’s skin mate.

Maybe not but when you use the term racist you know what it implies to the vast majority, and I mean the vast majority. The thread has enough pedantry with the Enoch stuff I cant be arsed going down that route.
There will be crossovers but the examples I gave stand up to scrutiny on the differences.
Then there is the more obvious - if all four were exactly the same there wouldn’t be much need for four separate words to describe it :-)

 

[SWP's back]

Maybe not but when you use the term racist you know what it implies to the vast majority, and I mean the vast majority. The thread has enough pedantry with the Enoch stuff I cant be arsed going down that route.
There will be crossovers but the examples I gave stand up to scrutiny on the differences.
Then there is the more obvious - if all four were exactly the same there wouldn’t be much need for four separate words to describe it :-)

Well in definitions of racism they get lumped in together and there’s fuck all pedantry in what I’m saying:

(1) Explicit or implicit discrimination, inequality, harm, violence, and abuse of (2) minoritized groups by members of a (3) dominant group on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin (e.g. (4) Sinophobia), or religion (e.g. (5) Islamophobia, (6) anti-Semitism). Includes overt incidents as well as subtle interactions or behaviours which accumulate to cause harm. Ascertaining an individual’s racist intention is not fundamental to the acknowledgement of racism.

 

[hilts]

Well in definitions of racism they get lumped in together and there’s fuck all pedantry in what I’m saying:

(1) Explicit or implicit discrimination, inequality, harm, violence, and abuse of (2) minoritized groups by members of a (3) dominant group on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin (e.g. (4) Sinophobia), or religion (e.g. (5) Islamophobia, (6) anti-Semitism). Includes overt incidents as well as subtle interactions or behaviours which accumulate to cause harm. Ascertaining an individual’s racist intention is not fundamental to the acknowledgement of racism.

Okay race/nationality/ethnicity/culture are all the same thing. You win the Internet.

 

[The perfect fumble]

You can have whatever feelings you like towards that but if you believe someone, that you don’t know, of a particular culture, ethnicity or nationality living in the UK, based on their assumed culture, ethnicity or nationality then it’s no difference to Powell talking about race.

Side note but of all religions, the priests in the Catholic Church are on record as far too often being the polar opposite of homophobic.

All people should be treated equally, a person should be judged on the content of their character, but the cult of DEI and multiculturalism requires one to treat all cultures equally and that is something that in real life next to nobody does.

The left acknowledges this, hence the likes of black history month where we're all supposed to pretend that the Benin Bronzes are the equivalent of the Renaissance.