Enoch

VIRII · 22 Jan 2007 at 21:12

vonhelmet said:
Fair enough, it's just a curious way of phrasing the generalisation to cite me without including me.

Normally (if it was to include you) the phrase would be "you and people like you....."
Surely that is not a curious phrase?

VIRII · 22 Jan 2007 at 21:13

i know nothing said:
That maybe the case, but one part of his speech leapt out to me;

"PC" is nothing new then.

I guess if your only experience of a group of people was them pushing excrement through your letter box you'd not be enamoured of them or keen to rent them a room.

VIRII · 22 Jan 2007 at 21:15

Spawn said:
To be an utter **** as per usual, he does it with Visage as well..cant handle being ignored i think.

CBS i think your cool too....xenophobically cool really..

Sorry i heard my ears burning and had to come and check out what the fuss was all about .

But you are not ignoring me. DOn't you understand the concept of ignoring? In the last five days you've claimed to be ignoring me on numerous occassions. Yet you keep responding....... is pressing the ignore button complicated or something?
What was it you said the other day "When I say I am going to do something I do it...." Clearly you don't, are you deluded or lying?
Incidentally, as I keep saying, we are local. If you want to be rude then come and meet me so you can do it face to face

SexyGreyFox · 22 Jan 2007 at 21:19

Don't forget it was Enoch who helped to let the immigrants in at the beginning and then a few years later realised his mistake.

The 'woman' could have very well been my Mother.
I was born in Nigeria and we came back to England around 68 and my parents moved into a house called Hancock Street not far from Stoke Railway Station. I didn't have a problem because all my mates were black and I was used to that in Nigeria and my very best mate was Garth Crooks (now a football pundit).
However, my Mum and Dad suffered racism from all sides and were eventually forced to move out so a nice Asian family could buy it for £800.

Many years later I helped to run an Atari ST/Amiga club and I met a nice chap called Suqqdev. He invited me to his house where we could swop a few items and gave me the address - :eek:

14, Hancock Street. I turned up the following night and it was like Fort Knox. has I got out of the car I was surrounded by Asian lads and virtually every door opened with Asians standing on their doorsteps. To say I was scared was an understatement and eventually the door opened, a thumb went up and I went in. This just so happened to be the house of my other childhood best mate who was called Satnam (who wasn't there). His Father then greeted and questioned me until he realised my mother was Maggie and then he threw his arms around me.
I was then able to ask why they ran my family out and apparently during that time the street was 45% Indian, 45% Pakistani and 10% British. All our immediate neighbours were Pakistani and the Indians had nothing to do with our eviction.
I was able to tell my Mum and Dad 20 years later and they already knew.

i know nothing · 22 Jan 2007 at 21:20

VIRII said:
I guess if your only experience of a group of people was them pushing excrement through your letter box you'd not be enamoured of them or keen to rent them a room.

That's not was I was getting at. I was interested to read that in 1968 people were running about being "PC" about racism, another excerpt from his speech;

Enoch Powell said:
They cannot speak English, but one word they know. 'Racialist', they chant.

VIRII · 22 Jan 2007 at 21:21

vonhelmet said:
Fair enough, it's just a curious way of phrasing the generalisation to cite me without including me.

Although in fact, given that you put "you and" at the start of it, your defence actually makes no sense.

Say it out loud then:

How does "Or would you suggest that you and those with opinions like yours can be personal but those who disagree with you can not?" equal "you are making personal attacks"?
You could paraphrase it to this if you want:
"are you suggesting that some people can be personal and others can't"

Whatever way you cut it there is no suggestion there that you are making personal attacks. Guilty conscience?

VIRII · 22 Jan 2007 at 21:23

i know nothing said:
That's not was I was getting at. I was interested to read that in 1968 people were running about being "PC" about racism, another excerpt from his speech;

Is there a link to his speech?

i know nothing · 22 Jan 2007 at 21:25

Several, I was looking at this one.

VIRII · 22 Jan 2007 at 21:31

Enoch said:
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.

An awful lot of truth in this and the underlined part reminds me strongly of something i posted yesterday about a desire from certain zealot quarters here to silence any discussion that wasn't in line with their world views before it had started.

The discussion of future avoidable evil is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation in a politcian.

Sig material.

Royality · 22 Jan 2007 at 21:36

cleanbluesky said:
Given that the OP merely addresses the potential accuracy of historical events I suggest you examine your own feelings if you feel that it condemns black people

I think you should acknowledge that the last comment could have been misconstrued negatively. That said, I see where I went wrong in interpretting it.

'The central political issue addressed by the speech was not, however, immigration as such. It was the introduction by the then Labour government of anti-discrimination legislation which would effectively criminalise the expression of racial prejudice in certain areas of British life — particularly housing. Powell found this legislation offensive and immoral.'

Seeing as you agree with Enoch, what do you think of this?

VIRII · 22 Jan 2007 at 21:40

Royality said:
I think you should acknowledge that the last comment could have been misconstrued negatively. That said, I see where I went wrong in interpretting it.

'The central political issue addressed by the speech was not, however, immigration as such. It was the introduction by the then Labour government of anti-discrimination legislation which would effectively criminalise the expression of racial prejudice in certain areas of British life — particularly housing. Powell found this legislation offensive and immoral.'

Seeing as you agree with Enoch, what do you think of this?

I've just read through the speech and I don't find the speech directly relates to the legislation but more a prediction of where increased and continued immigration will lead to.
Have a read yourself and see if you agree with the summation of the speech that you just posted, it seems inaccurate to me. It mentions the bill but fleetingly.

Rich_L · 22 Jan 2007 at 22:25

What an absolutely awful thread. Not for the initial content, which was probably worth replying too, but the vomit-inducing mix of mutual ego-masturbation and total bitchiness which seems to be characterising GD of late.

leaskovski · 22 Jan 2007 at 22:27

Yey, another episode of the CBS Virii show!

Vonhelmet · 22 Jan 2007 at 22:30

Rich_L said:
What an absolutely awful thread. Not for the initial content, which was probably worth replying too, but the vomit-inducing mix of mutual ego-masturbation and total bitchiness which seems to be characterising GD of late.

Shhh, you're not a man of honour.

VIRII · 22 Jan 2007 at 22:33

Rich_L said:
What an absolutely awful thread. Not for the initial content, which was probably worth replying too, but the vomit-inducing mix of mutual ego-masturbation and total bitchiness which seems to be characterising GD of late.

Such as what exactly? I notice you did not make the same comments about the Spawn Raz Dark Shadow Visage circle jerking.

So how about some actual examples of the "vomit inducing mix of mutual ego-masterbation" and some of the "total bitchiness".

Pwetty pwease?

VIRII said:
It does indeed seem in GD that attacking posters is far more important than attacking the arguments presented.

Nailing your colours to the mast eh Rich? I look forward to your explanation as to why this thread specifically has made you post your utterly unfounded criticism, then we can go and look at the muslim handshake thread and you can explain why that thread did not cause you to vent your spleen.

crystaline · 22 Jan 2007 at 22:35

Why all the hate. Are you all that excited?

Rich_L · 22 Jan 2007 at 22:35

I'm referring to them as well, the behaviour in this thread is pathetic, and seems to be the culmination of the recent Muslim-fest of threads which has raised antagonism to a point which hasn't been seen in a while and it's ridiculous.

VIRII · 22 Jan 2007 at 22:38

Rich_L said:
I'm referring to them as well, the behaviour in this thread is pathetic, and seems to be the culmination of the recent Muslim-fest of threads which has raised antagonism to a point which hasn't been seen in a while and it's ridiculous.

Rather than tired cliches and rhetoric and unbased opinion why don't you actually provide a quote or two, a little evidence, some proof?
Is it because there simply isn't anything to moan about?

cleanbluesky · 22 Jan 2007 at 22:38

crystaline said:
Why all the hate. Are you all that excited?

Was that addressed to someone?

crystaline · 22 Jan 2007 at 22:40

cleanbluesky said:
Was that addressed to someone?

The regular group who turn these threads into a conversation between two or three people in constant argument and arrogance.