Re: Was Enoch right?

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Whiskybreath, Mar 9, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. This was a topic placed by Andy Pipkin based on and around an essay by David Goodhart of the Prospect Magazine, and locked for reasons known to the moderator concerned.

    The topic is a serious one, not to be confused with the rantings and foamings of those normally connected with subjects in which Mr Powell's name is placarded; usually wrongly and almost always with a great deal of bloodshot-eyed and sub-O-level rhetoric attached.

    The essay was carefully and sensitively constructed from beginning to end, with a great deal of substance in the middle, and needs to be read twice or thrice to fully appreciate both the intent and extent of the writer's point, which is, in my opinion, utterly crucial to the way we live in Britain today and for the next 50 years.

    Only the writer's position at the left - he claims to be centre-left - gives me some hope that todays' ruling classes in the New Socialism Project can actually critically observe the appalling truth: of what we are losing in our society for the sake of political imperatives rather than human, and in the case of the New Labour project, personal ambitions.

    I look forward to an answering voice - which I think would probably add to the argument rather than counter it - from a Spectator writer.
     
  2. Thanks WB

    Those who saw the actual programme on BBC2 this evening will recall that several Labour grandees (Roy Jenkins, 'Woy' Hettersley, Frank Field) basically said they got it wrong about the whole multiculturalism thing.
     
  3. Fckinell, left out the link: Here. "Discomfort of Strangers"


    (And another edit: "...a competent Spectator writer...")
     
  4. I'm glad that I'm not the only one concerned that a serious topic with a solid link to a serious article has been locked, probably for reasons of political correctness, while this forum has been freely invaded of late by a load of drivel, which has gone unchecked for long periods of time, this Enoch thread being locked almost immediately.
    Would it be possible to know why this thread has been locked?
     
  5. Seconded, WhiskeyBreath.

    Andy - Good Drills.
     
  6. Interesting though the answer to that may be, it would probably be best answered elsewhere (Site issues?), and would divert from the subject.
    Can we use this thread for thoughts on Goodhart's piece?

    Personally, I'm going to read it again with much Talisker and then go to bed. In the morning I'll get really pompous until slapped.
     
  7. You're right,although the issue to me is not just of the thread but why any debate is being stifled, maybe it does involve site issues.
    I need to read the article more myself. and be in a better position to comment on the piece.
     
  8. Didn't see that TV programme, but I think the focus has to be on Goodhart's synthesis. I must declare an interest in having sat at Mr Powell's feet and been Converted all those years ago (I envy any student of his).

    Talisker.
     
  9. Whether Enoch was right, I could not say...

    Did, however, meet him when I worked with his nephew: was invited to a dinner party for "Uncle Enoch" - had no idea my friend was related to THAT Enoch, so was somewhat surprised, to say the least! I will add that I was accompanied by my then girlfriend - a second generation "Black Briton", and no one was more surprised than her. Others at the dinner party included a Jewish couple, and a West African post grad student. Suffice to say that the evening went swimmingly well, and a lot of preconceptions were shattered.

    Enoch was frighteningly clever (as one would expect of a man who prior to entering politics became the youngest ever, aged 23(!!), professor of Classics at a major university, and reached Brigadier during war service), but also surprisingly affable and immensely charming, and I have never since met anyone who matched him in precision of speech or "Old School" courtesy. He was modest; eager to hear the views of others, and indeed went out of his way to encourage everyone else to express their opinions.

    Enoch critics might, I know, reply that "The Devil when he appears will seem a gentleman" etc... But I really do not think this was the case, and I'm pretty certain that he was no racist. Conversation did touch on THAT speech, and the Great Man reflected somewhat ruefully that if ever there was a case of a politician causing confusion by being too clever by half (or words to that effect!) then this was it: all those classical references to the Tiber foaming with blood were bound to lead to misunderstanding when heard by millions who simply did not get the allusion to the Roman poet Horace.

    What was clear was that he had no objection to immigrants settling in Britain - far from it, in fact, because he was a great admirer of Ancient Rome, a civilisation notable for its "inclusiveness" & lack of racial discrimination: many Romans, including some emperors, were black. What did concern him, however, was the apparent lack of forethought among the "Great and the Good" about the implications of large scale immigration for the millions of indigenous Britons who by the late 1960s were already beginning to experience significant social & economic dislocation as traditional industries & associated communities started to decline. In this he was, perhaps, more prescient than many have hitherto been prepared to acknowledge.
     
  10. The main reason for this is that the negative aspects of multi-culturalism are under-reported. Over the years I must have heard about or read about in local papers in various areas of London maybe 100-200 killings that wouldn't have happened without immigration. Only a tiny percentage ever got reported nationally and usually only if the killer-victim was the right way round. For every killing there's 50-60(?) stabbings (and now shootings) and 20-30(?) sex attacks.

    People who can move away, move away. Most of the rest only "tolerate or share with people very unlike themselves" because they have no choice. The reality is people are tribal and when you have more than one tribe on one piece of ground you get trouble. How much you get varies with different cultures and economic situations.

    "Our liberal democracies still work fairly well" because up till recently the problems were kept hidden away from the majority. Once you reach a tipping point where it can't be hidden any more then the structure starts to come crashing down.

    I think immigration can only ever work long-term if it's small numbers of people at a time that want to assimilate and can assimilate. Mass immigration, especially if it's made worse by deliberate multi-culturalism will only end in disaster.

    ~~~

    Something along similar lines to the posted article from Roger Scruton about how democracy requires a group of people who can naturally think in terms of "us" and "we".

    http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1126
     
  11. Very interesting article. I am usually much to the left but this made me wonder - is it such a crime that people want to live among their own kind - not that they hate other cultures - but that they don't want this 'diversity' shoved down their throats and have to pay for it to boot? Especially when they do not agree with the other cultures' values?
     
  12. kevinb wrote:

    I think it all comes down to security. That's why tribes developed in the first place. People don't mind living somewhere "cosmopolitan" when they're young but as soon as they start getting to the age where they're thinking about a family etc most people want to live somewhere as safe as possible. I think it's just human nature and the left totally ignored all that because of utopian theories.

    I've come to think that nations are actually the foundation of democracy, welfare state etc. messing with it is just going to scr*w everything.
     
  13. Just wacthed the documentary last night on BBCi player, very suprised it wasn't a charactor assasination peace by the BBC (although I think with this white season thing they are making a special effort address some of the baised BBC accusations)

    I think Enoch Powell was too intelligent and honest for his own good, he made the mistake in saying what he thought to be true (and was later proved right) rather than what was fasionable at the time.

    He had his views hijacked by the right wing and was vilified by the left and those too dense to understand what he was saying. much in the way Patrick Mercer was vilified recently for speaking honestly about percieved racism in the army.

    Personally I think he may have been racist, but then I also think in a way he was right, like the yanks say, go figure.

    Where he was wrong was thinking that it would be a clash of race, it's nothing to do with race, it's a clash of culture, and it's one particular group (a large minourity of muslims) that's the threat to our modern secular society.

    I think that some of what he said was unacceptable, the comments from his constituants where chosen to be deliberatly shocking, offensive and should not have been repeated.

    That being said he was a brave, patriotic, intelligent and honest man, and I wish there were a few more like him in politics today.