[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
politics

Return ] Entire Thread ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 75000)
Message
File  []
close
1467338962545.jpg
750007500075000
>> No. 75000 Anonymous
1st July 2016
Friday 12:18 pm
75000 spacer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dc26aTCwyYM

What would ol' Powell think of all this Brexit malarky?

Why are our politicians so shit today vs. back then? Powell was a University Professor by the age of 25 and thus deserves a modicum of elitism, whilst most of todays MPs are bred-to-rule fuckwits who are bland badly dressed facsimiles of the inbred monarchies democracy was supposed to usurp.

When I worked in an old folks home, the old yins used to sing his praises, but I used to think Powell was no more than a bigot.

Watching this, I find him to be a lot more sympathetic. I'm behind his views that Caucasian people should be able to be ethnocentric as other races are, although I would probably phrase my concerns using different language. His 'rivers of blood' speech seems pretty relevant with regards to the 'refugee' crisis.

He clashed with Heath, who we know now to be a dirty nonce so that's a positive for him. But Thatcher is singing his praises, and we now know her to be a dirty nonce enabler and potentially the anti-christ.

He was also a Unionist in Ireland and probably contributed to a shitstorm of the troubles, right? I'm not so up on my Pre-Blair political knowledge.

Was he ahead of his time? Or are we devolving into a cesspit of regressive bigots?

Also, here is a video of Enoch debating the EEC with other political wonks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4OWslOroaw

Please help educate me /pol/ by linking important brit pol videos so that I may better understand contemporary politics.
Expand all images.
>> No. 76285 Anonymous
5th August 2016
Friday 4:26 pm
76285 spacer
I'm certain I've seen this post practically verbatim on the German Website.
>> No. 76287 Anonymous
5th August 2016
Friday 5:15 pm
76287 spacer
>>76285

Cross posting is not a crime, per se, so lets see how this obviously heated and contentious subject is tackled first before I lock the thread and ban everyone in it.
>> No. 76321 Anonymous
5th August 2016
Friday 8:36 pm
76321 spacer
>>75000
>Caucasian people should be able to be ethnocentric as other races are
"Caucasian" is not an ethnicity. And he didn't just think white Englishmen should be "ethnocentric", he was an apologist for Empire who thought they should reign over other groups. He had no problem having relations with other countries when those countries were being run in Britain's direct national interest.

He was a cunt.
>> No. 76331 Anonymous
5th August 2016
Friday 8:55 pm
76331 spacer
>>76321
> He had no problem having relations with other countries when those countries were being run in Britain's direct national interest.
This was a pretty typical view in his early career.

Later he actively promoted halting any delusion of influence in post-colonial nations and advocated putting an end to the Commonwealth. The criticising the pace of decolonisation, arguing that it was too slow and that we were not committed to it and looking for ways to retain influence we simply didn't have.

>he was an apologist for Empire who thought they should reign over other groups.
They're incapable of reigning over themselves in most cases.
>> No. 76333 Anonymous
5th August 2016
Friday 8:57 pm
76333 spacer
>>76331
>The criticising
He criticised*
>> No. 76334 Anonymous
5th August 2016
Friday 8:59 pm
76334 spacer
>>76331
>This was a pretty typical view in his early career.
It was his view later in his career. He didn't think decolonisation should have happened in the first place, but once it became clear that imperialism wasn't going to be tolerated post-WWII, he wanted out totally. He didn't want to engage with other countries unless England dominated them. He was a cunt.

>They're incapable of reigning over themselves in most cases.
n1m8 them nig nogs wont no wot hit em
>> No. 76336 Anonymous
5th August 2016
Friday 9:07 pm
76336 spacer
>>76334
>He didn't want to engage with other countries unless England dominated them.
That's nonsense.

>n1m8 them nig nogs wont no wot hit em
Most of them haven't had functioning infrastructure since the Empire days so I'm sure they won't.
>> No. 76337 Anonymous
5th August 2016
Friday 9:09 pm
76337 spacer
>>76336
>That's nonsense.
No it isn't. The shift in power relations is why he loved the Empire and wanted nothing to do with the commonwealth.
>> No. 76339 Anonymous
5th August 2016
Friday 9:12 pm
76339 spacer
>>76337
It is complete nonsense. Enoch advocated engagement with many countries regardless of whether or not they were in the Empire.

What's with all this 'England' shit, are you a Scotnat?
>> No. 76347 Anonymous
5th August 2016
Friday 9:26 pm
76347 spacer
>>76331
>The criticising the pace of decolonisation, arguing that it was too slow and that we were not committed to it and looking for ways to retain influence we simply didn't have.
You know who decolonised quickly? Portugal. Take a guess how many of their three territories in mainland Africa transitioned peacefully.
>> No. 76349 Anonymous
5th August 2016
Friday 9:31 pm
76349 spacer
>>76339
He advocated imperialism, mate. Once imperialism became untenable, he became a splendid isolationist. His primary interest was exploiting other peoples, failing that he wished to ignore them. He was scum.

And no, I'm not a "scotnat", Powell was an English nationalist, that's what the "'England' shit" is about.
>> No. 76356 Anonymous
5th August 2016
Friday 9:46 pm
76356 spacer
>>76347
How dare you wish to oppress nations longer and to the white man's timeline!

>>76349
>His primary interest was exploiting other peoples, failing that he wished to ignore them.
Why do you say this?

I think ignoring the vast majority of the world would do us all a lot of good.
>> No. 76362 Anonymous
5th August 2016
Friday 10:03 pm
76362 spacer
>>76356

>I think ignoring the vast majority of the world would do us all a lot of good.

That's because you're an idiot who doesn't understand History or Sociology, never mind Economics. Go sit on the naughty step for being a fucking thicko.
>> No. 76364 Anonymous
5th August 2016
Friday 10:07 pm
76364 spacer
>>76362
Why do you want to impose your white-man views on everyone else?
>> No. 76389 Anonymous
6th August 2016
Saturday 3:58 am
76389 spacer
>>76362
I used to work with some right thickos, one of whom believed (with an unverifiable amount of sincerity) that everyone should 'stay put'; and no-one should be allowed to travel to another country 'except for holidays'. Putting aside the obvious impracticality of this notion for the moment you can kind of see the beauty of it - if everyone really was permanently confined within their national borders it would certainly prevent a lot of ethnic strife.
>> No. 76390 Anonymous
6th August 2016
Saturday 6:52 am
76390 spacer
>>76389
Finned cunts should've stayed in the sea.
>> No. 76404 Anonymous
6th August 2016
Saturday 3:09 pm
76404 spacer
>>76347
Don't compare Angola to Kenya. Come back when Kenya has a bloody civil war with all sides being backed by foreigners like the USA, USSR, Cuba, and the wonderfully racist South Africans, etc.

A bit like Syria.

Western nations never learn.
>> No. 76406 Anonymous
6th August 2016
Saturday 4:46 pm
76406 spacer
>>76404
Erm, that's the point, you dullard. When the dictatorship collapsed the new government basically went "fuck it" and ditched the colonies. By contrast, we took our time over it and achieved peaceful transition in most places. The notable exception is Zimbabwe, where the local administration declared independence unilaterally rather than permit their minority rule to end.
>> No. 76407 Anonymous
6th August 2016
Saturday 5:13 pm
76407 spacer

GDP.png
764077640776407
>>76406
Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) was a relatively controlled/peaceful transition at the very end.

After UDI, they got sanctioned to fuck and were eventually forced into an internal settlement by Guerilla warfare and continued international sanctions. (Giving us Zimbabwe-Rhodesia and an African president + PM) Nobody in the international community accepted that though, so they came back to us and negotiated a new thing. After that, we got the Lancaster house agreement and Zimbabwe. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancaster_House_Agreement)

Rhodesia's a horrible example given that generally speaking it was verifiably better than Zimbabwe (See pic related: Until 1979, Rhodesia.). Unfortunately for all of us, there's a large segment of Rhodesiaboos who want to deny it was in any way racist to boot, so when you bring that sort of thing up you start to look like an apologist for Rhodesia instead of just going "Well maybe letting Mugabe stand for election was a cock-up after all." and perhaps taking it as an interesting example in a debate about good governance versus self-governance.

Though being a white imperialist racist, I do love the name Rhodesia, especially given it's outright named after the bloke who colonized it. Compare Zimbabwe, which is merely a punchline to MS paint Big Bang Theory comics.
>> No. 77276 Anonymous
6th September 2016
Tuesday 4:02 pm
77276 spacer
One of the few men in politics with principles who managed to remain popular by sticking to them and willing to torpedo his own career in pursuit of them. Stabbed in the back by his party. A role model.
>> No. 77277 Anonymous
6th September 2016
Tuesday 4:57 pm
77277 spacer
>>76407

>Rhodesia's a horrible example given that generally speaking it was verifiably better than Zimbabwe

You may be interested in something that was shared with me by a former-special serviceman.
In the early seventies his squad was tasked with poisoning village wells in Rhodesia (the logic was those villages were harbouring "terrorists", AKA - by his own admission - adult men). The blacks only realised what was happening when their children started coughing up their internal organs. I imagine GDP was one of the last things on their minds.
>> No. 77278 Anonymous
6th September 2016
Tuesday 5:00 pm
77278 spacer
>>77276

>a racial bigot betrayed by his own
>role model
>> No. 77279 Anonymous
6th September 2016
Tuesday 5:34 pm
77279 spacer
>>77277
Who cares? At least then it was goos for white people.
>> No. 77280 Anonymous
6th September 2016
Tuesday 5:48 pm
77280 spacer
>>77279

Bellend.
>> No. 77281 Anonymous
6th September 2016
Tuesday 6:16 pm
77281 spacer
I don't agree with his bigotry and dolphin rape but a lot of what he otherwise predicted about politics (you know, just to emphasise incase acrobat lad has a fit or nazi lad calls me acrobat lad, away from his rivers of blood shit) come to be scarily accurate.

I also like to appreciate incredibly intelligent people, he certainly was one of them.

Interesting bloke, 'Judas was paid' was a great piece of political drama I think is often overlooked, too.
>> No. 77283 Anonymous
6th September 2016
Tuesday 6:28 pm
77283 spacer
>>77281

>a lot of what he otherwise predicted about politics ... come to be scarily accurate

Like what?
>> No. 77284 Anonymous
6th September 2016
Tuesday 6:32 pm
77284 spacer
>>77281
I think most of the issue with the rivers of blood speech was due to people not understanding the metaphor.
>> No. 77286 Anonymous
6th September 2016
Tuesday 6:36 pm
77286 spacer
>>77284
You think wrong.
>> No. 77287 Anonymous
6th September 2016
Tuesday 6:41 pm
77287 spacer
>>77281

>I also like to appreciate incredibly intelligent people, he certainly was one of them

However bad that sentence is, I have to ask: in what way was he intelligent? He dedicated himself to a party that opposed his class gaining the vote; called for greater nuclear proliferation; and thought Eire ought to be left out of Northern Irish peace talks.

Not possessing good foresight is one thing, but again and again he demonstrated that he didn't have workable hindsight.
>> No. 77288 Anonymous
6th September 2016
Tuesday 6:41 pm
77288 spacer
>>77284
What hidden meaning is there in "In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man"??

Did he mean to say that we had/have the whip hand over them now, and he is afraid he might lose that privilege? Did he admit to the fact that he was a racist subjugating people who aren't white, and he feared a time when that oppression stops?

I like Powell and Rhodesia. It brings to the front most racists' hidden and covert bigotry. They try to dress it up in a positive light. It is cute. They are a stone's throw away from saying that Hitler was a great and clever lad because he fixed the German economy.
>> No. 77289 Anonymous
6th September 2016
Tuesday 7:01 pm
77289 spacer
>>77287
Far be it from me to step up to the plate and defend Enoch fucking Powell, but intelligent people can be incredibly wrong and have a warped view of the world. Hard to deny that Powell had intellectual prowess.
>> No. 77291 Anonymous
6th September 2016
Tuesday 7:09 pm
77291 spacer
>>77289

>Hard to deny that Powell had intellectual prowess

Why do people keep saying this assuming all will agree? Is "whatever you think of ol' Enoch, that man had brains" just one of those things Brits unthinkingly parrot, a la "that poor Diana had it tough" and "Stephan Fry is a national treasure"?
>> No. 77293 Anonymous
6th September 2016
Tuesday 7:26 pm
77293 spacer

image.jpg
772937729377293
>>77291

I don't you understood the point being made which wasn't just about Enoch.
>> No. 77300 Anonymous
6th September 2016
Tuesday 8:30 pm
77300 spacer
>>77291

He could read ancient Greek by the age of five and became fluent in fourteen languages over his lifetime. He earned a double starred first at Cambridge and became a professor at the age of 25. During the course of the war he was promoted from private to brigadier, a feat matched by only one other man.

I find Powell's politics unpalatable, but he was clearly a genius.
>> No. 77302 Anonymous
6th September 2016
Tuesday 8:37 pm
77302 spacer
>>77300

Shhh lad, he was busy having a pop at the working class and how uninformed they are and how they can't think for themselves.
>> No. 77304 Anonymous
6th September 2016
Tuesday 8:46 pm
77304 spacer
>>77300

Yet in the one area for which he's known - politics - he didn't have a bloody clue.

>>77302


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqObJtGrKaA
>> No. 77308 Anonymous
6th September 2016
Tuesday 8:59 pm
77308 spacer
>>77291
Because he had an academic career that attests to it.

And I am not a Brit.
>> No. 77309 Anonymous
6th September 2016
Tuesday 9:02 pm
77309 spacer
>>77308

>And I am not a Brit

Well, fuck off you nignogwog!
>> No. 77320 Anonymous
6th September 2016
Tuesday 10:17 pm
77320 spacer
>>77277
I'm sure Mugabe would never harm people who did nothing wrong - including children - for spurious reasons. I can't say much more than that. Shitty behaviour all-around, but my money would still be on the Rhodesians being less bastard-y and more competent.

>>77288
>What hidden meaning is there in "In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man"??
The fact he was quoting a constituent's fears, not articulating his own viewpoint?

I mean let's not pretend he was some kind of progressive in his racial views (or more bluntly: let's not pretend he wasn't racist), but the "Rivers of Blood" speech itself is severely overblown. I mean even the name, the "Rivers of Blood" speech. It never makes reference to "Rivers" of blood: It makes reference to a single river, the river Tiber. Because it's a reference to Aenid that has been misconstrued. Even Michael Foot accepted that. (Actually, if I'm reading right Michael Foot may have believed he wasn't racist at all, because he complained in the commons about ill treatment of Mau Mau prisoners. Interesting, if true.)
>> No. 77321 Anonymous
6th September 2016
Tuesday 10:22 pm
77321 spacer
>>77320
> Interesting, if true.

It wouldn't be if you didn't have ridiculous preconceptions.
>> No. 77322 Anonymous
6th September 2016
Tuesday 10:26 pm
77322 spacer
>>77320

>I'm sure Mugabe would never harm people who did nothing wrong - including children - for spurious reasons

You can be sure something shady is going on when someone says, "let's have a look at someone else".

Shadier still someone who brings up GDP in a discussion about colonial misdeeds in an agrarian society.
>> No. 77323 Anonymous
6th September 2016
Tuesday 10:27 pm
77323 spacer
>>77320
Yep, he chose to quote that constituent in a speech which agreed with her at length.

And yes, everyone who encountered the speech could tell what the "rivers of blood"was a reference to. That doesn't make it any better.

Honestly lad...
>> No. 77324 Anonymous
6th September 2016
Tuesday 10:28 pm
77324 spacer
>>77304

>Yet in the one area for which he's known - politics - he didn't have a bloody clue.

I disagree with a great many of Powell's conclusions, but he was anything but clueless. His Hansard record shows a tremendous degree of insight and a fastidious approach to research and policy. The Morecambe Budget may have been radical, but it was planned and costed to the last penny.

Powell was in many respects remarkably liberal - he consistently voted against capital punishment and for gay rights, invariably against the whip. He protested vigorously against Operation Flavius, the extrajudicial killing of three PIRA operatives in Gibraltar in 1988. He was one of the only MPs to defend the rights of Kenyans during the Mau Mau rebellion.

His political opinions were complex and nuanced, conforming to no particular ideology. Powell has been stereotyped as a fascist, but that was clearly far from true. Were he alive today I would oppose him at almost every turn, but I would relish the thought of having such a brilliant and independent mind in parliament. Powell was a worthy opponent, the sort of thinker that forced friend and foe to redouble their efforts.
>> No. 77326 Anonymous
6th September 2016
Tuesday 10:39 pm
77326 spacer
>>77320
I look forward to your interpretations of Hitler's speeches and what you think his views were.
>> No. 77331 Anonymous
6th September 2016
Tuesday 10:55 pm
77331 spacer
>>77320
>It makes reference to a single river, the river Tiber. Because it's a reference to Aenid that has been misconstrued.
A reference that it appears that he himself got wrong. In the Aeneid, the vision of the Tiber "foaming with much blood" is effectively saying that the omelette of building Rome into a great city won't be made without breaking some eggs.
>> No. 77333 Anonymous
6th September 2016
Tuesday 11:27 pm
77333 spacer
>>77322
>You can be sure something shady is going on when someone says, "let's have a look at someone else".
tell 'em, Steve-Dave. How else are you supposed to compare and contrast?

Want to look at whether Cameron was a more successful PM than Brown? Obviously you're just up to something shady, trying to hide the failures of one or the other. It's definitely not possible that you could just be comparing the relative merits of each of them.
>> No. 77335 Anonymous
6th September 2016
Tuesday 11:42 pm
77335 spacer
>>77276
I was scrolling through this thread absentmindedly and genuinely thought I had switched to the Corbyn thread when I read this post.
>> No. 77350 Anonymous
7th September 2016
Wednesday 3:49 am
77350 spacer
I think it's fair to say that Powell was one of those properly clever cunts on a level with your old Greek blokes and 18th century scientific pioneers. The thing is he was totally correct in almost everything he said, but only if you don't consider frank and honest dolphin rape to be a bad thing.

It's difficult for some people I'm sure, but if you temporarily suspend your ingrained, instinctual disgust towards the concept of dolphin rape, and adopt the mindset of someone who legitimately believes racial division to be a good thing, his politics make perfect sense. They are internally consistent and remarkably logical. Essentially the only trouble is that you disagree.

Since somebody has already made the Hitler comparison, we can co ahead and further dissect that- Nazi ideology doesn't really stand up to scrutiny in quite the same way. While it's perfectly reasonable to give Hitler some credit for rebuilding Germany's industrial base (Germany is still a manufacturing and technology powerhouse today, thanks to a political era that really wasn't all too long ago in the bigger picture), it simply falls apart with all the dodgy eugenics pseudo-science and pretence of holy justification. I don't think the same can be said of the beliefs Powell held.
>> No. 77355 Anonymous
7th September 2016
Wednesday 8:47 am
77355 spacer
>>77350
Powell's views on racial issues are surprisingly nuanced. I'm going to dump quotes because they're actually rather interesting. Someone will probably accuse me of being a racist or a defender of a racist for doing so because the idea of just tossing out information out of academic interest is inconceivable in politics, but that's okay.

Perhaps one could say racialist without being particularly racist for his day.
>...In discussion of the wealth of India it is usual to forget the principal item, which is four hundred millions of human beings, for the most part belonging to races neither unintelligent nor slothful...[British policy should be to] create the preconditions of democracy and self-government by as soon as possible making India socially and economically a modern state.
>...it depends indeed on whether the immigrants are different, and different in important respects from the existing population. Clearly, if they are identical, then no change for the good or bad can be brought about by the immigration. But if they are different, and to the extent that they are different, then numbers clearly are of the essence and this is not wholly – or mainly, necessarily – a matter of colour. For example, if the immigrants were Germans or Russians, their colour would be approximately the same as ours, but the problems which would be created and the change which could be brought about by a large introduction of a bloc of Germans or Russians into five areas in this country would be as serious – and in some respects more serious – than could follow from an introduction of a similar number of West Indians or laplanderstanis.
>It depends on how you define the word "racialist." If you mean being conscious of the differences between men and nations, and from that, races, then we are all racialists. However, if you mean a man who despises a human being because he belongs to another race, or a man who believes that one race is inherently superior to another, then the answer is emphatically "No."
>Trevor Huddleston: ...what I still want to know from you, really, is why the presence of a coloured immigrant group is objectionable, when the presence of a non-coloured immigrant is not objectionable.
>Enoch Powell: Oh no, oh no! On the contrary, I have often said that if we saw the prospect of five million Germans in this country at the end of the century, the risks of disruption and violence would probably be greater, and the antagonism which would be aroused would be more severe. The reason why the whole debate in this country on immigration is related to coloured immigration, is because there has been no net immigration of white Commonwealth citizens, and there could be no migration of aliens. This is merely an automatic consequence of the facts of the case; it is not because there is anything different, because there is anything necessarily more dangerous, about the alienness of a community from Asia, than about the alienness of a community from Turkey or from Germany, that we discuss this inevitably in terms of colour. It is because it is that problem.
>Virtually the entire inflow was therefore Asiatic, and all but three or four thousand of that inflow originated from the Indian subcontinent... It is by 'black Power' that the headlines are caught, and under the shape of the negro that the consequences for Britain of immigration and what is miscalled 'race' are popularly depicted. Yet it is more truly when he looks into the eyes of Asia that the Englishman comes face to face with those who will dispute with him the possession of his native land.
>...when a young Brahmin drew alongside me and after some conversation in Urdu between us, pointed to his home some hundred yards from the road and suggested I go there with him for a drink of water. While my hosts used a brass vessel, I drank from a rough earthen tumbler, which, on thanking them and taking my leave, I smashed on the ground to show that I knew it could not anyhow be used again. 'He is a Hindu,' they said to one another with a smile. There is a sense in which it had been true: the British were married to India, as Venice was married to the sea.
>I refer to the misunderstanding of Soviet Russia as an aggressive power, militaristically and ideologically bent upon world domination—'seeing', to quote a recent speech of the British Prime Minister, 'the rest of the world as its rightful fiefdom.' How any rational person, viewing objectively the history of the last thirty-five years, could entertain this 'international misunderstanding' challenges, if it does not defeat, comprehension. The notion has no basis in fact... If Russia is bent on world conquest, she has been remarkably slothful and remarkably unsuccessful.
(That one isn't racial, but I like it and it still has some prescience today regarding Russia, who're more concerned with fucking with ex satellite states than with us.)
>The reality of the situation is obscured when population is expressed as a percentage proportion taken over the whole of the United Kingdom. The ethnic minority is geographically concentrated, so that areas in which it forms a majority already exists, and these areas are destined inevitably to grow. It is here that the compatibility of such an ethnic minority with the functioning of parliamentary democracy comes into question. Parliamentary democracy depends at all levels upon the valid acceptance of majority decision, by which the nation as a whole is content to be bound because of the continually available prospect that what one majority has decided another majority can subsequently alter. From this point of view, the political homogeneity of the electorate is crucial. What we do not, as yet, know is whether the voting behaviour of our altered population will be able to use the majority vote as a political instrument and not as a means of self-identification, self-assertion and self-enumeration. It may be that the United Kingdom will escape the political consequences of communalism; but communalism and democracy, as the experience of India demonstrates, are incompatible. That is the spectre which the Conservative party's policy of assisted repatriation in the 1960s aimed to banish; but time and events have swept over and passed the already outdated remedies of the 1960s. We are entering unknown territory where the only certainty for the future is the relative increase of the ethnic minority due to the age structure of that population which has been established.

And Bizarrely, His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular had this to say:
>I would say Mr. Powell, Enoch is fully supported by me on what he has said. He's not discriminating against any races, but he wanted the indigenous Londoners, their children, to have a brighter future. He does not want England to be colonised by Africa, by Asia. London for Londoners, Scotland for Scottish, Wales for Welsh and Uganda for Ugandans. Rhodesia for Zimbabwean people, not for the white minority regime, South Africa for the black majority. London can have any technical assistance, anybody that wanted to employ in London but not to dominate the people of England. Therefore I support him as a person which all Great British people should have to be their Prime Minister.
(Can't find a source, but I got to post the amusingly long name so that doesn't matter.)

I was sure there was also a quote available wherein he states in some ways he overcompensates, believing Indians/laplanderstanis to be in some ways smarter and more hardworking than white people, or something to that extent. I can't find it anywhere.
>> No. 77362 Anonymous
7th September 2016
Wednesday 1:26 pm
77362 spacer
>>77335
Hence the bit about remaining popular. Corbyn is not popular.
>> No. 77363 Anonymous
7th September 2016
Wednesday 1:27 pm
77363 spacer
>>77362
Also Corbs only selectively sticks to his principles, I.e. He doesn't.
>> No. 77369 Anonymous
7th September 2016
Wednesday 5:33 pm
77369 spacer
>>77363
He's definitely torpedoed his own career and been stabbed in the back by his own party, though.
>> No. 77400 Anonymous
8th September 2016
Thursday 1:26 am
77400 spacer
>>77369
He hasnt been stabbed in the back because none of them ever supported hin.
>> No. 77402 Anonymous
8th September 2016
Thursday 10:11 am
77402 spacer
>>77355

A racist butcher, torturer and possible cannibal, who also thought national boundaries were sacred liked him... Okay?
>> No. 77403 Anonymous
8th September 2016
Thursday 10:20 am
77403 spacer

lab.png
774037740377403
>>77400

The Party =/= MPs, however much the Establishment wishes it to be so.
>> No. 77404 Anonymous
8th September 2016
Thursday 12:51 pm
77404 spacer
>>77402
And Gandhi said of Hitler "I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing and seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed.
>> No. 77405 Anonymous
8th September 2016
Thursday 1:05 pm
77405 spacer
>>77362

Enoch Powell is more popular than the Leader of the Labour Party?
>> No. 77406 Anonymous
8th September 2016
Thursday 1:30 pm
77406 spacer
>>77405
He was far more popular than Corbyn will ever be. Remember 1974?
>> No. 77407 Anonymous
8th September 2016
Thursday 1:38 pm
77407 spacer
>>77406
No we don't remember 1974, Grandpa.
>> No. 77408 Anonymous
8th September 2016
Thursday 2:39 pm
77408 spacer
>>77403
So those MPs were just selected as if by magic, were they?
>> No. 77409 Anonymous
8th September 2016
Thursday 2:49 pm
77409 spacer
>>77350

>his politics make perfect sense. They are internally consistent and remarkably logical.

Did you watch the video in the OP? Around 29 minutes in you can practically see the cogs whirring behind his eyes as he desperately tries to perform mental gymnastics in order for his prejudices to appear logically consistent.

The documentary gives me the impression he was just autistic. I've not finished it yet but so far it portrays him as a loner who lacked social skills or empathy, who developed obsessions with particular subjects, screamed when water touched his head and couldn't even recognise his own wife's face.

That explains a lot then.
>> No. 77410 Anonymous
8th September 2016
Thursday 2:49 pm
77410 spacer
>>77408

If that's what you like to call the NEC, sure.
>> No. 77411 Anonymous
8th September 2016
Thursday 3:17 pm
77411 spacer
>>77409

>Did you watch the video in the OP? Around 29 minutes in you can practically see the cogs whirring behind his eyes as he desperately tries to perform mental gymnastics in order for his prejudices to appear logically consistent.

At the time of filming, Powell was 82. He had been diagnosed with Parkinson's disease two years previously and was clearly extremely frail. The conclusions you have drawn say more about you than about Powell.
>> No. 77412 Anonymous
8th September 2016
Thursday 3:35 pm
77412 spacer
>>77411

Oh I see! Now that you've pointed that out I can no longer see how his prejudices could possibly be considered illogical.
>> No. 77413 Anonymous
8th September 2016
Thursday 3:47 pm
77413 spacer
>>77410
No, the NEC doesn't select candidates. But by your logic apparently the rank and file in the CLPs don't either, because that would break the assertion in the first sentence of your otherwise content-free post.
>> No. 77414 Anonymous
8th September 2016
Thursday 3:59 pm
77414 spacer
>>77413

>But by your logic apparently the rank and file in the CLPs don't either

They don't.
>> No. 77415 Anonymous
8th September 2016
Thursday 4:04 pm
77415 spacer
>>77414
Whatever you say, darling.
>> No. 77416 Anonymous
8th September 2016
Thursday 5:00 pm
77416 spacer

Screenshot_2016-09-08-16-59-14.png
774167741677416
>Did you watch the video in the OP?

MY BRITFA HAS GONE ALL BONKERS AGAIN.
>> No. 77417 Anonymous
8th September 2016
Thursday 6:04 pm
77417 spacer

danger zones.png
774177741777417

>> No. 77420 Anonymous
8th September 2016
Thursday 6:55 pm
77420 spacer
>>77417

I'm not racist but I really don't like the Chinese.
>> No. 77421 Anonymous
8th September 2016
Thursday 6:57 pm
77421 spacer
>>77417
Well. It is a bit true. I'm an ethnic minority and I avoid areas with a lot of Asians, blacks, and poor whites. But the cheek of the fucking Chingalings pisses me off. Maybe British Airways should publish brochures on how to tell whether you are eating dog or chicken while you are in China.
>> No. 77424 Anonymous
8th September 2016
Thursday 7:14 pm
77424 spacer
>>77421

It's not cheek, they are just very frank.

I have a Chinese friend, who's MacBook recently broke. I told her it was her fault for buying something made in China. She laughed because she knew I was joking, but then agreed because she knew it was true.
>> No. 77426 Anonymous
8th September 2016
Thursday 7:45 pm
77426 spacer
>>77424
Listen you silly twat. It is okay for you to call your brother a soppy twat. It isn't okay for strangers to call your brother a soppy twat.

You fucking soppy twat.
>> No. 77427 Anonymous
8th September 2016
Thursday 7:59 pm
77427 spacer
>>77417
Completely accurate, next item.
>> No. 77430 Anonymous
8th September 2016
Thursday 8:56 pm
77430 spacer

B1MfDWmIIAAh8VP.jpg
774307743077430
>>77420

How could you dislike the Chinese? They're a rite laff.
>> No. 77438 Anonymous
8th September 2016
Thursday 9:31 pm
77438 spacer
>>77417

I usually just tell people to stay in zone 1 when they're in London. It's essentially the same advice.
>> No. 77446 Anonymous
8th September 2016
Thursday 11:05 pm
77446 spacer
>>77421

Dog is very gamey.
>> No. 77447 Anonymous
8th September 2016
Thursday 11:16 pm
77447 spacer

iaintgotnorollsroyce.jpg
774477744777447
>>77404

Are you suggesting Gandhi is like Powell? Or that he's a high-minded moral benchmark? I really don't have a clue what you're getting at - perhaps nothing.

But if you are suggesting Gandhi's words are worth considering, you're sorely mistaken lad. Anyone who know's anything about the subcontinent and has a shred of decency, considers B.R. Ambedkar *the* great founding father of independent India.

So fuck that poorly-attired reactionary pedophillic dwarf.
>> No. 77449 Anonymous
8th September 2016
Thursday 11:25 pm
77449 spacer
>>77408

That's an odd extrapolation to make? What made you think I was suggesting that? And what are you suggesting - that a few dozen elected MPs (mostly selected in the New Labour years) trump the voices of the Labour base?

I don't expect much of an answer. The Blairite strain in Labour, which you appear to be cheer leading for, aren't there to produce thinkers, just professional compromisers. Honestly, why do they bother?

“The right of the labour movement, to be honest, has no ideas of any compelling quality, except the instinct for short-term political survival. It would not know an ideological struggle if it stumbled across one in the dark. The only ‘struggle’ it engages in with any trace of conviction is the one against the left.”
Stuart Hall
>> No. 77463 Anonymous
9th September 2016
Friday 12:32 pm
77463 spacer
>>77449
>just professional compromisers
The funniest thing is that this isn't even true. If they were professional compromisers the party wouldn't be in the state it's in now.

They're doggedly ideological, but their ideology is ugly and outdated while believing itself forward looking. The fact they have convictions is somehow an indictment against them, because they are passionate about the least inspiring things.

To the poor and to the destitute of the world, we say this: We'll give you a few more hours childcare so you can get back to working minimum wage ASAP.
>> No. 77465 Anonymous
9th September 2016
Friday 1:18 pm
77465 spacer
>>77463

>The funniest thing is that this isn't even true. If they were professional compromisers the party wouldn't be in the state it's in now

Maggie
>What's your greatest achievement?
>Tony Blair and New Labour

Blair
>My job was to build upon Thatcher's policies
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22073434

They compromised the whole party - whose purpose, if you remember, was to advance the causes of worker rights, common ownership and internationalism - to Thatcherism. If you don't understand that, well, I'm not sure what to say.
>> No. 77475 Anonymous
9th September 2016
Friday 4:50 pm
77475 spacer
>>77465
Oh, that. They compromised the purpose of the party, sure. They didn't compromise on their own purpose: Blair didn't fuck about in building upon Thatcher instead of fixing the damage.

But Blairism is often portrayed as having no principles or beliefs, just following the political tide. Which isn't the case. They did believe in Thatcher, which is infinitely worse than being a spineless coward without any beliefs.
>> No. 77476 Anonymous
9th September 2016
Friday 5:33 pm
77476 spacer
>>77475

>But Blairism is often portrayed as having no principles or beliefs, just following the political tide. Which isn't the case

I agree with that. His "Right 2 Protect" philosophy which translates "Protect When Expedient" is dogged.

So we see him shed tears over the Iraqis living under Saddam, while apparently not noticing the suffering of those his very government was facilitating: the Tamils, dissident Nigerians, Afghans post-intervention, and so on.

Selective hearing and seeing. That, to quote the spluttering Slovak, is ideology at it's purest.
>> No. 77477 Anonymous
9th September 2016
Friday 5:44 pm
77477 spacer
Nice to see the Tory enabling trots are able to commandeer even a thread about Enoch Powell. Good job, lads.
>> No. 77478 Anonymous
9th September 2016
Friday 5:56 pm
77478 spacer
>>77475
>But Blairism is often portrayed as having no principles or beliefs, just following the political tide. Which isn't the case. They did believe in Thatcher, which is infinitely worse than being a spineless coward without any beliefs.
Yep. The fact that Blair can be regarded as somehow post-ideological is the best demonstration of how total the domination of neoliberal thought has become over the past few decades.

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled...
>> No. 77479 Anonymous
9th September 2016
Friday 6:01 pm
77479 spacer
>>77477

>Tory enabling trots

Not so nice to see yet another person who thinks in cliche.
>> No. 77480 Anonymous
9th September 2016
Friday 6:16 pm
77480 spacer
>>77479
It's only a cliché because you keep insisting on living up to it.
>> No. 77483 Anonymous
9th September 2016
Friday 6:28 pm
77483 spacer

Manchester-City-MCFC-Manuel-Pellegrini-Gael-Clichy.jpg
774837748377483
>>77479
I think how I want yeah fam?
>> No. 77484 Anonymous
9th September 2016
Friday 6:33 pm
77484 spacer
>>77480

How many Corbyn supporters do you think have read a sentence or more of Trotsky? And how would supporting the Tory-lite side of the Party not be Tory-enabling? (It's encouragement at the very least.)

I don't expect answers; buzzwords and talking points can only get you so far, and it looks as if we're nudging the limits.
>> No. 77487 Anonymous
9th September 2016
Friday 6:44 pm
77487 spacer
>>77484
>How many Corbyn supporters do you think have read a sentence or more of Trotsky?
About the same proportion as Manchester United fans that have been anywhere near Manchester.

>And how would supporting the Tory-lite side of the Party not be Tory-enabling?
Don't give up the day job, lad. I don't think standup is for you.
>> No. 77488 Anonymous
9th September 2016
Friday 6:57 pm
77488 spacer
>>77487

>usual crap

Why do you bother? I can guarantee this shtick is more trying for you than enjoyable. I'm certainly finding it tedious.

(Although, I do sort of like the idea of opening a history book to read: in 1923 Rangers began liquidizing all Premier League members for suspected counter-revolutionary tendencies. Agrarian reformer Leicester City fled to Mexico at about this time...)
>> No. 77491 Anonymous
9th September 2016
Friday 7:25 pm
77491 spacer

corbyn_average_supporter.jpg
774917749177491
>>77484
>How many Corbyn supporters do you think have read a sentence or more of Trotsky?
>> No. 77493 Anonymous
9th September 2016
Friday 7:27 pm
77493 spacer
>>77488
>I'm certainly finding it tedious.
It's supposed to be tedious. Stop inviting it and you'll stop getting it.
>> No. 77495 Anonymous
9th September 2016
Friday 7:29 pm
77495 spacer
>>77491

...That's Lenin.
>> No. 77496 Anonymous
9th September 2016
Friday 7:32 pm
77496 spacer
>>77493

How did I invite it? We were talking about New Labour.

Is that enough to get you going?
>> No. 77497 Anonymous
9th September 2016
Friday 7:39 pm
77497 spacer
>>77496
>We were talking about New Labour.
And that would be how you invited it. The rest of us were talking about Enoch Powell.
>> No. 77504 Anonymous
9th September 2016
Friday 10:16 pm
77504 spacer
>>77495
I think it's fair to assume that someone with a massive poster of Lenin has more than a passing acquaintance with the works of Trotsky as well.
You would imagine he had read about the various branches of communism before picking a favourite.
>> No. 77505 Anonymous
9th September 2016
Friday 10:25 pm
77505 spacer
>>77491
There are 100s of thousands of Trotskyists or Leninists in the UK then. Right.

>>77504
>I think it's fair to assume that someone with a massive poster of Lenin has more than a passing acquaintance with the works of Trotsky as well.
The funny thing about the Labour Right's obsession with Trots is that for half of them, it goes back even to their radical youth, when they were anti-Trotskyist Stalinists.
>> No. 77506 Anonymous
9th September 2016
Friday 10:26 pm
77506 spacer

TheParty.jpg
775067750677506
>>77504
To be fair, some probably just picked someone out of this lineup without knowing much about them.
>> No. 77508 Anonymous
9th September 2016
Friday 10:44 pm
77508 spacer
>>77504

You really are grasping at straws...

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password