Ukip leader Nigel Farage provokes anger after agreeing with 'basic principle' of Enoch Powell’s noto - Polidicks

[quote] Nigel Farage, the leader of the UK Independence Party, provoked anger after expressing agreement with the “basic principle” of some of the sentiments in Enoch Powell’s notorious “rivers of blood” speech. Without being told who had delivered the comments, Mr Farage was read a section in which Powell claimed indigenous Britons risked becoming “strangers in their own country” with “neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition”. Mr Farage responded: “In a lot of England, that’s true”. He refused to back down when he was told the remarks were made in Powell’s 1968 speech. “What he was warning about is that if you have a large influx of people into an area that changes an area beyond recognition, there is tension. That basic principle is right,” the Ukip leader told Sky News. He dismissed the suggestion that Powell had “seen it coming”, but he added that migration was on a “completely different scale” today than when the speech was delivered nearly 50 years ago. “When immigration was being discussed in the ‘60s and ‘70s and ‘80s, we were talking about an annual net inflow to the country of between 30 and 50,000 people. “What we have had in the last 13 years is net 4m extra migrants who have come to Britain so we are dealing with something now on a scale that hitherto we couldn’t even have conceived,” he said. [/quote] [url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-leader-nigel-farage-provokes-anger-after-agreeing-with-basic-principle-of-enoch-powells-notorious-rivers-of-blood-speech-9040044.html[/url]

I'm not english, so I might not be up to speed here, but isn't he right?

[QUOTE=matrix_1995;43428948]I'm not english, so I might not be up to speed here, but isn't he right?[/QUOTE] basically if you're not a xenophobic piece of trash immigration isn't a problem so he's kinda wrong in the way that all the "tension" comes from people being dumb and hating immigrants for being a different color

[QUOTE=Tacosheller;43428984]basically if you're not a xenophobic piece of trash immigration isn't a problem so he's kinda wrong in the way that all the "tension" comes from people being dumb and hating immigrants for being a different color[/QUOTE] What this doesn't take into account is the actual problems of 4 million extra people coming to a country. Who cares what race they are, immigration must be controlled to allow for the country to adapt to having more people in it.

[QUOTE=Tacosheller;43428984]basically if you're not a xenophobic piece of trash immigration isn't a problem so he's kinda wrong in the way that all the "tension" comes from people being dumb and hating immigrants for being a different color[/QUOTE] You don't have to be an xenophobic piece of trash to be against some aspects of immigration

I find it amusing, but not surprising that Farage didn't even know he was talking about the speech until he was told.

[QUOTE=Complifused;43429075]You don't have to e a xenophobic piece of trash to be against some aspects of immigration[/QUOTE] That's what ignorant\uneducated lefties don't understand and will pull the race card. Immigration is a very touchy subject, we have been made to have some kind of slave\cultural guilt trip which makes the subject of anti-immigration\multiculturalism taboo. This is regardless of what point of immigration you are talking about, be it culturally, economically, lack of resources\infra-structure to support mass immigration... the list goes on. Immigration is a hot-topic across Europe but right now anyone under the thumb of the European union cannot do anything about it.

This coming from an Islamophobe.

[QUOTE=archangel125;43429249]This coming from an Islamophobe.[/QUOTE] I am a Islamophobe. I do not like the Qu'ran or its Islamic societies philosophies and pratices, as well as their historical war against Europe for hundreds of years. [media][URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t400s6cutYU[/URL][/media]

[QUOTE=matrix_1995;43428948]I'm not english, so I might not be up to speed here, but isn't he right?[/QUOTE] Anyone not from Europe finds this very hard to understand, since for example America was founded on many cultures and religions merged together, it's something your used too and most of these different cultures are merged are accepted and the immigrants are several generations along. Europe is not like that, we were not founded on mass-multiculturalism within the last 100 years like america. It's a very complex subject but there are several factors that go into this so i am not going into detail. But has the UK changed for the better in the last 30 years of mass immigration from the eu\outside the EU? In my opinion, and may Britons who did not ask for mass-immigration the answer is No.

[QUOTE=Vasili;43429341]I am a Islamophobe. I do not like the Qu'ran or its Islamic societies philosophies and pratices, as well as their historical war against Europe for hundreds of years.[/QUOTE] Hey, they've got good reason for warring against Europe. The Crusades seriously fucked their shit up. [editline]5th January 2014[/editline] Let's not forget, the UK meddles in their affairs every bit as much as the USA did.

[QUOTE=Tacosheller;43428984]basically if you're not a xenophobic piece of trash immigration isn't a problem so he's kinda wrong in the way that all the "tension" comes from people being dumb and hating immigrants for being a different color[/QUOTE] I don't know where to start with this post. 'Rivers of blood' is an infamous speech, and searching for it will give you a better understanding. Nigel Farage can agree with the basic principle, and be seen as correct when the leader of the Labour party wants to clamp down on foreign workers as we are so reliant on them.

[QUOTE=Vasili;43429341]I am a Islamophobe. I do not like the Qu'ran or its Islamic societies philosophies and pratices, as well as their historical war against Europe for hundreds of years.[/QUOTE] I would just like to point out that Europe. . . kind of started it. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade#Origin[/url]

[QUOTE=ewitwins;43429476]I would just like to point out that Europe. . . kind of started it. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade#Origin[/url][/QUOTE] The Muslims took Spain centuries before the First Crusade as well as many other previously christian areas outside of Europe. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_conquest_of_Hispania[/url]

[QUOTE=Sword and Paint;43429385]Anyone not from Europe finds this very hard to understand, since for example America was founded on many cultures and religions merged together, it's something your used too and most of these different cultures are merged are accepted and the immigrants are several generations along. Europe is not like that, we were not founded on mass-multiculturalism within the last 100 years like america. It's a very complex subject but there are several factors that go into this so i am not going into detail. But has the UK changed for the better in the last 30 years of mass immigration from the eu\outside the EU? In my opinion, and may Britons who did not ask for mass-immigration the answer is No.[/QUOTE] Most would argue that it has. Your argument about it being a 'cultural' topic north americans wouldn't understand is bullshit, a way to avoid the argument. Many people in the UK (I'd say most people) believe that things HAVE become better, socially and economically, since immigration became common. A society or culture is enriched by being exposed to and supplemented by other world views and philosophies. Most immigrants to the UK and Canada are happy to adopt the overarching culture of the country they're moving to, even if a couple here and there start trying (and trying in futility) to change things to suit their own ideologies - An act that is denounced not only by the natives of Europe and Canada, but by most other immigrants themselves. Problems with the economy caused by poor planning, lack of proper regulation, and broken policies by corrupt politicians are to blame for a drop in the average standard of living and lack of available employment - Not immigrants. That's like saying "Oh, look, it's cold outside today. Thanks Obama."

[QUOTE=Vasili;43429341]I am a Islamophobe. I do not like the Qu'ran[/QUOTE] Speaking as a person who has read the old testament and the new testament as well as parts of the Qu'ran, let me tell you they are not very different in terms of how terrible they are, and in fact the Qu'ran contains a lot of good advice as well (as very long books are bound to). [QUOTE]or its Islamic societies philosophies and pratices, as well as their historical war against Europe for hundreds of years.[/QUOTE] Hahaha what the fuck are you on about, which historical war in Europe? The Ottoman wars? I seriously have no clue what you're referring to here. If you're talking about wars that happened hundreds of years ago I really don't get your point either, because hundreds of years ago basically [B]everyone[/B] was at war with someone. Conquesting land was basically how you moved your society forward.

[QUOTE=archangel125;43429406]Hey, they've got good reason for warring against Europe. The Crusades seriously fucked their shit up.[/QUOTE] The Crusades, (especially the first) were in response to Muslims\Islam attacking Europe and the middle east (See Spain\southern France\remainder of the byzantine empire all the way to Hungary and Austria) The crusades had to happen or Islam would have taken more of Europe and instead of English we would be speaking Arabic. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade[/url] [img]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/91de3d52a6fb.jpg[/img] Green is Islamic jihadists (Various north African sultanates) taking over spain: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Spain[/url] - or google it for more depth. Red is Islamic Jihadists (Ottomans\Turks) plowing through southern europe (hungary, bosnia, serbia etc) Here's an example of italy: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Islam_in_southern_Italy[/url] Venice was actually under ottoman rule for some time and became a slave-trade haven. [quote]355: After removing a Roman temple from the site (possibly the Temple of Aphrodite built by Hadrian), Constantine I has the Church of the Holy Sepulcher constructed in Jerusalem. Built around the excavated hill of the Crucifixion, legend has it that Constantine's mother Helena discovered the True Cross here. Here's a interesting timeline of important events of islam and the crusades: [url]http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imperialism/notes/islamchron.html[/url] [/quote]

-snip bad automerge-

He raises a good point. Places like Birmingham and London have become more foreign than British.

[QUOTE=dunkace;43429575]He raises a good point. Places like Birmingham and London have become more foreign than British.[/QUOTE] How so? Because you see a lot of people of color there as opposed to white protestant anglo-saxons? Or has the entire culture of Birmingham and London changed so much that ideals that are considered 'British' and the overall culture of England is no longer there at all? Because if you're basing it on the color of people's skins and the language they speak amongst themselves as opposed to a literal polar shift in culture, that's simply fucked up.

[QUOTE=archangel125;43429592]How so? Because you see a lot of people of color there as opposed to white protestant anglo-saxons? Or has the entire culture of Birmingham and London changed so much that ideals that are considered 'British' and the overall culture of England is no longer there at all? Because if you're basing it on the color of people's skins and the language they speak amongst themselves, that's simply fucked up.[/QUOTE] He never said anything remotely about colour of skin. Not everything to do with immigration\'foreign people' is to do about race\colour of skin, that's just racist.

[QUOTE=Aidan_088;43429515]The Muslims took Spain centuries before the First Crusade as well as many other previously christian areas outside of Europe. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_conquest_of_Hispania[/url][/QUOTE] Can we please not argue about that? This is like a 8 year olds' argument "He hit me first! No, he hit me first!" All of that happened a millennium ago, and it doesn't give right or excuse for one party to wage war against the other.

[QUOTE=Sword and Paint;43429657]He never said anything remotely about colour of skin. Not everything to do with immigration\'foreign people' is to do about race\colour of skin, that's just racist.[/QUOTE] Which is why I asked the question, Einstein.

nativism is dumb [editline]5th January[/editline] pretty much the entire argument boils down to nationalism being bad, but only when other countries do it [editline]5th January[/editline] which i guess is kind of the point of nationalism to begin with

[QUOTE=Stopper;43429671]Can we please not argue about that? This is like a 8 year olds' argument "He hit me first! No, he hit me first!" All of that happened a millennium ago, and it doesn't give right or excuse for one party to wage war against the other.[/QUOTE] I agree that the crusades and Jihads should not be used to justify modern politics. But I was not the one that brought it up. I simply pointed out that the Crusades came after the Jihads. And yes I know that Jihad is effectively a synonym for struggle but in this context it is used to mean war.

I have come to realize that Farage is pretty much wrong in every single way when it comes to policy but the way they cornered him like this is also pretty wrong. Its pretty much political flame baiting. Anyone could easily take a quote from a speech. For example: I could take excerpts from a speech regarding social and press reforms then read it out to someone like David Cameron who ultimately agrees then what will then happen when I tell him I just read him quotes from one of Adolf Hitler's early speeches from the 20s?

[QUOTE=Aidan_088;43429752]I agree that the crusades and Jihads should not be used to justify modern politics. But I was not the one that brought it up. I simply pointed out that the Crusades came after the Jihads. And yes I know that Jihad is effectively a synonym for struggle but in this context it is used to mean war.[/QUOTE] Fair point. Let's just say the opposition of natives of the Middle East to the West in general is due to the fucking around Britain and the USA have done in the Middle East in recent history. Oh, and that doesn't necessarily extend to immigrants, who are moving to the UK, for the most part, because they prefer it to where they came from.

[QUOTE=Aidan_088;43429752]I agree that the crusades and Jihads should not be used to justify modern politics. But I was not the one that brought it up. I simply pointed out that the Crusades came after the Jihads. And yes I know that Jihad is effectively a synonym for struggle but in this context it is used to mean war.[/QUOTE] I wasn't replying specifically to. This topic is absolutely pointless - you can find conflicts between Islam and Christianity dating since the conception of the former. They are not an excuse for conflicts today.

[QUOTE=archangel125;43429406]Hey, they've got good reason for warring against Europe. The Crusades seriously fucked their shit up. [editline]5th January 2014[/editline] Let's not forget, the UK meddles in their affairs every bit as much as the USA did.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=ewitwins;43429476]I would just like to point out that Europe. . . kind of started it. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade#Origin[/url][/QUOTE] What do you think caused the crusades? Desire for gold and to take Jerusalem? How about years of Muslim slavers kidnapping, raiding and pillaging and sacking Southern Europe, leaving the South of France nearly deserted, Italy in fear and many dead? How about the Moor invasions of Europe, occupying [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moors#Moors_of_Iberia"]Spain[/URL], [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moors#Moors_of_Sicily"]Sicily[/URL], and attempting to break the Franks in France and swam over all of Europe with Islam? Muslims have always tried to conquer Europe long before Christians made a move. The expansions of the Ottoman empire into Byzantium territory, glaring at Constantinople with envious eyes is why Europe said "No more." Yet after three bloody crusades we have the Ottomans invasions in Europe through the then destroyed Byzantine nation, taking Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, Serbia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Hungary and into Venice to lay siege to the state, only to be broken by Poles and Germans. Lets not forget the reintroduction of pirates raids to nearby parts of Europe in order to capture Christian slaves to sell at slave markets in the Arab World throughout the Renaissance period, until the early 18th century, Muslims maintained a massive slave trade with the Ottoman Empire and the rest of the middle east, frequently raiding into Europe right up to Russia. Europe couldn't stop the Vikings because they were divided, but they were united against the threat of Islam that has harassed and pillaged Europe for hundreds of years prior, always looking for a opportunity to break its back and submit it to the Islamic faith.

[QUOTE=Stopper;43429671]Can we please not argue about that? This is like a 8 year olds' argument "He hit me first! No, he hit me first!" All of that happened a millennium ago, and it doesn't give right or excuse for one party to wage war against the other.[/QUOTE] Please look into Islamic expansion into Europe, then you might understand why the crusades existed and the aggressiveness of the Islamic sultanates at the time. The ottoman empire's aggression is a perfect example of Islamic aggression towards Europe\Christianity. Since your in Bulgaria (Your FP flag), you should already know all this since the Ottomans conquered Bulgaria and held it for several hundred years until WW1 finally made the ottoman empire collapse. [quote] The history of Ottoman Bulgaria spans nearly 500 years, from the conquest by the Ottoman Empire of the smaller kingdoms emerging from the disintegrating Second Bulgarian Empire in the late 14th century, to the Liberation of Bulgaria in 1878. Bulgarian territories were administrated as the Rumelia Eyalet. The Ottoman rule was a period marked by oppression and misgovernment and represents a deviation of Bulgaria's development as a Christian European state.[1][2][3] A process of cultural revival occurred with the weakening of the Ottoman administration after 1700, which ultimately resulted in an organized, armed struggle for liberation. [/quote] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Bulgaria[/url]