Dear all /
Cher tousWe have just issued a 40 minutes, subtitled in French, (and partially abridged) version of a BBC documentary about Enoch Powell.
Nous venons de publier une version sous titrée (et abrégée) de 40 minutes d’un documentaire de la BBC sur Enoch Powell et l’immigration.We believe this document might be of some interest to the French-speaking readers who read your sites.
Nous pensons que ce document peut intéresser les lecteurs francophones qui consultent vos sites.The film comes from the BBC Dispatch series on immigration. It was broadcast in April 2008 in England
Le film fait partie de la série Dispatch sur l’immigration diffusée en avril 2008 en Angleterre.
We would appreciate if you could inform your readers that a French version is available. Anyone can ask for the.srt files to caption the film in another language. We will also send the un-captionned version of the edited movie to anyone who asks for it.
Nous serions heureux que vous informiez vos lecteurs de l’existence de ce document.Videos here:
Les vidéos sont ici: http://www.youtube.com/user/powellenoch
[post ends here]
7 comments:
While this documentary is weak on many fronts it is still surprising coming from Pravda, I mean the BBC.
Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech was given in 1968?! 40 years ago!
It is only recently that I heard the name Enoch Powell (I was but a child of immigrants in kindergarden at the time)
and this video discloses that the Beatles song "Get Back" was a parody of Powell's views? Geeez.
The completely avoidable damage that has been done to the UK in 40 years is mind boggling.
The final minute of the last segment summarizes England's dilemma quite well.
"I don't think we've yet put over just how troubled many of our constituents are by this. And that's worrying because if you allow things to brew, they can
errupt in all sorts of ways - but then it's already too late to counter act.
Powell may have been prescient in seeing the problems ahead. But on the key issue of race, he got it wrong.
While at the time, the main distinction that people observed was between black and white, that is not the significant distinction
as we now know. The significant distinction is between those, who for whatever cultural and historical reasons can accept
a secular state, a rule of law and national identity and those who cannot."
And now, who would the people that "cannot accept a secular state, a rule of law and national identity" be?
Ans. Those who shall not be named?
In the third installment, at marker 4:00, Powell refused to retract a single word in his "Rivers of Blood" speech at the 1968 Tory Party Conference to call for
voluntary repatriation. Quote: "Too often today, people are ready to tell us this is not possible. That is not possible. I say, whatever the true interest our country
calls for IS ALWAYS POSSIBLE!"
Even today, Powell would likely be banned from some websites - wouldn't he?
In the third installment, at marker 3:34 there are visible parallels to scenes witnessed by David Horowitz's concerns about Islamofascism and academic freedom of speech
At the end of segment 3, Lord Heseltine explains . . .
"You could not say anything which was remotely limiting immigration or taking a tougher line on these issues without fearing that the ghost of Powell or the ghost of Powell's speech would be held against you.
Well, since Powell was wrong for basing his concerns on race, perhaps the current batch of cowards in Parliament will find their spine and come to gripes with the reality their 'fear' created and address it.
Merci BDS!
Ciao Heroyalwhyness,
"Even today, Powell would likely be banned from some websites - wouldn't he?"
Yes, most definitely... and for that matter, so would the Labour MP, Frank Field, whom you quoted.
"And that's worrying because if you allow things to brew, they can
errupt in all sorts of ways"
Wasn't that what got the LGF-Pajama Party so upset with El Ingles-GOV?
Oh well... there's hope:
In it's great anti-islanic struggle LGF unveils: "Tech Note: Announcing CommentSpy!"
Powell was right then and is right today: immigration has been a disaster for Britain.
"Powell may have been prescient in seeing the problems ahead. But on the key issue of race, he got it wrong."
A lie. He railed against the race-hustlers (an integral aspect of a certain kind of immigration), and that stands today if the creation of "black only" schools is anything to go by.
"You could not say anything which was remotely limiting immigration or taking a tougher line on these issues without fearing that the ghost of Powell or the ghost of Powell's speech would be held against you."
It has always been the policy of offensive, pseudo intellectual degenerates to blame Enoch Powell for the very problems he criticised.
"Powell may have been prescient in seeing the problems ahead. But on the key issue of race, he got it wrong."
I'm not so sure that he did. What one has to bear in mind is that when Powell was speaking in 1968, any person who was not white, was referred to as Black. This applied to Africans,Carribeans, Asians, Chinese, Indians, Arabs and so forth. I recall very clearly that during the 1970's the Indian and Pakistani immigrants announced that they no longer wanted to be termed Black, because they felt they're lifestyle was quite different from that of the West Indians,they wanted to be referred to as Asian or Indian etc.
The huge hole in this documentary is the lack of discussion about who it was that promoted and still promotes massive immigration and why they do it.
Post a Comment