Asylum seekers on our doorstep

There is no such thing as an asylum seeker. These aliens want to come here and take for free what the people of this country have built. They take advantage of the goodwill of the people of Britain.

They are parasites and scroungers, this is the bottom line. They have no integrity to whatever land the have left and they certainly don't hold a torch for Britain either.

Our splendid government state they are returning to their homeland. I don't believe that for one minute, how can you and I know for sure this is the truth? They tell more lies than Tom Pepper.

(Continued)

Of course I am taking examples from the lunatic fringe because you are blindly doing exactly the same thing with your assessment of Africans. To stain all Africans with the actions of a tiny minority who exercise tyranny and violence over others is no different to holding all Europeans responsible for the actions of the Nazis.

I never suggested colonialism was the cause of all evil in Africa.

Mike, my argument is based on the idea that its not productive, accurate or fair to assume an individual will inevitably conform to a stereotype of their race or nationality. Physical characteristics are not comparable to behavioural traits because within a racially uniform population behaviour varies enormously while appearance, depending on how you define it, does not. The 'complex' question as to whether race defines behaviour is answered with simple observation. It is simply not valid to say that someone has a distinctly 'African personality'. You and I, are a perfect example of this mental diversity within race in that we share skin colour but are diametrically opposed in our fundamental views.

Taking history as a benchmark seems a fairly pointless exercise if we are to use it to condemn today's Africans as liable to cause war, oppression and genocide. Europe has been the scene of war, oppression and genocide for millenia (and undoubtedly still would be if it weren't for the forcibly unitary nature of the structure of the EU), but I don't think it would be a legitimate assumption to make the generalisation that Europeans have a penchant for war, oppresion or genocide. I have met hundreds, possibly thousands of individual Europeans and I can genuinely say not one has demonstrated the capability for genocide. Neither could we accurately say that an American plucked at random will be overweight and unintelligent (for that is the common stereotype). Similarly, we cannot say that if the only thing we know about a person is that they're African, then we can safely assume they're involved in war, oppression or genocide.

I cannot comprehend your failure to grasp the following truth: It is not fair or accurate to assume a behavioural characterisitc of an individual, on the sole basis that that trait is demonstrated by a seperate individual of vaguely similar geographical origin.

(Continued)

Sam, your whole argument is based on the statement that races and nationalities do not conform to stereotypes. The fact is that they do. Most people of Teutonic background are tall and fair skinned, most people of Middle Eastern background are darker and swarthy complexioned with larger noses, people from East Asia tend to have almond eyes and to be smaller built, and so it goes on. Most Africans have very dark skin, short curly hair, and flat noses. It's really very simple whether you choose to accept it or not.

From that we move on to the more complex question of whether genetics influence behavioural patterns. I believe they do, although they are often overridden by cultural and educational influences.

You are taking the actions of the lunatic fringe (those who kidnap and rape their own children, Basque terrorists and so on) as examples to add credence to your argument and thereby detract from the strength of mine. I can see why you would want to do that but it isn't valid as a logical progression of the discussion.

Back to Africans, as one who has grown up in Africa and with Africans (you're assuming by the way that I'm European ....!) I would ask you to look at the history of Africa (and the Mediterranean Maghrebin and African countries although geographically African are not peopled by true Africans) and tell me how much of a success story it is. Zimbabwe is the worst current example but many other countries are not far behind. There is one exception and that is a country where 90% of the population consist of one tribe. Elsewhere you have African tribalism and that is what causes wars, misery, oppression, genocide and everything else which has made Africa the mess it is today.

It is easy to accuse 'Colonialism' of being the root of all evil in Africa but this is a facile and disingenuous argument which holds no water.

(Continued)

To say that Africans are incapable of governing their countries without bloodshed and misery is to assume that trait of any African picked at random from the entire continent on the basis of isolated factions, in isolated states within it. Am I to assume that you Mike, as a European, are prone to kidnapping and imprisoning family members in your cellar? Would it be productive or fair to say that you, as a European, are liable to set up car bombs in the name of Basque seperatism? It is an equally ridiculous notion to suggest any African should be judged or defined on the actions of Mugabe's thugs, or the genocidal rampages of Sudanese rebel mercenaries.

Racism has been shunned as a constructive view because it is far too broad and innacurate to base any realistic policy upon. Mike, you undoubtedly have racist opinions. That is perfectly acceptable of course, and you seem to be aware and comfortable with the fact, which is again perfectly acceptable. What you must accept is that civilisation, and the vast majority of its adherents, have progressed from that mindset. Having seen it over the centuries for the brutally destructive force it is, we have vowed to leave it finally in the twentieth century, among the innumerable piles of corpses it created there.

I don't think the definition of racism is particularly debatable: It is prejudice on the basis of race. When you presume the motives or character of an individual you don't know to be the same or similar to those of someone with whom they share ethnicity then you are making a prejudged assumption based purely on race. You don't necessarily have to act overtly or hostilely on that prejudice for it to be detrimental.

It leads to massively over-generalised statements about entire populations, and for that reason alone it is totally unworkable on a political basis. To overlook the diversity of opinion, motivation, wealth, aspiration, activity and productivity within a population is to severely damge your ability to interact with any member of that population in a productive way. Further, prejudice, it seems has blurred your definition boundaries of nationality, continentalism and race. Having people of a different race/colour "flooding into your country" is utterly invalid as a sensible statement because nationality is not, and never has been based on race or colour accept among undemocratic governments who have imposed that definition with murderous intent on their own populations.

(Continued)

Karl : It depends what you mean by racist. If I go and beat up a man who is walking down the street, purely on the basis that he is a different colour or nationality, that is racist behaviour and as such deplorable. So would be refusing to employ him purely on the basis of his colour.

I have been accused of racism when approached by a black whore in a hotel in Lagos. The argument that I would most likely have turned down the solicitation of a white whore in similar circumstances did not seem to convince her.

If I prefer not to mix with people of different race/colour, not to have them in my home, not to have them flooding into my country, not to sup or imbibe with them in the local hostelries, not to sleep with them, that is my right. If I express such thoughts, or say that Africans are demonstrably incapable of governing their own countries without bloodshed and misery, I am accused of being racist.

That being so, I wear the badge openly and with pride.

What is actually wrong about being a racist? I see racism in a form of light, how different cultures look at situations. For example, although we share a common language, I believe I have more in common with an Aborigni than an American.

To live in harmony and love one another is a total myth, a fairytale as history clearly indicates. Man will never live in peace.

Natural is cruel so why should man be any different?

Sam : we will never agree. I respect your views, which are coherent and well expounded, unlike many other 'contributors' on this site, but your definition of 'racism', which allows you to refer to Enoch Powell as racist, differs from mine.

The man was not, in my view, racist, any more than the late Ian Smith was racist. Having met both men several times, and having had the prvilege of knowing the latter quite well, I do know what I'm talking about.

Now that you understand where I'm coming from, you will understand why we can never agree.

Best wishes


Mike

Firstly, I'm not a 'leftie'. I despise what the left wing establishment has done to the liberties and operation of this nation. Choosing not to oppose immigration does not make someone left wing, just as opposing it does not make someone right wing. It is rather sweeping for you to assume so and speaks volumes about how simply you view such a complex issue.

Secondly, this editorial is so riddled with inaccuracies that it is barely worth commenting upon. The 7/7 bombers were born and raised in Britain; they were not immigrants. Furthermore, if we are to blame immigration for the ability to commit acts of terror, then we must disregard the hard factual examples that a) the IRA bombing campaign was carried out by Irish nationals, NOT immigrants and b) the 9/11 terror attacks on the USA were carried out by predominantly Saudi nationals, NOT immigrants.

Promoting the curbing or halting of immigration does not make someone racist and publicly doing so is perfectly acceptable. I would be disgusted if it was not. It depends upon the individual motives behind opposing immigration as to whether it is racist or not. Someone is not racist if they oppose immigration on the grounds of, for example, the pressure it puts on public services. If they oppose it on the grounds that they view a Black or Arab population as more destructive to society then they are. Powell was racist because he negatively prejudged individuals according to their ethnicity, not because he opposed high levels of immigration.

Long before Powell made his speech - which ought to be issued to every home in the land, since I rarely hear it quoted anything other than completely inaccurately - there was a code of silence about immigration. Long before we knew the term "political correctness", it was viewed as simply impolite to raise the subject.

Powell had served in India in the 1940s. He fell in love with the country, its cultures and its peoples so profoundly that he wished to spend the rest of his life there. He learned to speak two Indian languages fluently. This does not stop point-scoring spud-thick politicians accusing him of racism, bigotry and other vices. A few months ago it did not stop the poseur who leads the Tory party sacking one of his parliamentary candidates for saying that Powell was right.

Many of our immigrants have assimilated over the past 40 years. Equally, many have chosen not to. Four of them murdered 52 innocent people on London's public transport network nearly three years ago. Others, according to the police and the security services, are busily engaged in trying to repeat the incident. So far they have been thwarted: but for how long?

This is all the legacy of those who refused to take Powell seriously; of militant Leftists who mischievously cry "racism" to avoid any sensible debate on immigration; of well-heeled politicians who saw no harm in driving millions of poor immigrants into ghettos, with a perfect disregard for their welfare and for that of the people already living in those places; and of ministers in this very Government who for years saw no reason to enforce immigration controls at all, in the interests of deliberately destroying our national identity.

Powell was the greatest Conservative thinker in political life in living memory. He foresaw what were then unimaginable tensions caused by forcibly altering the character of a country. We should remember him tomorrow with enhanced respect. For he was right.

Some of you little lefties should read this editorial in today's Telegraph. It confirms how right Enoch Powell was. If saying so makes me, in your view, racist, then I'm racist, and proudly so.

Part 1:
Sunday is the 40th anniversary of perhaps the most significant speech made in British politics since the Second World War: Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech.

It is also, therefore, near to the 40th anniversary of one of the greatest lies in British politics since the Second World War: that this remarkably accurate prediction of the dangers of enforced multiculturalism has "prevented" a rational debate on immigration, since anyone who seeks to engage in it will be branded as a "racist".

It would be a comfort if this position were merely ignorant. It isn't. Powell is used by the Left - and that includes many people in the Conservative Party - as a cynical excuse to conceal their own failures in imposing proper immigration controls and maintaining social cohesion.

They start by saying Powell was a racist, which is also a deliberate lie. They then say that anyone who mentions immigration will now be tarred with that brush, which must therefore be a lie as well. This is convenient for those who have betrayed the people of this country by imposing an immigrant community so large upon it that it struggles to integrate - and, indeed, who have betrayed many of those immigrants too. Yet it won't wash.