This is interesting; from the rivers of blood wikipedia entry:Powell defended his speech on 4 May through an interview for the Birmingham Post: 'What I would take 'racialist' to mean is a person who believes in the inherent inferiority of one race of mankind to another, and who acts and speaks in that belief. So the answer to the question of whether I am a racialist is 'no'—unless, perhaps, it is to be a racialist in reverse. I regard many of the peoples in India as being superior in many respects—intellectually, for example, and in other respects—to Europeans. Perhaps that is over-correcting.'
The attraction of wankers such as the National Front to his speech was unfortunate, but ultimately highlights Mr horrible's original statement above about filth like the Daily Mail
(The attraction of wankers such as the National Front to his speech was unfortunate, but ultimately highlights Mr horrible's original statement above about filth like the Daily Mail
Jahled Three shades of black,
Thu 13 Nov 2008, 19:35,
archived)
racistis not meant as a blanket term for those who feel superior to everyone not of their race.
A racist can quite easily choose to be selective in his choice of which man is less worthy.
Powell was very clearly intolerant of West Indians or ( wide-grinning piccaninnies as he is on record as calling them, something he attempted to sue newspapers over but later dropped because he had not a shred of evidence for his feeble excuse of "quoting a constituent")
Like many of the right of his day. They were happy that the 'Windrush' folk saved Britain from economic meltdown after the war but come the late 60's when it was all fixed again they found it distasteful to have 'these people' having the same right to the same benefits as 'us people'.
(A racist can quite easily choose to be selective in his choice of which man is less worthy.
Powell was very clearly intolerant of West Indians or ( wide-grinning piccaninnies as he is on record as calling them, something he attempted to sue newspapers over but later dropped because he had not a shred of evidence for his feeble excuse of "quoting a constituent")
Like many of the right of his day. They were happy that the 'Windrush' folk saved Britain from economic meltdown after the war but come the late 60's when it was all fixed again they found it distasteful to have 'these people' having the same right to the same benefits as 'us people'.
Pasanonic 's been known to cause insanity in laboratory mice,
Thu 13 Nov 2008, 20:10,
archived)