There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
- Enoch 'Knocker' West, who played for Man. United, and received a life ban for fixing a match with Liverpool. --Scherben (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Another BoN rant
yeah, the guy pointed out that letting huge masses of people into a country without their consent and allowing them to set up distinct communities without having to integrate would lead to cultural degeneration and stagnation. He pointed out that English customs and traditions would be undervalued, that it would change education in favor of political correctness rather than an actual education concerning the classics and that it would become taboo to celebrate the ethnic, cultural, historical and Christian heritage of England without hearing cries of bigot or racist. He also pointed out that there would be extreme racial tension and that without any pressure to integrate the immigrant populations would become violent and entitled. He pointed out that state funds to immigrant groups would only make them more demanding and entitled and would not help educate or integrate them but merely make them dependent. That they would them attack everything about England and attempt to destroy it using the excuse that they had been "exploited" and so therefore had the right to forcibly change England and have the old culture expunged. What an asshole. Boy, was he wildly inaccurate. Now that I've discovered the idiocy of this place known as rationalwiki I could probably spend the rest of my life refuting all the nonsense they peddle in the name of rationality but then I would never sleep.— Unsigned, by: 22.214.171.124 / talk / contribs 09:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
He made people discuss their views on the subject/made 'the political leaders' aware that there was support for the viewpoint that he expressed - or at least disquiet about the rate and types of change.
No evidence he was an anti-semite
I can't find any evidence that Enoch Powell was an anti-semite, not even that he was accused of it. It seems inappropriate to have that as a category. Also, he was extremely opposed to Oswald Mosley and gave up his professorship in Australia to join the British Army as an enlisted soldier.
- He seems to have kept fairly quiet about Jews and Israel so (as the article says) it's hard to be conclusive about his attitudes. Here's an article from 1969 which mentions Powell approvingly quoting the anti-semite Douglas Reed, which was taken at the time as a red flag for antisemitism. So that's evidence that he was accused of antisemitism, at the least. Powell also promoted the idea that Jesus was murdered by the Jews rather than the Romans, which is a position often associated with antisemitism - blaming Jews for murdering Jesus without any real evidence seems kind of anti-Jewish. Nobody would question that he was patriotic towards a specific idea of Britain, but you can be a British patriot and be anti-German and still be antisemitic (as indeed Reed was). --Annanoon (talk) 10:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- anti-Semite is a pretty inflammatory accusation to make that is entirely unsupported within the article. when that article concerns a subject as divisive as powell we need to do a lot better than this. the article you linked to is interesting. it goes out of its way to paint a picture of reed as being clearly and unambiguously antisemetic to such an extent you'd have to question why any one would quote him in the first place. the thing is though, I had never heard of reed. the article acknowledges that reference to reed might go over a lot of peoples heads. the quote, approvingly lays it on way too thick btw, is a little cryptic to me without knowing to what he was referring. a bit of googling later, I feel that while reed certainly was a anti-Semite, I am uncertain of how widespread this information was at that time. powell referred to reed in the 30s, reed gained fame in the 30s for his anti hitler stance in works that were not as overtly anti semetic as they became, with war time censorship keeping a lid on that kind of thing until after the war where when his star had dimmed. so yes, powell quoted an anti semite. but did he knowingly do so? I couldn't tell you. the article with the quote doesn't tell us. it very heavily implies, coming as it did not long after the rivers of blood, that powell is probs an antisemite. we know hes a racist so why question it?
- the jews killed jesus thing, and indeed that entire section about his scholarship is a lot more clearcut. all I have seen on the subject tells he did real research with using valid methods, where the concensus from experts in the field disagreed only with his conclusions. no one has suggested any it was all pulled of his arse, and there was not even a hint of a suspicion it was motivated in any way by anti Semitism or to further any political goals. we imply that with no evidence.
- one would think with a figure whose influence has loomed large for so long and so controversially, it wouldn t be difficult to find something if there was anything to find. we already think him racist - its all a lot of people probably think of him. nothing gained from dubious accusations but our credibility is harmed. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)