Enoch Powell: the Great Lie Survives
| AR Articles on Britain |
|---|
| Whites as Kulaks (Jan. 2002) |
| Report from Britain (Sep. 2001) |
| Oldham Erupts (Jul. 2001) |
| No Representation (May 2001) |
| The Racial Transformation of Britain (Aug. 2000) |
| Black Crime in Britain (Apr. 1996) |
| Search AmRen.com for Britain |
| More news stories on Britain |
Sunday [was] 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.
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 reported in his speech what he found to be the alarmingly strong views some of his constituents in Wolverhampton had about mass immigration, the way it was affecting their lives and the strain it was putting on local public services. He said he knew there would be “a chorus of execration” that he could say such things. But he asked a more important question as an MP whose electors bring him a deeply unsettling problem: by what right, instead, would he have remained silent?
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. Soon, Dave will be booting out people who say the Pope is Catholic.
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.
(Posted on April 21, 2008)
Trevor Phillips Warns of Immigration ‘Cold War’
Lewis Carter, Telegraph (London), April 21, 2008
Mass immigration has led to a racial “cold war” among rival ethnic communities, the head of Britain’s race relations watchdog has warned.
Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), said failed immigration policy risked nurturing racism among millions of Britons.
The gloomy assessment is the latest controversial outburst by Mr Phillips on the subject of immigration, he has previously warned of racial “segregation” in Britain, as well as “white families” being “cheated out of their right to social housing by newly arrived migrants”.
In an address to mark the 40th anniversary of Enoch Powell’s “rivers of blood” speech, in which Powell warned of the dangerous consequences of the rising level of immigration, Mr Phillips said such predictions had not come true.
However, he warned that out of control immigration policy had sparked a “war” which was just as concerning.
Mr Phillips said: “Powell predicted ‘hot’ conflict and violence.
“However, we have seen the emergence of a kind of cold war in some parts of the country, where very separate communities exist side by side … with poor communication across racial or religious lines.
“In essence, Powell so discredited any talk of planning or control that it gave rise to a migration policy in which Government knew too little about what was going on.
“Ironically, Powellism and the weakening of control it engendered may have led Britain to admitting more immigrants than fewer.”
Last week the Telegraph reported on a warning from an influential Lords committee that the number of immigrants entering Britain should be capped, amid fears it was putting too much pressure on public services and housing.
In the speech, delivered in the same Birmingham hotel where Mr Powell sparked public debate on immigration in 1968, Mr Phillips warned Government that it risked playing into the hands of parties such as the British National Party if it failed to address the concerns of the “settled” population.
He said: “For every professional woman who is able to go out to work because she has a Polish nanny, there is a young mother who watches her child struggle in a classroom where a harassed teacher faces too many children with too many languages between them.
“Wanting a better deal for her child doesn’t make her anti-immigrant. But if we can’t find a better answer to her despair then she soon will be.
“For every boss whose bacon is saved by the importation of skilled IT professionals or crafts-people or health professionals, there are a thousand people who wonder every morning why they have to put up with the misery of a packed railway carriage or bus—if they can get on in the first place.
“Wanting an infrastructure that doesn’t make getting to work daily hell doesn’t make someone a natural voter for an anti-immigrant party. But it soon will.”
Mr Phillips’ comments are the latest in a string of controversial remarks on immigration.
In November last year he sparked controversy by saying: “One area where this idea of unfairness is most frequently alleged is in housing allocation, specifically that white families are cheated out of their right to social housing by newly arrived migrants.”
In 2005, when he was chair of the Commission for Racial Equality, Mr Phillips warned of increased “segregation” between ethnic groups in Britain.
Comments
*In 2005, when he was chair of the Commission for Racial Equality, Mr Phillips warned of increased “segregation” between ethnic groups in Britain.*
The truth is, is that the non-white “ethnic groups” hate each other more than the native whites ‘hate’ either groups.
Does anyone remember the article posted on AmRen a few months ago when various “Asian” leaders in Britain wanted Eastern Europeans (namely Poles) out of *their* country?
I’m not implying that Eastern Europeans *aren’t* white - just that quite a lot of the “anti-immigrant” sentiment is also coming from the Carribbean blacks and Pakistanis/Indians.
Posted by Obscuratus at 5:55 PM on April 21
I bet this guy gets spanked by his editors. Simon Heffer, he sounds like a White man. I hope he has a lot of money saved up, because he will probably be fired.
Posted by Howard in Las Vegas at 6:06 PM on April 21
Simon Heffer, the writer of the first article, is the biographer of Enoch Powell. His book is titled Like the Roman.
Posted by dchamil at 6:20 PM on April 21
Trevor Phillips could care less about segregation or nurturing ‘racism’. He sees his gravy train coming to a halt if immigration levels remain high or increase. He sees the consequences of black rule in other nations and he knows that as one of the figureheads of racial government power, blacks will turn on him for not having done enough for the black cause.
His only hope is his power over cowering whites.
Posted by sbuffalonative at 6:29 PM on April 21
“In essence, Powell so discredited any talk of planning or control that it gave rise to a migration policy in which Government knew too little about what was going on.
Thats right you repulsive nation wrecker, blame Enoch Powell for the racial disaster that has befallen this once peaceful and happy land and people. If the Oh so dreadful racist Powell hadn’t mentioned his fears for his beloved country none of todays problems would have arisen because we’d all be freely talking about race, crime and Islamic takeovers down the pub wouldn’t we?. No-one can be blamed except the Multiculti Marxists whose craving for power brought these hostile and criminal aliens into our midst. You and your cronies are to blame. Not Powell, not us ‘racists’, not the English people.
I’m so thrilled that Powell is finally getting the recognition he deserves, but it’s a recognition that he would not have wanted to ever lay claim to, because it tragically fulfils his forbodings and warnings.
The tide is turning, we here at Amren have seen it for years. This kind of article would never have seen light of day even 3 or 4 years ago. Heffer is a respected journalist, the Telegraph is a “tory rag” as is the Daily Mail which coughs up something along ‘the horrors of immigration’ line on a weekly basis, but nevertheless they are MAINSTREAM. Now they can’t shut everyone up, but they’ll try.
Arc.
Posted by Arcadian at 6:45 PM on April 21
Of course it goes without saying that Enoch Powell was right, and Trevor Phillips’ speech is a left-handed acknowledgement of that fact, despite his insisting that Powell’s prediction of “rivers of blood” has not come true. Just because it hasn’t happened yet, that doesn’t mean it won’t.
Powell told the truth, and already in 1968 such truths were not only considered unpalatable, but downright unforgivable, in Britain. So he was sacked from the Cabinet and in essence drummed out of public life.
But Powell’s predictions were simply a foreshadowing of Jean Respail’s novel “The Camp of the Saints” which was published about four to five years later. And both have been chillingly accurate forecasts of what is now happening to Britain and, on a larger stage, Europe and the U.S. Enoch Powell is no longer with us. But I suspect that somewhere, he is smiling — grimly.
Posted by Wayne Engle at 7:25 PM on April 21
His whole series of this speech is on youtube. It is what we need now. The downturn in economic conditions may help us.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zMTndhA21O0
Posted by at 7:57 PM on April 21
Phillips is careful about echoing Powell but he’s having difficulty in not saying effectively the same thing.
Ironic considering the likes of Philips is one of the things Powell had warned about when he used the phrase “whip hand”. But even a Black Empowerment, err I mean Equality, commissioner can’t keep denying what is obvious about the failure of Britain’s mass immigration policy.
Posted by Reality Check at 9:26 PM on April 21
“In an address to mark the 40th anniversary of Enoch Powell’s “rivers of blood” speech, in which Powell warned of the dangerous consequences of the rising level of immigration, Mr Phillips said such predictions had not come true.”
Not come true? He speaks as if the matter is settled once and for all. Another elitist official several months back declared that the UK was “on the brink.”
But, of course, who needs to hear from one of them to know every Western society can be transformed into battlefields almost overnight, since all of them contain powder kegs of contentious tribesmen who are constantly at odds with each other often, and with whites always, plus the vast majority despise the countries they’re living in. So to say Powell was wrong is not only premature it indicates a failure to understand just how far along the road to Hell they really are.
What Powell warned of was correct, and it will come to pass as soon as something occurs to increase the intensity to critical mass. It’s just a matter of time.
Anybody who thinks it’s possible for vastly different people to get along for very long is a fool.
Posted by Robert Kelly at 10:13 PM on April 21
I’ve said it before and I will say it again. The media and its allies did the same thing to Joseph McCarthy as they did to Enoch Powell. Their was tremendous truth to what both men were saying. Ask the average person what they think of Joseph McCarthy. It is possible to fool an entire nation. No kidding.
Posted by ChiefofClanFearghus at 12:34 AM on April 22
Just think of all the problems Britain would and could have avoided if it had just remained what it had always been - a monoracial nation. No subway suicide bomb attacks, no race riots, no black ghettos, no alienated British people, no race-relations act, and most of all no Trevor Phillips.
Posted by at 12:48 AM on April 22
In AmConMag there is an article by Professor James Kurth which is pertinent in parts. To quote:
… in the West, radical demographic change means that the prospect for greater peace and tranquility abroad is dialectically and diabolically connected to the prospect for greater conflict and violence at home.
Current social attitudes and demographic trends in the West suggest that there will be a continuation of low reproduction rates among Western peoples and therefore a severe decline in their populations. Conversely, there will be a continuation of high immigration of non-Western peoples into the Western nations and of higher reproduction rates among the non-Western communities in the West than among the Western peoples themselves. This will have major consequences not only for the military strategies of the Western nations but for their national security—and even identity.
The most dramatic consequences are likely to occur in Europe, where most of the non-Western populations will be Muslim. … Many European countries will become two nations, and Europe as a whole will become two civilizations. The first will be a Western civilization or, more accurately, given Europeans’ rejection of many Western traditions, a post-Western civilization comprised of people of European descent. It will be secular, even pagan, rich, old, and feeble. The second will be the non-Western civilization, descended from non-European peoples. It will be religious, even Islamic, poor, young, and vigorous. It will be a kind of overseas colony of a foreign civilization, a familiar occurrence in European history, but this time the foreign civilization will be the umma of Islam and the colonized country will be Europe itself. The two civilizations will regard each other with mutual contempt. In the new civilization, there will be a growing rage, and in the old civilization, there will be a growing fear. These will be the perfect conditions for endemic Islamic terrorism, urban riots, and mob violence: an Islamist insurgency within Europe itself.
… European nations could experience in their homelands and from a Muslim minority of 10 percent or more a version of what France experienced in its Algerian colony from a Muslim majority of 90 percent. And the European population will have no place to retreat to. The Basque guerrillas in Spain, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, and the Muslim insurgents in India (Kashmir) are largely concentrated in a particular territory, making territorial secession seem like a viable objective. That is not the case with the Muslim community within Europe.
… in our era of low birth rates, there are not that many young men of the majority around.
When a militant, violent minority community confronts a militant, violent majority community, the outcome will be clear—so clear that the minority is usually sensible enough not to become militant and violent in the first place. The outcome is less certain when a minority community confronts a majority that is only one in the numerical sense— just a conglomeration of little groups and isolated individuals who define themselves by ideologies like multiculturalism, diversity, or expressive individualism.
For the nations of the West, which have arrived at this historically unprecedented state, a viable strategy for the nation is no longer really possible because they are no longer really nations at all.[emphasis added] …
This grim scenario seems somewhat reminiscent of the Global Strategic Trends of Rear Admiral Parry of the Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre (DCDC), a Directorate General within the UK’s Ministry of Defence (MOD).
Posted by Bert Rustle at 6:21 AM on April 22
There was another remarkably relevant speech given by the Rt. Hon. J. Enoch Powell, MP, to a meeting of the Stretford Young Conservatives at the Civic Theatre, Stretford, Manchester at 8pm, Friday, 21 January 1977. The Road to National Suicide Immigration, The Public Interest And The ‘Uniform of Color’ . It begins:
… Throughout the last twenty years, locally at first, then nationally, one political subject has been different from all the rest in the persistence with which it has endured and the profound and absorbing preoccupation which it has increasingly held for the public. This is all the more remarkable because of the sedulous determination with which this subject has been kept, as far as possible, out of parliamentary debate, and the use which has been made of every device�from legal penalty to trade union proscription�to prevent the open discussion and ventilation of it. No social or political penalty, no threat of private ostracism or public violence, has been spared against those who have nevertheless continued to describe what hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens daily saw and experienced and to voice the fears for the future by which those fellow citizens were haunted. The efforts that were made during the 1930s to silence, ridicule, or denounce those who warned of the coming war with the fascist dictatorships and who called for the peril to be recognized and met before too late, provide but a pale and imperfect precedent.
In all this suppression more than one powerful motive can be seen at work. On the one hand there is the primitive but widespread superstition that if danger is not mentioned, it will go away, or even that it is created by being identified and can therefore be destroyed again by being left in silence. Akin to this is the natural resentment of ordinary people, but especially of politicians, at being forced to face an appalling prospect with no readily procurable happy ending. The custom of killing messengers who bring bad news is not confined to the kings and tyrants of antiquity or of fiction. On the other hand there are at work the dark motives of those who desire the catastrophic outcome which they foresee. All round the world in various forms the same formula for rending societies apart is being prepared and applied, by ignorance or design, and there are those who are determined to see to it that Britain shall no longer be able to escape. I marvel sometimes that people should be so innocently blind to this nihilism. …
Posted by Bert Rustle at 6:23 AM on April 22
The “funeral pyre” of which Powell wrote has been heaped very high indeed. It now awaits a spark to set it ablaze. My guess is this spark will arrive with the onset of a serious economic downturn. At that point we’re going to find out how much Britons really care about their liberty.
Posted by Xenophon at 9:03 AM on April 22
“Ask the average person what they think of Joseph McCarthy. It is possible to fool an entire nation.”
Joe McCarthy was the last obstacle standing in the lefts way to total power over the media, universities and entertainment. He was a very brave man. In no way do I mean to disrespect McCarthy but perhaps it was the alcohol that helped give him the courage.
Posted by at 11:33 AM on April 22
It’s as if the left brain doesn’t know what the right brain is doing.
Incidently, I listened to an afternoon of NPR yesterday (where I get often opposing views, but learn about the left discussion of the day). Incredibly, I heard a report on France where one French representative derided racism, saying that the official French policy is that there is no scientific basis for race, so any stats on race or any policy or individual act that appears to take race into account, is illegal. Less than an hour later, I heard another French report from a representative concerned about the loss of French identity and culture due to immigration.
It seems that in the West the understanding of basic political math is gone. 1- (+) 1+ = 0. One minus - plus - one plus - equals zero!
Posted by Whiteplight at 1:52 PM on April 22
Mr Phillips said: “Powell predicted ‘hot’ conflict and violence.
“However, we have seen the emergence of a kind of cold war in some parts of the country, where very separate communities exist side by side … with poor communication across racial or religious lines.
Here’s a guy who is the beneficiary of the No Talk Rules of Political Correctness trying to sound totally mystified and concerned, as in, “Geez folks, how did it get to this?”
How comically, absurdly, disingenuous. What a knucklehead.
Posted by Mal Evans at 2:10 PM on April 22
Excellent post, Burt R.
If one considers historical examples of past incursions, one will find that there are numerous, but limited, possibilities.
1. Rome: with the dissolution of the Roman Empire one saw the invasion of Germanic “barbarians” who, being of like race, tended to assimilate Roman culture; this process culminated in the Holy Roman Empire some 350 years later (taking 476 AD as the end of the Western Roman Empire with the deposition of the last Roman Emporor, Romulus Agustulus and the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire around 800 AD); the old empire was changed with the infusion of Germanic peoples and the conversion to Christianity which produced the European Middle Ages. So here one has the fusion of people and cultures which were both racially Western into a new Western civilization, one which consistently fought off the constant attacks of Islam(a foreign race, culture and religion).
2. Alexander and his successors: here we have a dominant military Western culture take by conquest massive areas of Asia(the ancient Persia, Egypt, etc) and the absorption of the conquerers by the host populations with a mixture of Western culture (Hellenism) added. Alexander’s Macedonian generals went on to form various dynasties in which they formed a ruling elite but ultimately were absorbed after imparting Greek ideals.
3. Islam: a racial and religious movement of conquest in which the conquered peoples are forced to accept Islam on pain of death or of permanent second class citizenship; no other culture is tolerated; Islam is a religion of violent conquest and conversion but it always imposes its own cultural and religious beliefs upon those it conquers. It is inherently a culture of exclusion and assimilation.
The situation in Europe, so well described by Burt, is one in which there is a secular, post-modern, Western population of Europeans who are ripe for conquest. As they have completely lost faith in themselves they resemble the Romans of the late Empire. Unfortunately, they are not confronted by either Germanic barbarians (they are their heirs) or by an Alexander. The are confronted by militant Islam whose goal is the same as it has always been, the complete overthrow and conquest of the target culture and its wholesale replacement with Islam. There was a reason that our ancestors fought so hard against this invasion with Charles Martel, the cobined European forces at Lepanto, etc. They were fighting for the survival of the whole bag(their race, religion, liberty, and identity as a people).
It is likely that if the current process of massive Islamic immigration into the West continues for any significant amount of time, there will not be two distinct groups remaining, viz. an aging European post-modern group and an Islamic group. There will only be one group remaining and that will be Islam, which after 12 centuries of attempted conquest of Europe, will have finally won. It is difficult to escape this conclusion, no matter how horrific it may be. A civilization which has lost faith in itself cannot survive as long as there are other ones that do believe in themselves and are inherently expansionist. Thus, my own prediction is that before the end of the 21st century, there will no longer be a Europe, except as a geographical area on an Islamic map.
Posted by at 8:15 AM on April 23
Enoch Powell was unique for his time. He was a Classicist in the old tradition, who could read Greek and Latin as we read English, or perhaps better. Being steeped in the Classical tradition of Western thought, he was England’s only true statesman of the 20th century. He was a classic Burkean conservative in the sense that he sought to preserve all that was good about the past, while not excluding the new on principle. He cared deeply for his country, something that cannot be said of any other British politician of modern times. He actually identified with his constituency, a rather unconventional thing for a modern politician to do, and he felt the pain which they felt in the white working class of so-called “ordinary Britons”.
Powell’s problem was that his own party had already surrendered its principles to the modern PC ideology which had triumphed after the end of WWII. Powell was a Tory unlike his nominal Tory PM, Mr. Heath. He had the courage not only to see reality as it was, but to warn his countrymen of the coming dangers, dangers which were not then or now mentioned in “polite” company. That he did so in some of the most lucid and compelling English prose is a reflection of his Classical education. Some say that by so doing he sacrificed his political career and that may be true. Yet, to a statesman like Powell, the sacrifice of a political career was a small price to pay to attempt to save his country. This is of course something that will never be understood by the current crop of political careerist traitors.
History has proven Enoch Powell right on every major point he made concerning ex-colonial immigration. Had he been listened to in 1960, Britain would still be Britain today, not the mongrel tinder box of multiracial hatred that it has become under both conservative and labor governments. It would be the very least that the current government could do in justice to honor this great Englishman, something that will, of course, never happen. Yet the truth of his warning is increasingly being recognized by those “ordinary Britains” that both major political parties have ignored for the last 50 years. Perhaps when they are replaced by the BNP, Powell will finally receive his proper recognition—-one can always hope.
Posted by at 8:35 AM on April 23
“Rivers of Blood” speech?
I don’t think it does it justice to call it a speech. A “prophecy” is perhaps a more accurate moniker.
Posted by Smash the Multi-Cultural Illusion! Hail a New Enlightenment! Abolish Human Domestication! at 3:41 PM on April 23
“I heard a report on France [in which] one French representative derided racism, saying that the official French policy is that there is no scientific basis for race, so any stats on race or any policy or individual act that appears to take race into account, is illegal.”
Posted by Whiteplight
Interesting. But sheer nonsense, of course.
He’s claiming that race has no scientific basis, but (even if it were so) does that necessarily make it illegal? By that speciious “reasoning”, anything not substantiated by science is illegal. Therefore, religion in France must also be illegal.
Is he prepared, then, to declare Islam to be illegal?
Posted by ghw at 9:04 PM on April 23
“However, we have seen the emergence of a kind of cold war in some parts of the country, where very separate communities exist side by side … with poor communication across racial or religious lines. “
Here’s a guy who is the beneficiary of the No Talk Rules of Political Correctness trying to sound totally mystified and concerned, as in, “Geez folks, how did it get to this?”
How comically, absurdly, disingenuous. What a knucklehead.
Posted by Mal Evans
…………………………………………
Yes. Here’s the beneficiary and strong supporter of Britain’s suppression of free speech (on race and religion), complaining about lack of communication on racial/religious matters. Well, how are they going to discuss it when they can’t? Everyone is afraid to say anything. All they dare to do is agree, but nobody can disagree. What kind of discussion is that? It’s the choir singing to the choir.
How ironic! Only an idiot could say such a thing without realizing that he was putting his foot in his own mouth.
Posted by ghw at 9:17 PM on April 23