‘Rivers of Blood’

Jon Harrison Sims, American Renaissance, March 7, 2014

The legacy of Enoch Powell.

Lord Howard of Rising (Editor), Enoch at 100: A Re-evaluation of the Life, Politics, and Philosophy of Enoch Powell, Biteback Publishing, 2012; 320 pp.; £25.00.

The 20th century was surely the worst century in the history of Europe. Whites killed millions of each other in two dysgenic, intra-racial wars that destroyed the continent’s confidence. One consequence was the loss of empires and colonial backwash: the migration of former subjects to white nations in Europe, North America, and Australia.

The population of England, for example, is today more than ten percent non-European. Fifty years ago, it was less than one percent non-white. England’s leaders introduced unassimilable minorities into their country, many of whom are hostile to Western institutions and culture. How did this happen?

Enoch Powell, who would have been 100 years old in 2012 when this book was published, was a Member of Parliament from 1950 to 1987—just as these changes were taking place. Unlike most of his colleagues, he publicly opposed immigration and saw very early where it would lead. Ordinary Britons overwhelmingly supported him, but he was punished by his own Conservative Party. Enoch at 100 is a collection of essays on Powell’s career and politics. The contributors are contemporary commentators and political figures, and are generally sympathetic to Mr. Powell. The collection does not fully answer the question raised above, but it does make it clear who was to blame for this national betrayal.


John Enoch Powell (1912–1998) was not an ordinary politician. He was a brilliant classical scholar and linguist, who could read and write Latin and Greek, speak fluent French and German, and read medieval Welsh. In a Greek examination when he was a student at Cambridge, he translated passages from Bede’s 8th-century History of England into not just one but two styles of Greek, those of Plato and Thucydides—in half the time allotted for the test. In his late 20s, he wrote or edited scholarly works on Thucydides and Herodotus that are still read today. When the British declared war on Germany in 1939, Powell left his position as a professor of Greek at the University of Sidney in Australia, and joined his Majesty’s forces, where he served as an intelligence officer and rose through the ranks to become a brigadier general.

After the war, he went into politics—partly, he said, to help preserve the Empire—and was elected Tory MP for Wolver-Hampton South-West in 1950. He would represent the same constituency until 1974, when he left the Conservative Party in protest against Britain’s political and economic integration in Europe. He joined the Ulster Unionists and was elected as a Unionist MP that same year.

Non-white immigration into Britain began after the Second World War, mainly from colonies and former colonies in the Caribbean and South Asia. As Britain granted its colonies independence in the 1950s and 1960s, immigration paradoxically increased. Caribbean blacks, Pakistanis, and East Indians agitated for national independence, but after they won it, many decided they would rather live as a racial and cultural minority in a historically white country than in their own land governed by their own people. Powell opposed immigration as early as 1946.

The people of England shared Powell’s opposition to colonization by former subjects. In 1955, West Bromwich bus drivers went on strike to protest a Sikh driver who wore a beard and turban in violation of local regulations. Bowing to popular pressure, the city council sacked the driver, and Powell publicly praised the drivers for acting in defense of their country. However, the council faced withering media criticism and soon re-instituted the Sikh. Powell was outraged. A tiny minority of Sikhs, together with allies in the media, had gotten their way in the face of overwhelming community opposition. He believed this boded ill for the future, and it increased his opposition to non-white immigration.

Mr. Powell understood the real reason for the bus drivers’ strike. They did not want Indian Sikhs settling in their country. The drivers, he said, “apprehended the dangers for the country of any appreciable coloured population being domiciled here.” By refusing to adapt to English norms, the Sikhs were making themselves even more conspicuous than they already were. Powell warned that “any readily visible differences between human beings inevitably result in political frictions.” Every attempt at multi-racialism continues to prove him right.

In the mid-1960s, nearly 75,000 non-white immigrants were entering Britain legally every year, and opposition to the influx was a winning political issue. In the constituency next door to Powell’s, a Conservative challenged the sitting Labour MP, Patrick Gordon Walker, in 1964, and ran on opposition to immigration. The Labour Party was pro-immigration, but it preferred to keep the issue out of politics and off the front page because they knew it was unpopular. Walker, who would have been appointed Foreign Secretary, lost to his challenger, and Labour cried “racism.” Powell, who had campaigned for the Tory candidate, told journalists that non-European immigration was going to become Britain’s biggest political issue.

The next year, 1965, Powell was appointed shadow Defense Secretary. Now in the leadership, he began urging the Tories to make immigration a national issue by calling for drastic reductions, and even a total ban. Powell argued that immigrants were straining hospitals and schools in his constituency, and were preventing cultural integration by those who had come earlier. The Conservative Party leader, Alec Douglas-Home, was sympathetic, and asked Mr. Powell to write a speech for him advocating reduced numbers and government-funded repatriation of recent immigrants.

Mr. Powell also accused the Labour government of deceiving the public on the number of immigrants. Ministers would tell journalists that only 7,000 entry permits were issued each year, but failed to mention that this meant more than 50,000 dependents were let in along with the permit holders. Powell publicized this deception in a February 1967 editorial in the London Telegraph. In 1968, as entry permits rose to 8,500, Powell gave a speech in the town of Walsall in which he said that allowing immigrants to bring in family relations was “crazy; enough to make one weep and drive one to despair.” The speech was widely reported and not all papers were hostile. Mr. Powell was becoming a national figure.

By this time, the Conservative Party had a new leader, Edward Heath, who disliked Powell’s outspokenness on immigration, and asked him not to repeat the arguments of his Walsall speech. Why? Perhaps he feared Powell as a rival. He knew that Powell’s support for a ban on immigration was popular. If Heath adopted the same policy, he would be seen as following Powell’s lead, and Conservatives might think Powell should lead the party. It is also possible that Heath was a coward on race, but political correctness was not as powerful, nor was the press so monolithic as today.


A new issue, however, was making the immigration debate even more urgent. Newly independent black governments in East Africa were preparing to expel up to 250,000 South Asians. Some claimed that the Asians of Kenya and Uganda had been promised British passports in 1962 by the Conservative government of Harold Macmillan. Powell argued that there had been no such promise, and that Britain had no moral obligation to a quarter of a million people who were not in any real sense British. The Labour government and senior Conservative leaders argued otherwise, and all the expelled Asians who wanted to move to Britain were let in.

And so, in April 1968, just two months after his Walsall speech, Powell again spoke about immigration before a Conservative political meeting in Birmingham. It would prove to be the most famous speech (full text here) by a British leader since Winston Churchill’s “iron curtain” speech in Fulton, Missouri, in 1946.

He began by stating a political maxim he had learned from his classical studies: “The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils.”

As he pointed out, politicians in a parliamentary democracy are most concerned with being re-elected and retaining their majority. This means they focus on the short-term and avoid controversial or difficult issues, because they excite opposition. Politicians therefore postpone difficult decisions and ignore preventable evils precisely when they are most preventable. Powell was determined to make his colleagues face the reality of what their government was doing, and frighten them into taking action, even though it would be “just that kind of action which is hardest for politicians to take, action where the difficulties lie in the present but the evils to be prevented or minimized lie several parliaments ahead.”

The evil that Powell wanted to prevent was the introduction of an “alien element” into the British population that would continue to increase, unless stopped, until it would reach 10 percent of the population by 2000. Powell predicted 3.5 million immigrants and their descendants by the mid-1980s and five to seven million by 2000. He did not explain what made these immigrants alien: race, religion, culture, and history.

Officials and journalists denounced Powell’s estimates as hysterical exaggerations. David Ennels of the Home Office minister called them “sheer fantasy.” Two demographers assured Britain that what Powell was predicting “won’t happen.” Richard Crossman, a Labour minister, called his predictions “untrue, alarmist, and totally irresponsible.” Yet Crossman confided to his diary that he pressured government statisticians to doctor the numbers so as to undercut Powell’s projections. Even Powell’s fellow Tories preferred to pretend that what would surely happen unless the Parliament acted would not happen.

Needless to say, Powell’s estimates were accurate. Britain’s African and Asian populations alone were 4.5 million in 2000. Including Arabs, Iranians, Turks, and others whom the British government called white put the real number well within Powell’s estimate of five to seven million. By 2010, Britain’s non-white population had increased to 9.1 million.

Powell knew that in 1968 most of Britain was largely untouched by immigration. He represented one of the few constituencies with a large and increasing foreign presence. He therefore recounted the unsettling experiences of his English constituents who found themselves “strangers in their own country.” This was what would happen to all of England if MPs did not act.

Powell also predicted that immigrants would agitate for special privileges. He mentioned the Race Relations Bill, which was being debated in Parliament, and would forbid “discrimination” in housing, employment, and public services. Powell foresaw that such a law would amount to protected status for non-whites. He predicted—correctly—that it would encourage non-whites “to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided.”

The most famous parts of Powell’s speech were his two classical allusions. The first was:

Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependents, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.

He also quoted from the Aeneid, in which the prophetess Sybil tells Aeneas that he must expect to fight for his new home in central Italy: “I see wars, horrible wars, and the Tiber foaming with much blood.”

Here is how Powell used the quotation:

As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see ‘the River Tiber foaming with much blood.’ That tragic and intractable phenomenon [racial conflict, sometimes violent] which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century. Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now.

He added that not to take action in 1968 would constitute “betrayal” and would call down “the curses of those who come after.”

The reaction to Powell’s speech was divided between popular favor and elite disdain. The London Times, a supposedly conservative paper, called it “an evil speech,” “disgraceful,” “shameful,” “a deliberate appeal to racial hatred.” Even Edward Heath, the Conservative leader, called it “racialist in tone and liable to exacerbate racial tensions.” (Of course, importing large numbers of non-whites was the best way to exacerbate racial tensions.) Heath sacked Powell as shadow Defense Minister, explaining that his speech was “unacceptable from one of the leaders of the Conservative Party.”

Powell himself received 100,000 letters of support, and only 800 in protest. The Tory rank and file were furious at Heath for removing Powell. Thirty-nine immigration officers at Heathrow airport wrote to him, saying, “We are fed up with the corruption and deceit that goes on to get immigrants into this country.”


Even the working class, who overwhelmingly voted Labour, demonstrated in solidarity. Some 4,000 London dockworkers went on strike to support him, and a group of 800 marched on Westminster singing “I’m Dreaming of a White Christmas”—though it was not Christmas time, and “Bye Bye Blackbird.” On the way, they were joined by the Smithfield meat porters and others. Labour MPs who denounced Powell were shocked when they were booed by their own working-class voters.

Support for Powell was so strong that Heath had to scramble to appease it. He did not re-instate him as shadow Defense Minister, but did concede that immigration should be “severely curtailed” and repatriation encouraged. Even the openly pro-immigration Labour government announced that entry permits would be cut from 7,500 to 5,000 a year.

In the next general election in 1970, Powell was re-elected by the largest margin of his career, and the Conservative Party won a majority in the House of Commons. Subsequent analysis suggests that Powell’s speech increased the Conservative vote by 1.5 percent, which was enough to turn a Labour majority of 25 into a Conservative majority of 30.

Conservative leaders denied that immigration had helped them win, and took their turn at lying about it. The party’s election manifesto had promised “no further large-scale permanent immigration,” but by September 1971, 180,000 new immigrants had arrived in Britain. In the first year of Edward Heath’s term as Prime Minister, annual immigration increased by 17 percent.

Throughout the 1970s and early 1980s Powell continued to speak out against immigration but the media mostly ignored him and the Tories avoided the issue. But why didn’t the Conservative Party cut immigration? This would have won over the base of the Labour Party, and the Tories could have governed uncontested for at least a generation. Why did they run away from the issue?

Powell touched on this in 1987, his last year in Parliament, when he spoke of “the almost unlimited capacity of my fellow countrymen for self-delusion:”

Anyone would have been dismissed as raving mad who in 1950 told the people of Britain that by the end of the century approaching one-third of the population of inner London and of certain other areas of England would be negro or Asiatic. [Today, the percentage for inner London is nearly double that of 1987.] It was by drawing attention to that prospect more than a decade and a half later that I was to alter the course of my own political life and arguably the course of British politics. Yet, for all that, if a voice from heaven had told me in 1950 that Britain would do such a thing to itself, I would have found the prophecy horrific but not incomprehensible.

Why “not incomprehensible”? Powell suggested that the British people were traumatized by the rapid loss of their overseas empire and the status as a great power that went with it. But that does not really answer the question. And there was no doubting the power of the anti-racial ideology that paralyzed Edward Heath but did not daunt Powell.

Britain was lucky to have a man who could defend her so lyrically. In a 1961 speech on nationality, he spoke about “the unity of England, effortless and unconstrained” and went on to praise what he called:

. . . the homogeneity of England, so profound and embracing that the counties and the regions make it a hobby to discover their differences and assert their peculiarities. The continuity of England, which has brought this unity and homogeneity about by the slow alchemy of ages. . . . From this continuous life of an united people in its island home spring, as from the soil of England, all that is peculiar in the gifts and the achievements of the English nation, its laws, its literature, its freedom, its self-discipline.”

Certainly, no one today would say such things about England. It is a tragedy that the nation that produced such a loyal and loving son has disappeared forever.

Enoch Powell Former M.P.

Readers of Enoch at 100 will find contributions by Nicholas True on Powell and the European Union; Frank Field on Powell’s parliamentary career; Michael Forsyth on Powell and the British Constitution; Simon Heffer on Powell on the government and the economy; Roger Scruton on Powell and the English language; Andrew Roberts on Powell’s English nationalism; Tom Bower on Powell and immigration; Andrew Alexander on Powell’s foreign policy views; Margaret Mountford on Powell’s classicism; and Alistair Cooke on Powell and Northern Ireland.

These essays are interesting, but it is Powell’s own words that are most rewarding. There are eight of his speeches—including, of course, his most famous—as well as a few of his poems and a delightful interview with his widow. Needless to say, Powell spoke and wrote on many more subjects besides immigration, and his arguments are always precise and well stated. He was so deeply versed in parliamentary traditions that his speeches are an education in how the British government works.

Enoch Powell with his wife, Pamela.

Enoch Powell with his wife, Pamela.

Powell’s views were scorned, and his deepest hopes for his country dashed, but this book proves that he survives in a way that other politicians do not. Certainly no one reads Edward Heath’s speeches anymore.

Topics: , , ,

Share This

Jon Harrison Sims
Mr. Sims is an historian and a native of Kentucky.
We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Garrett Brown

    Enoch was. and always will be 100% right. What a great man. He died not caring at all about the criticism I think, because he knew his work was righteous and honorable. We need another Powell oh so badly now a days. What truly saddens me however is he would most likely be in prison, silenced by force in a supposedly “free country”.

    RIP to a true friend and ally to us whites.

    • David Ashton

      If my recollection is correct – I am away from my library – The Observer actually considered and thought better of prosecution under existing legislation even during his lifetime. I attended a meeting addressed by Powell not long before his death when he was afflicted with Parkinson’s Disease which had transformed his facial features to a skull-like appearance and his vocal delivery to an almost metallic monotone, but he kept going with great courage.

      • Garrett Brown

        As most likely you and everyone else in that room knew he would. I wish I had the opportunity to hear him speak. I also wish I lived back in that era. Whites had a sense of living well without regret and belonging back then. We knew we were special.

        • David Ashton

          I had some disagreements with him, as I thought he actually came rather late to the immigration issue, and he was rather introverted and prickly, but he stood head and shoulders above his fellow-parliamentarians then – and even more so now. I helped Simon Heffer with his massive biography of EP which is worth reading. The password whereby English patriots recognize one another in the Occupation Zone is to say “Enoch Was Right!” (even if he got a few things wrong). His address to The Royal Society of St George is still so moving, and I shall suggest that they reprint it.

        • DonReynolds

          They are still special today, but they are badly led.
          At some point, they will find the leaders they deserve and do well.

        • bilderbuster

          You can listen to Powell’s “Rivers of Blood” speech at The White Network. I wish I was a teenager in the 60’s. I imagine that if there were no Blacks & no insane war in Vietnam it could’ve been one of the most exciting times in history to be White in America.

    • Young Werther

      How on earth could England ( or America) cultivate enough Powells to correct its path toward final destruction? Well, the great communist world movement of abolition of nationhood continues…

  • 1. I notice Powell died in 1998. George Wallace also died in 1998, and a lot of our 20th century legends that we like so much died that year.

    2. On the drive home back from Jefferson City late last night, I passed by Fulton, ironically enough.

    3. More than just 1970, but I’m of the opinion that Enoch Powell was almost single handedly responsible for every Tory election win between the time he made the “Rivers of Blood” speech until the end of John Major’s time as PM. I have read that a common phrase repeated among the English electorate in an underground sense through 1970 was, “if you want a n—-r for a neighbour vote Labour.”

    • Homo_Occidentalis

      The shameless betrayal by his fellow “Conservatives” is damnable. It’s strange how just about anyone who ever makes it to power or media fame holds the same cookie-cutter rainbow coalition views on immigration. I’m not given to paranoia, but it seems to me as though they’ve all been coached, bribed, or threatened. The cultural Marxist elite will get its brown foot soldiers by any means necessary.

      • HamletsGhost

        Your suspicions are well-founded. It only remains to see WHO is doing all the coaching, bribing, and threatening.

        • Jotun Hunter

          I think we have some clues

          • BillMillerTime

            It’s the Eskimos.

        • DonReynolds

          It does not matter where they get their advice. They own what they do and will bear the full weight of their bad decisions…… regardless of their “good intentions”.

        • Goldcoaster

          CFR, Think Tanks, and especially the Big Foundations – Ford, Carnegie, Rockefeller.
          They are the true enemy.
          “You will have global government whether you like it or not”.

          • HamletsGhost

            You’re describing the WHAT. I’m talking about the WHO.

      • Geo1metric

        A totally controlled media allows for such uniformity.

        If we are to have any success, we have to figure how to end-run that monster, the media-the enemy.

        • DonReynolds

          How would you deal with a determined enemy who is powerful and makes no secret about their goal of your own destruction and the destruction of your children? …..particularly an enemy who attacks you and everything you represent every single day? Would you try to buddy up and try to reason with them, cooperate,…..maybe even compromise? Would your enemy agree to take only half a loaf when they honestly believe they can have the entire loaf?

          • Nancy Thomas

            Further irony is that you saved this enemy from destruction by killing off many of your own kind, only to have this enemy punish the children and grandchildren of the men who fought on their behalf. The disloyalty is stunning and horrible.

          • george00

            A letter with just 2 sentences says a lot of things that a lot of people should spend a lot of time thinking about.

        • Nancy Thomas

          Exactly, that monopoly beast in a brainwashing mechanism. Everyone should read “Hollywood versus America” by Michael Medved.

        • Goldcoaster

          oh, the MSM is slowly getting trashed. newspaper readership is way down because of their GD liberal/multiculti brainwashing.
          notice that Time, Newsweek etc have stopped printing? the worm turns..slowly.

      • Nancy Thomas

        Money is all it takes.

    • Oil Can Harry

      I don’t hold Wallace in the same high regard as the greatest British statesman of the 20th century.

      After all, Powell stuck to his guns until the day he died while Wallace would later claim he only suppported segregation to get elected, privately believing it to be immoral.

  • Spartacus

    “A tiny minority of Sikhs, together with allies in the media…”


    The author does not specify who these “allies in the media are”, but I trust we all know ?

    • Geo1metric

      That phrase struck me as well; the media are probably our biggest enemy in this country and in fact every Western country. How do we fight that monster?

      • Spartacus

        Chemical fertilizer is very effective, or so I hear .

        • Goldcoaster

          cant buy it anymore, they watch it.

          • Spartacus

            White ingenuity will find a way around it . Hell, if you don’t find any other way, just buy it from Mexico and smuggle it back to your country 😉

      • LACountyRedneck

        Our biggest enemy is clearly our government making decisions that are damaging us. They’re living in their posh communities with their families and we’re having to deal with protected and pampered 4th world trash. Whites will have to make a statement with acts of violence for any chance at normalcy. That seems to work for non-Whites.

      • Jotun Hunter

        we need our own media. we have the internet and web sites such as this – which we didnt have before – so that’s something

        • Geo1metric

          We are “preaching to the choir” here except for the occasional new information gleaned from reading these articles and posts.

          We need to figure out how to reach much, much wider audiences.

          Let’s hear it for pirate radio!!

          • Jotun Hunter

            maybe a book or movie that broke the mainstream message intact

          • DonReynolds

            Still clinging to the idea that you can talk your way out of this or that it can all be resolved peacefully?

          • JohnEngelman

            Violent actions by white nationalists will be crushed with broad popular support by the government.

            In 1995 Timothy McVeigh thought the Oklahoma City bombing would start a revolution against the government. Instead it discredited to the militia movement.

          • Spartacus

            Tymothy McVeigh was not a White Nationalist, and he never intended to start a revolution . He was a libertarian, and he did it as revenge for the Waco massacre .

          • JohnEngelman

            In the United States there are more libertarians than white nationalists. White nationalism is such an outlier persuasion that pollsters do not even poll for it.

            I have read that Timothy McVeigh did think there was enough sympathy for what he represented that his destruction of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building would start a revolution.

            There was no sympathy for Timothy McVeigh at all.

          • McVeigh’s personal politics were more WN than aracial right-libertarian, but his motivation for his part of OKC (keep digging, and you’ll find Ramzi Yousef) was acting out on aracial right-libertarian motives.

            Ironically, the Branch Davidians were a race mixing cult. When the Feds moved in, and during the standoff, a (supposed) group of Kluxers protested near the site in FAVOR of the Feds wiping them out.

          • DonReynolds

            He was not in any militia movement and obviously, no one takes their cues from Tim McV.
            McV. never talked about the bombing and was executed. There is nothing that says a truck bomb would cause a revolution against the government.
            Just stay back out of the way, Johnny, and watch.

          • Nancy Thomas

            John, this response is comical. Timothy was ONE guy with a couple of cohorts. America has I believe 200 MILLION gun owners who know how to shoot and push come to shove will not hesitate when cornered. Look at what is happening in the Ukraine without guns! Angry people can make miracles happen.

          • JohnEngelman

            The American people respond negatively to those who initiate the use of violence. Segregationist violence against peaceful civil rights demonstrators won national sympathy for the civil rights movement, and caused the civil rights legislation to be passed.

            Five years of black ghetto riots, beginning in Harlem in 1964 hardened white attitudes toward blacks, and turned the United States into a Republican country.

          • Ramay

            Keep clingin’ Don.

          • george00

            One half hour race realist prime time TV show a week for about a year or two and we can change the world.

          • JohnEngelman

            One does not get places in politics by changing people’s minds. One gets places by articulating and channeling sentiments that already exist. The fact that the overall crime rate in the United States has declined since 1980, and the rate of violent crime has declined since 1991 deprives white nationalism of much of the urgency of its message.

          • JohnEngelman

            One does not get places in politics by changing people’s opinions. One gets places by articulating and channeling sentiments that already exist.

            The decline in the rate of violent crime since 1991 deprives white nationalism of much of the potency of its message.

            The stagnant economy may help the cause of white nationalism. However, right now economic conditions seem to be increasing the popularity of socialism.

          • Nancy Thomas

            Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight…the decline of violent crime. You might want to get a copy of “White Girl Bleed A Lot.”

          • Geo1metric

            ” One gets places by articulating and channeling sentiments that already exist.”

            As has been explained over and over, we have no way to channel and no way to articulate “our message” because the msm will not address the dire conditions of black on White crime, and will not address the wasted trillions of dollars. Nor will the media address the dire straits of White demographic decline world-wide.

            BTW, I don’t believe those statistics about the decline of violent crime. Has the government ever lied to the people before? I have many contacts in law enforcement around the country, and those people do not believe it either. I will believe them before I’ll believe politically motivated “polls” and statistics “cooked” for political reasons.

          • JohnEngelman

            FBI, Uniform Crime Reports are among the most reliable statistics on crime in the United States. If you refuse to accept them there is no point in having a rational discussion with you. You believe what you want to believe.

        • Nancy Thomas

          And they want to censor and tax the net.

      • Goldcoaster

        the internet! which is why the likes of Cass Sunstein want to regulate it.

      • george00

        Boycott their movies, magazines, news papers and any other product they put out.

  • Spartacus

    “It is a tragedy that the nation that produced such a loyal and loving son has disappeared forever. ”


    England isn’t dead, it’s just in a coma. There’s still time to wake up before everything is lost.

  • jackryanvb

    No White country has declined worse after World War II than Merry Old England. And it can be viewed as Hitler’s revenge on England for taking the Communist, anti White side in World War II , slaughtering German civilians in Dresden and Hamburg.

    It was as if the English/British political leadership decided that English people themselves must be terrorized in to being ethnically cleansed from London.

    To this day, all Western European countries have successful populist, immigration restrictionist political parties except England.

    Powel was right to talk about “The Gods” bringing Rivers of Blood to England.

    The destruction of England can not be explained by rational, mortal forces.

    • HamletsGhost

      Says who? Lots of diseases of antiquity like leprosy and plague were thought at the time to be divine punishments. We now know the rational causes of those diseases and need not fear them as long as we maintain proper hygiene and use proven medicines to stop them.
      It wasn’t “the Gods” who brought this modern plague, but people who imagine themselves to be.

      • Zaporizhian Sich

        Indeed, and like the Mad Emperor Caligula who thought he was a god, they will be getting a salutary reminder from the people they oppress they are not gods. They will perish the way Caligula did at the hands of his own body guards, as in a sudden, swift and lethal retaliation. They didn’t just kill him, they killed his wife, then his daughter. After that, they moved to erase all memory of him, he was a nightmare the people of the Roman Empire were all too happy to put behind them. The same thing awaits those who are trying to destroy us, in the end they and their land of origin will be a hated memory. After all, those whom the Gods seek to destroy, are first driven mad.

        • itdoesnotmatter

          According to C. Suetonius Tranquillus, in his book, “The Twelve Caesars,” Caligula was blondish, tall, fair and had blue eyes. Suetonius wrote it was his wife’s constant administration of toxic aphrodisiacs that mobilized C’s innate sadism into acted out madness.
          My overactive imagination wonders if our leaders are not using the other blue pill too much. What is occurring presently, at least in California, feels like acted out hostility and madness.

    • Jotun Hunter

      everything in human affairs can be explained rationally, though they may be complex. A parsimonious solution to all Englands problems is a strong resurgance of unforgiving nationalism and racial awareness. A novel method of advertising this message must be devised – something to distract the mob from their reality tv shows. we must keep in mind the mob, even a mob of our own race, will not be motivated by idealism but largely by fear and greed.

    • Gesamtzusammenhang

      Nonsense like the above is why racialism is marginalized. This “Oh, Britain took the anti-White side.”
      It’s like you people don’t even read history. Germany was with the Japs, who wanted to take over and rule/kill Anglos in Australia. Yeah, sounds pro-White to me.

      If Hitler wasn’t an imbecile in terms of military strategy, he could have made better decisions that wouldn’t elicit a negative response from the British. But he wasn’t, and he betrayed the German people in that way.

      The only thing Hitler did was set racialist thought back by about a thousand years. A world without Hitler would probably have perfectly fine laws against non-whites, America (which had a much longer history of racialist laws, and they were more effective) would still have its pre-1965 immigration laws, and racialism wouldn’t be stained with the Nazi legacy–which began when Hitler invaded other people, declared war on America, and killed millions of Whites. Germans today also would have fared much better.

  • Einsatzgrenadier

    Powell enthusiastically welcomed the immigration of West Indian nurses in the late 1950s when he was Tory minister of health, apparently in order to drive down the average wages of indigenous nurses. I believe he also had a hand in flooding the London Transport System with West Indian tube train drivers and bus fare collectors. The article conveniently neglects to mention this. Nevertheless, Powell had a change of heart. He soon came to realize that massive non-white immigration is profoundly evil, senseless and destructive. If his views had been even more widespread among members of the elite, Britain would not be in the same situation it is in today.

    It’s important to remember that Powell remained a privy councillor ’til the day he died, so he was very much an integral part of a system that was methodically undermining British national sovereignty and identity. Like many a politician, Powell was looking out for himself, rather than for the average Briton. Knowing that there would be a general election in either 1969 or 1970, his Rivers of Blood speech was a cynical ploy to win votes and ensure the election of Heath and his conservatives. He knew that the best way to achieve a Tory electoral victory was to harden the British public’s attitude to Commonwealth immigration. This did wonders for the Tories at election time in 1970. Because the Tories were closely associated with the anti-immigration rhetoric of Powell, it also allowed them to secretly carry out their very own mass non-white immigration policies while Britain was fast asleep.

    • Re your first paragraph: We should reward people when they first do wrong and evil then have a “come to Jesus” moment then start doing right.

      But your second paragraph doesn’t make any logical sense. If “Rivers of Blood” was a cynical pre-election season attempt to scam for votes for the Tories, then why did the Tory leadership bash it, trash it, strip Powell of his leadership position, instead of openly embracing and praising both Powell and the speech? You want us to believe that Powell pretended to be an immigration patriot then the Tory leadership pretended to be outraged about it while both were in the background behind some mythical curtains laughing and giggling knowing that there would be more Tory votes because people who want immigration patriotism were going to vote for a party whose leadership was against it. Sorry, that’s too nonsensical to buy.

      • Einsatzgrenadier

        You’re quite right, Question Diversity, which is why I deleted the offending paragraphs. I shouldn’t have allowed my penchant for conspiracy theorizing to get the best of me. The only principles we should follow in these matters are those dictated by reason and the available empirical evidence, especially because these are very much on our side. Also, I highly respect your opinions and openly welcome your criticism.

        • I’ll let you in on a secret.

          I’ll believe any conspiracy theory, but most I don’t believe for more than five minutes.

          • Nancy Thomas

            I’m just the opposite. I see the term itself as a thought police term used to get people off the scent.

    • jackryanvb

      Oh shut up.

      These “everybody is in on the conspiracy” trolls are a real pain.

      Enoch Powell was always on our side regarding immigration.

      So was, is Pat Buchanan and Tom Tancredo.

      Ron Paul and now Rand Paul and the American Constitutionalist Libertarians are not on our side regarding non White immigration.

      Neither are Neo Conservative RINOs like lisping Lindsey Graham, John McCaine and Mike the Huckster Huckabee.

      Immigration politics isn’t very complicated. No reason to try to make it complicated. Conspiracy Theory trolls are a real pain, don’t feed these trolls.

      • Don’t be too hard on him, Jack. I think it’s just born of frustration that the people are on our side but the public policy isn’t, both in England and in “our” “country.”

        But the reason for the disconnect is simple, and hardly a conspiracy: It’s because people (on both sides of the Atlantic) who are aware of the immigration issue and are on the right side of it have not yet demonstrated by their electoral and political actions that being for amnesty and open borders and mass non-white legal and legal immigration is an instantly fatal third rail. Sure, we’ll reward people who do right by us well enough, but we haven’t yet developed the habit of rejecting people who do us dirt. In Texas this past Tuesday, the voters in Pete Sessions’s (*) district had the opportunity to turn out the open borders traitor and replace him with a woman that all the immigration patriot groups and the border guards’ association and even Ted Cruz endorsed, but the traitor won anyway. And this is why the open borders treason agenda keeps marching on, because we won’t send the traitors to their political graveyards. They don’t interpret any consequences in doing wrong, so they’ll keep doing wrong.

        Oh, but propose that someone’s social security check should be $1 less next year than it is this year, and the sky falls. People can and do have the ability to do third rail politics, just not on the most crucial issues.

        (*) – No relation to Jeff.

        • Zaporizhian Sich

          The massive election fraud that pervades the U.S. will lead to civil war and revolution, I’m sure of it.

        • DonReynolds

          Elections are decided by who gets the most votes. That is not to say, they have a majority of the vote necessarily….but he who gets more votes than anyone else is the winner.
          Revolutions do not work that way……and that is what is required to stop the Liberal Leftist faction in this country.

  • Geo1metric

    What an incredibly gifted White man. I need that book.

    • Sounds like his vision ended up being a curse, with his warnings left unheeded.
      It takes a brave soul to swim against the tide and to sacrifice your own position, while choosing to put your countryman’s prosperity first.
      This is why I admire Jared Taylor (and his ilk) so, choosing the unpopular, but right path.

      • Jotun Hunter

        yes – when I first came across J Taylor on a youtube video I thought ‘this man is completely nuts’ — then while evaluating what I had watched in my brain I realized (despite my initial judgement) that I was inclined to feel he was nuts not for what he was saying (which struck me as completely true) but because he had the audacity to say it aloud. This realization changed my life.

        • Geo1metric

          That we had 100,000 Jared Taylors!!!!

          • Einsatzgrenadier

            100,000 Hitlers would be even better.

        • Good for you man, it’s shows that you think for yourself, what do they say “the truth will set you free”, hopefully that’s true, unfortunately once you’ve taken the red pill there’s no going back.
          Welcome to the unpopular Right (who’re also right i.e. not wrong).

      • Nancy Thomas

        Yes, and to face the constant smears and lies takes massive courage.

  • NoMosqueHere

    It’s difficult to emerge from a hole you’ve dug deep for yourself. But it’s not impossible. Reversing immigration laws is not an impossibility; in fact, it should be no different than reversing or changing any law or practice once it’s deemed no longer useful. As for the muslims, blacks, hindu-paks, and romanian pickpockets and hookers who have invaded Britain, they should be encouraged to leave. Such encouragement may include financial remuneration. Think of it as an investment in your future.

    • HamletsGhost

      Idi Amin expelled the Asians from Uganda in one fell swoop. For something that people keep saying is “impossible”, he sure made it look easy.
      Africa doesn’t have much to offer the West in terms of statecraft, but ethnic cleansing is one area they could teach the world the finer points about.

      • IstvanIN

        It was easy because Britain took them all in and besides no one was going to go to war in Uganda for Asians.

        • DudeWheresMyCountry?

          Nobody is going to go to war with The US for Mexicans either.

          • Bossman

            Mexicans are fellow North Americans and North American integration is growing slowly but surely. American and Canadian businesses are still investing heavily in Mexico.

          • DudeWheresMyCountry?

            Yet you haven’t moved to Mexico permanently to better integrate with your fellow North Americans… but you won’t be doing that. Why not? Do you need some extra cash for moving expenses? Let me know, I can help.

          • Bossman

            The climate is one of the best in the world. When they are fully integrated into North America and their standard of living rises to that of the USA and Canada, it will become the best part of North America but that is going to take some time to happen but it will surely happen.

          • DudeWheresMyCountry?

            So Mexico needs to integrate to have a high standard of living? Why don’t they become a first-world country on their own as The US and Canada has? You sound like most Mexicans and Blacks… unwitting White supremists, never thinking you can do anything worthwhile without White people.

          • WR_the_realist

            Just like the rise in Haiti will surely happen. They have a fine climate too. Iceland’s climate sucks totally yet its people are literate and civilized and were the only people with the stones to say no to the banksters after the financial crisis, and refuse to bail them out.

          • DonReynolds

            Why wait? You can go there now, poncho.

          • Goldcoaster

            oh god man, standards of living everywhere are DROPPING. wages havent grown, unemployment/dropped out of the workforce is growing, automation is increasing.
            if their standard of living is “rising”, why the hell do they come here?

          • Jotun Hunter

            I’ll contribute to that

          • Geo1metric

            He doesn’t need to move; Mexico is moving here.

          • DonReynolds

            I disagree. There is no fellowship of North Americans and they are not long-lost cousins from a time when they all lived happily in a single nation. They are criminal invaders.

          • Bossman

            Well, there’s NAFTA. Trade between the USA and Mexico is valued at one billion Dollars per day. The leaders of Mexico, Canada and the USA meet every few years to publicly hug each other and promise more North American integration.

          • DonReynolds

            There are many trade agreements.
            China even has most favored nation status, but that does not make us integrated, or fellows, or big pals, or working toward union.

          • Bossman

            China is far away across the mighty Pacific ocean. Mexico is in North America.

          • Zaporizhian Sich

            I live for the day NAFTA and all other flood America with genocidal invaders while impoverishing white American treaties are torn up publically, then white Americans turning on these invaders and their enablers next.

          • Zaporizhian Sich

            Fellow North Americans? Bull****, they are genocidal invaders I and millions of other whites will be forced to kill off or drive out in our lands. You are sadly mistaken!

          • Nancy Thomas

            Your bizarre out of the blue commentary is like comic relief, totally wrong but very amusing.

        • DonReynolds

          Just because Asians were expelled from Uganda, does not mean they must be sent to the UK instead. Let them proceed by a much shorter route to their own homeland.

          • IstvanIN

            The fact remains they were taken in by the UK.

          • DonReynolds

            How nice. Now they can proceed to their homeland. Nothing says they are suddenly British. Refugees perhaps.

          • IstvanIN

            You do realize this happened 40 plus years ago?

          • DonReynolds

            I see….it matters to you that it happened 40 years ago…..so that makes it OK?
            I do not give a hoot how long ago it was. Do you realize that no matter how long they live in England, they do not become British?

          • IstvanIN

            Huh? I was simply stating facts. Uganda tossed them out and Britain took them in, not India. And yes, I am aware that it doesn’t make them Englishmen. You make it sound like London was a stop-over on a flight to Bombay. It wasn’t. The UK made them British citizens. Should they have? No. Did they? yes.

    • DudeWheresMyCountry?

      Let’s not call Roma “Romanians” as they are just subcontinental Indian generational squatters. The average American thinks Roma are poor White people from central Italy.

      • NoMosqueHere

        They are not British; they gotta go.

    • DonReynolds

      He is my financial renumeration…..if you leave the country now, you can escape with all you have stolen. If you wait, your pockets will be empty when you return to your own country. THAT is an effective incentive.

    • DonReynolds

      Here is my financial incentive to illegal aliens……
      If you leave before the deadline, you can take with you all that you have stolen from this country.
      If you wait until after the deadline, you get a box lunch and a bus ride to the border, with the clothes you are wearing at the time.
      That is an incentive plan they can understand.

  • TL2014

    Just another illustration of the maxim that you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

    Britain chose to put itself in contact with other races and ethnicities through colonization. It didn’t have to, but it chose to. That it drastically improved the standard of living wherever it went, and immensely increased its own national wealth in the process is irrelevant.

    There is always a price to pay for your actions – Britain ran into unforeseen economic and, surprisingly, psychological consequences stemming from its colonialist past. Britain proved incapable of handling the consequences of its own historical decisions in a way that would avoid further negative impact on it.

    Interestingly, white South Africa faced a similar problem after decades of ruling as a minority over a dysfunctional, hostile majority while relying on the cheap labor that majority provided and, at the same time, allowing significant immigration from surrounding dysfunctional communities. The result is what we see today.

    An ethnostate is the answer. Always.

    • Jotun Hunter

      colonization was the best period for a great many of those countries colonized. There is nothing to regret in the expansion of the empire which led to the creation of nations like the US, Canada and Australia. their ‘atrocities’ are largely rewritten abd exaggerated – and for the most part local peoples were brought out of a state if total naked, cannivalistic savagery, who later saw fit to complain under ideas of independance introduced to them by the european enlightenment ideals of the very colonizers. the only mistake was in allowing them entry to the homelands, which did not occur intil after the world wars and the hidden victory of Hebraic liberal values after the fall of Berlin.

    • ricpic

      Let’s not forget that the Brit elites who couldn’t bring themselves to put a halt to waves of West Indian and Paki immigrants were the direct descendants of the Oxbridge crew who thought very highly of themselves between the wars for declaring that they would NOT give all for King and Country should there be a second showdown with Germany. You really don’t have to dig deep to understand why the elites in England and here don’t defend their own people, country or culture — they don’t LOVE THEM.

      • Ace

        Very, very good. The nation will be protected by magic. Immigrants will fit in and contribute because people are basically good.

        A smidgin of white racism, though. Ooops. That queers the whole deal. Since even the mention of the words “b___k,” “n___o” or “M____m” is evidence of that tiny, vestigial amount of r____m, well, passports and public benefits all round, please. Ad inf.

    • Ace

      The British could have handled the “consequences of [their] historical decisions” just fine if they’d decided to do so. That they didn’t is a matter of the delusion and treachery of their elites.

      Full marks on your ethnostate point. No segregation! No peace! We’ve got integration here in the states and the lies necessary to justify it are: diversity, multiculturalism, nation of immigrants, and propositional nation. It works like a charm.

  • JohnEngelman

    The reaction to Powell’s speech was divided between popular favor and elite disdain…

    Powell himself received 100,000 letters of support, and only 800 in protest…

    Even the working class, who overwhelmingly voted Labour, demonstrated in solidarity.

    – Jon Harrison Sims, American Renaissance, March 7, 2014

    The elite live in safe neighborhoods, sheltered from the crime that is characteristic of third world peoples. They also benefit from the depressing effect immigration has on wages.

    Working class whites pay the price for elite ideals and selfishness.

    • WR_the_realist

      Add to that the fact that in both Great Britain and the United States all major political parties serve the interests of the elites.

      • JohnEngelman

        The British Conservative Party, and the American Republican Party more obviously advance policies that benefit the economic interests of the rich. They promote a flatter tax system, weaker labor unions, minimum wage laws that lose ground to inflation, and cuts in domestic programs that benefit those who are not rich.

        • WR_the_realist

          The Democratic Party advocates even more for illegal immigration and massive legal immigration than the Republicans do. When Hollywood wants a draconian enlargement of the copyright law Democrats give it to them. Regulation of Wall Street banks and hedge funds remains lax because so many of those fat cats donate to the Democratic Party. Obamacare doubled many people’s health care insurance costs but was a boon to the insurance companies. When Obama decided to jump into the civil war in Libya this wasn’t done to benefit the poor and working class in America. He was serving the same globalist interests, who want to maintain American military hegemony over the world, that George W. Bush was.

          • JohnEngelman

            Both parties want more immigration, although for different reasons. Democrats want more Democrat voters. Republicans want lower wages.

            As long as massive amounts of money are necessary to win elections the Democratic Party will need to get contributions where it can. Most Democrats favor more restrictions on campaign financing. Most Republicans do not.

            Obamacare was an ill fated effort to compromise with the Republicans. It is nearly the same as the health care plan Mitt Romney introduced in Massachusetts, and which is popular there.

            Democrats are much more likely to favor a single payer health plan. This would put the health insurance industry out of business.

          • WR_the_realist

            Actually every Republican but one voted against Obamacare. So the reason the Democrats chose the program they did had nothing to do with getting Republicans on board.

          • JohnEngelman

            The Democrats tried and failed to get the support of the Party of “No.” The Democrats should have gone for a single payer health plan. It is popular in Canada.

          • WR_the_realist

            The fact that Obamacare got passed with only one Republican vote proves that Democrats didn’t need to get the support of the Republicans. If the Dems had wanted a single payer system they could have voted that in instead. It could have passed with no Republican votes. Sorry, the alleged need to get the support of Republicans just isn’t working as an excuse for the crawling horror known as Obamacare.

          • Ace

            So the Party of No wouldn’t climb on board the bizarre, disastrous, forced takeover of 1/6 of the economy. No wonder the Dems “tried and failed.” Hooray for TPON.

            It’s popular in Canada except with those who have to wait six months for an operation. One summer the Canadians shut down a cancer hospital because of the backlog. One more month with cancer. Ho hum. What’s the big rush?

            And some Canadians love their health care so much they . . . oh, never mind.

          • Ace

            Effort to compromise? Sheer fantasy.

            No. Vastly different from Mass. plan. The latter provided coverage to the uninsured but did not force people with insurance to take what the state provided for the uninsured. I could be wrong, but that rarely happens.

      • Goldcoaster

        which is why the Repubs are out to destroy the Tea Party. They know we will upset the apple cart.
        Thus, obviously, the racist label.

    • Powell himself received 100,000 letters of support, and only 800 in protest.

      Democracy only counts, when the people are asked to answer the right questions.
      Choosing to trust group A or group B to make the right decisions on you behalf for the next 3/4 years is something else.

    • silviosilver

      It seems to me Britain did just as you suggest they should do, almost. They were wrong to admit blacks, but according to your outlook inviting in masses of asiatics was one of the best things that country ever did. After all, according to you, there is no conflict of interests between whites and asiatics, and the resultant mix is going to propel the country towards the high IQ utopia that is its destiny. What’s there to complain about?

      • JohnEngelman

        I use the word “Oriental” to distinguish between Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese, on one hand, and Muslims and Muslims on the other. Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese behave and perform well in other countries. Muslims do not.

        East Indians also perform and behave well. In the United States they are nearly as successful as Jews.

        Race realism entails a recognition that the races differ in qualities that enable some races to make positive contributions to civilization, while other races cause problems.

    • Nancy Thomas

      It’s the same here, the elites do not have to deal with the diversity they are forcing on the rest of us.

  • LACountyRedneck

    No more spics, gooks, bantus, sand negroes, J’s, etc. Enough already.

  • drakeshelton

    The Jesuit order of the Roman Catholic Church deceived us into killing each other because we are Protestant Nations-Russia protested the Papacy being Orthodox. The Jesuits perfected their anti-white racial theology in their South American reductions. Read Vatican Assassins by Eric Phelps.

  • Hal K

    It is a tragedy that the nation that produced such a loyal and loving son has disappeared forever.

    Let’s not be defeatist. Modern technology brought the aliens in, and it can move them out just as quickly.

  • Brian

    Powell was a modern Jeremiah, far-seeing and lamenting, a man of erudition and courage. How I wish we had a thousand more like him.

  • Einsatzgrenadier

    In 1968, Powell was the only true patriot with the courage to speak out against 3rd world invasion of Britain, at a time when the Tory politicians were too cowardly to stand up to the reckless immigration policies of the establishment. Although he remained agnostic on questions such as biological race differences in intelligence, he nevertheless shared the same desires as the racially and ethnically chauvinistic 3rd world immigrants who were busy colonizing his native homeland. Like the racial foreigners who would never tolerate the invasion of their 3rd world countries of origin, Powell also wanted to protect his land against the barbarian hordes. After all, Britain was his land, a land which had nurtured his ancestors since the end of the last Ice Age 14,000 years ago. He wasn’t going anywhere. If anyone had to get out, it was the brutal, vicious 3rd world immigrants.

  • celtthedog

    Um, sounds good, except that Andrew Roberts is a neocon and Simon Heffer is a blowhard. Both men have disparaged Powell on television.

    Enoch Powell was the best Prime Minister we never had, so I am concerned about some of these contributors.

    Great article though.

  • Enoch_Power

    A hero, patriot and statesman; deliberately misunderstood by some.

  • Jotun Hunter

    with proper idols like this in mind we can return to a natural standard of excellence

  • Zaporizhian Sich

    Mr. Powell’s all too correct predictions have fallen on deaf ears. Now the 21rst century is shaping up to be even worse for whites globally. The elites behind this demonstrate one undeniable truth about “die-versity,” and that is one’s tolerance is inversely proportional to one’s distance from it. The elite until now never have to face “die-veristy,” while working class whites suffer tremendously because of it. The best way for us to strike back is to bring die-versity to their doorsteps.

    • Geo1metric

      A lot of tolerance = a lot of distance. A little tolerance = a little distance. With that I can agree.

      • Einsatzgrenadier

        Another way of putting it:

        Diversity + Proximity = WAR!

  • Zaporizhian Sich

    What would make my day would be Norwegian men showing up with machine guns and grenade launchers, then mercilessly gunning these invaders down in the streets.

  • Geo1metric

    “Clearly” most US citizens do not know and the reason is clear; the US media choose not to tell Americans the truth about what is going on there.

    • Nancy Thomas

      And I wonder why they won’t tell us…..

  • PouponMarks

    Only an “extremist” from the Right can rescue and restore what Leftist extremists have done to America over the last 60 years. Removing those individuals from the academia, gummint, and the media that represent treason, sedition, betrayal, and subversion alone requires extremism in the restoration of liberty and freedom, and adherence to the Declaration and Constitution.

    If a ship has veered so far off course from extreme left rudder, it will require extreme right rudder to simply restore the proper course.

    • Nancy Thomas

      The elite would never allow such a person to rise. Sadly, I think that it will eventually come to violence.

  • E_Pluribus_Pluribus

    Powell: “. . . the homogeneity of England, so profound and embracing”


    Founding father John Jay in Federalist No. 2: “Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people — a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs…”

  • shmo123

    Treaties are inconvenient things, aren’t they?

  • Nancy Thomas

    Powell was a brilliant prophet.
    Eric Clapton gave a rant about immigration back in 1975 and mentioned Enoch.
    They were both right.

    • Philo Vaihinger

      Eric Clapton? Really?

  • Jotun Hunter

    cannibalism was widely in practice among north american natives as well, who were in a state of perpetual tribal warfare. They also routinely enslaved and tortured as well as ate each other. There were many rituals involving rape. Do you honestly believe the Margaret Mead myths of the ‘noble savage’ living in idyllic bliss? Would you expect it of any people living ‘closer to nature’ like that, IQ differences aside? Many of the African states did not have so much as the wheel. Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) was one of the worlds wealthiest nations under colonization. if living that way is preferred why do so few do it now? Give up year round food, police stations, hospitals, and go live naked in the wild? Because its a hard, hard life. Were they not brought literacy, knowlege of the world, geography, history, more? what if ottoman turks or chinese had discovered the new world instead? they may have slaughtered them to the man.

    • Goldcoaster

      Not only did they not have the wheel, they had not the written word or mathematics (obviously) either.

  • Goldcoaster

    Traded what? Sub saharan africa produced nothing! They were sitting on gold and diamond wealth untold, and had nary a clue.
    They did have slaves, though, which they had been taking since way before the white man got there.

  • Luca

    “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” – Arthur Schopenhauer.

    I wonder if I will live to see the day when race realism and the ills of the current immigration hell are accepted as self-evident?

    • Geo1metric

      Well, how old are you?

  • DailyKenn

    I visited London in 1973 with a college tour group and was surprised to see a black vendor selling ice cream. He was the only non-white person I saw the entire week.

    • Geo1metric

      But he has had thirty-five children since then.

  • LHathaway

    This is what great ‘racists’ of the past did. The foresaw whites as being in danger. They weren’t over-confident, they didn’t see non-whites as inferior, indeed, they were afraid of them. A bit of humility goes a long way.

    Enoch was right. Simply read his speech and the sentiments it contained. Even the simple numbers, which were condemned as ‘inflamatory’ and unrealistic, turned out to be right.

    • Philo Vaihinger

      “This is what great ‘racists’ of the past did. The foresaw whites as being in danger. ”

      And thus you put the best reason for repeal of Hart-Celler and a regime of immigration of euro-whites, aimed at maintaining and strengthening the white majority in the US, today.

      Not that even the Republicans would have the nerve to openly support such a policy, for such reasons.

      (I’m a Democrat, myself.)

      As for EP, quite an impressive fellow.

      • Ace

        Is there any chance you might vote against the Democrats? The Republicans are bad but why not help undercut the worst of the immigration zealots?

        If you won’t vote against Democrats, I’m curious why. Why would you would not vote against wide open immigration, surely the most important issue there is for any Western nation?

        • Philo Vaihinger

          Nope. Food on the table is more important. Medical care is more important. I am 65 and will soon retire, and though I have a small nest-egg I will need Social Security and Medicare.

          For the current crop of neoliberals, Randians, Wall Street plutocrats, and Liberarians who control the GOP, priority one is destroying all traces of the achievements of 20th Century progressivism.

          And these are the same people who want to flood the country with cheap labor and don’t care a fig about race, ethnicity, religion, culture, or any of those things that matter to Main Street, but not Wall Street.

          When people who don’t want to starve the elderly or let them die of untreated pneumonia again take control of the GOP I will gladly resume voting for Republicans.

          Full disclosure. I voted for Nixon, Dole, and Bush the Younger.

          But I’ll never do it again so long as the GOP priority 1 is starving me and my wife to death.

          Can you blame me?

  • Jon

    He saw the writing on the wall and was betrayed by those in power but the Death of Western civilization was WWI and WWII because both were the same war just with deadlier weapons. What happened in Britain also happened here in the US because we were betrayed by the people in power. 3rd world people are consuming the nations we built and soon nothing will be left and it might take longer than a Generation to see the dmg but it is coming. He also talked about Britain declaring war on Germany proving that Germany did not want war with Britain and France as well as the USA. Our best men were killed in both wars but Britain and Europe got the worst of it.

  • Anon

    Enoch Powell’s primary mistake was in not identifying the jew as the primary source of the problem. Under the euphemism, communism and using more than a little bit of bribery, brainwashing and criminal retaliation against those who opposed them, they split white people….first by ethnicity, then by class and finally, the morally strong against the morally weak…..pitting these groups against each other in petty conflicts that distracted them from the real enemies that threatened them all.
    Spite has been their primary weapon. By fostering ill will between those who work vs those who think and organize, it was easy to convince the latter that they should reject “racism….a made up construct” for no other reason than to separate themselves from those dirty handed scoundrels that embraced it (since they were the primary victims of other races and always have been). After all, did they not fight the “evil” germans who embraced racial solidarity? And why exactly was it necessary to fight them. And never mind what the Russians did.
    All these things take on VERY different meanings if you make everyone aware that a hostile, non-white, race is purposefully fomenting all this. No….working class people and the elite do not have any significant differences of opinion…they are both white. And both are the victims of jewish genocide. The divide is artificial…a manipulation. Powell did not make that clear. It was not enough to be right about the issue. He failed to point out that those who disagreed with him were victims of manipulation and all of them were being attacked with a divide and conquer strategy. Had he done that, the result might have been different. Might have….because the time to point such out was before the first world war. Not after generations of successful brainwashing in “holier than thou” nonsense.

  • loyalwhitebriton

    I suspect that we had the moral arrogance and cultural chauvanism that the US seems to display today. I think the British Empire is over-egged anyway, we promoted self governance in most of our colonies, thus sowing the seeds of our own dissolution. However, I’m not sure any white nation, whether Britain or the US, deserves what’s happening to us today.

  • WR_the_realist

    The chief advantage of Romenycare is that people could avoid it in 49 out of 50 states.

  • Young Werther

    A very interesting article about a very interesting man. Nicely written. Thanks.

  • Geo1metric

    He’s been told this over and over; give up on him. He doesn’t want to learn; he’s pushing his own agenda. Best ignored.

  • JohnEngelman

    From 1960 to 1980, when the crime rate was tripling, some people said law enforcement agencies were exaggerating the increase in order to get more money appropriated to them. If you refuse to accept statistics compiled by the federal government there is no point in trying to have a rational discussion with you. You believe whatever you want to.

  • VMHB

    The more I learn about Putin, the more I like him.

  • Mark Hillyard

    “Didn’t you sow good seed in the field?” “An enemy has done this.”

  • IstvanIN

    Abandon and even refuse to take in, unlike the Indians in Uganda who were taken in by the UK when Idi Amin tossed them out.

  • loyalwhitebriton

    I 100% agree. If it was up to me I would give British passports to all white South Africans and Rhodesians. I couldn’t care less about the Indians, we shouldn’t have let them in.

  • Ace

    I think the idea of “what goes around comes around” is not the correct one.

    It should simply be “what a nation won’t fight for will be taken by those who will fight.”

    The current disaster has come about because of nothing more than surrender by Britons who, like all Westerners, simply can’t be bothered to pull the lever for political parties that would save them. UKIP is a possibility. The BNP is, as well. A hand up to either party, or any nativist party, would focus the attention of the sellout parties like a lightning bolt through one’s breakfast toast and they’d commence to steal the thunder of the smaller parties with every penny and joule at their disposal.

    The sellout parties, however, have no such fear of being undercut because the sheep insist on starving those who are willing to take appropriate action. Instead, they hand the knife to the sellouts every chance they get.

    Nothing about karma or destiny here.

    Just surrender. And that’s a conscious choice. I can just hear the ninny chorus now. “Oh, dear. Those horrid people. We shan’t vote for them. Not while there’s crocheting left to attend to!”