Enoch Powell

Discussion of various public figures

Enoch Powell

Postby Elliott » 22 Jun 2012, 06:10

A few days ago it was the centenary of Enoch Powell's birth. Several newspapers carried articles about it (1, 2, 3).

If any politician deserves a dedicated thread on this forum, it is surely Mr Powell.

Though his infamous prophecy - rivers of blood due to mass immigration from the Third World into Britain - has not come to pass, I think it is a little early to dismiss it. On the contrary, I think the evidence suggests that, indeed, "Enoch was right" (that phrase, for the benefit of people abroad, is a cliche in Britain).

The London riots showed overwhelmingly that a significant number of third world immigrants have, far from enriching us, not integrated very well at all:

HumStats wrote:Black Londoners are 2.87 times as unemployed as whites, but 9.65 times more likely to riot.


I don't think anyone on this forum would contest the idea that mass immigration and multiculturalism have failed. The only question is why the problem seems to be so much worse in the Old World than in the New World - but I suspect that is largely a matter of perspective. In a 1000 year-old English village, we are disturbed by the arrival of a mosque because it suggests, terrifyingly, that an epoch is drawing to a close. In a 100 year-old American town, new arrivals are less surprising - and societal forces more robust. Even so, it is possible to read of the problems we have in Britain also occurring all over the New World. That they are so much more shocking to Brits than to Canadians, may not be a result of greater quantity, but of greater trauma that cultural change triggers in an ancient country than in a new one. And perhaps it is also due to the miserablist strand of the British character that always focuses on the negative - in this case, with good reason.

Of course there are always mitigating and aggravating factors alongside any "main" societal force. Powell himself noted that integrating black people into the American mainstream was much easier than integrating them into the British mainstream because they had been in America as long as the white settlers, and had graduated into full citizenship over the decades and centuries. By contrast, a Somalian who lands at Heathrow does not "graduate" into anything, but is changed from a Third World citizen to a First World citizen with the mere stroke of a pen, and no cultural apprenticeship. Like the welfare claimant who knows not the value of what he is given, the Third Worlder knows not the value of civilisation when it is simply handed to him for free - still less when it is edited to suit his Third World tastes.

But the danger Powell was most concerned by (perhaps because, being cultural rather than genetic/ethnic, it was a less contentious way of objecting to societal transformation) was this: in transferring people from the Third World to the First World in massive numbers, you may also transfer their ancestral ways of life, their ancestral cultures, their ancestral religions, and of course their ancestral grievances - grievances against each other and against the First World itself. You would in effect be importing a Trojan Horse. Or perhaps "a Trojan Hydra" would be more accurate, since the people would be placed in many locations up and down the country - little English towns that, with no history of tribal warfare of the kind that had racked India and Africa for centuries, had no experience of having to defend local culture, let alone justify it in some existential sense. When the immigrants arrived, such places found they had no justification for their local culture... the result was colonisation and white flight. Later, national government thought the best response to that process of cultural takeover was to sanctify it with official multiculturalism. In retrospect, every step of that sorry tale looks inevitable - yet Enoch Powell seems to have been the only politician who could foresee it. At any rate, he was the only politician prepared to do anything about it.

Before proceeding, I feel it incumbent upon me to state that my own views on race and culture are actually stronger than Powell's. He would probably regard me as a racist. It would be unfair for me to associate a man (who is not around to object) with my own personal views (which he may well object to). But I also think it worth pointing out that Powell was operating in a different cultural situation from my own. He had not seen this. He did not know about this. He didn't hear about this girl getting paralysed, or that group of Somalian Muslims beating up a random white girl. Never in his life did he read about scandals such as this, which send a shiver up the spine of anyone who is open to the possibility that Britain could be literally raped out of existence. He didn't learn about this young Muslim paralysing a 5 year-old (and later successfully appealing against his obligation to pay the boy compensation). Neither was Mr Powell around when this boy was horrifically tortured, mutilated and murdered by 4 Asians for no other reason than that he was white - and this national broadcaster decided not to report the murder at all, having previously condemned itself as "hideously white".

If, 44 years after Powell's infamous speech, I am tempted to suggest that his forebodings were inaccurate because they were not strong enough, it is due to the benefit of hindsight.

But the question remains the same as the one which decided Powell's fate: if an idea is true, is it always humane to broadcast it? Or, in broadcasting it, do we just stoke the worst drives in people and ensure that prophecies get fulfilled? (He was aware of this danger, and mentioned it in the speech itself.)

Maybe Powell shouldn't have made that speech. Either way, I think we can read his words now (in a Britain he would not recognise) and see that, if they had limited applicability in his own time, they have much more in ours. Indeed, in some areas of the country they are absolutely indisputable.

Where he was wrong, or at least where his prophecy has not yet come true, is that the problems have to a large extent remained localised. The black man does have the whip hand over the white man, but only on his own turf: the immigrant ghetto. But there is a universal assault which mass immigration perpetrates, and which I don't think Powell foresaw, and it is that the "host" culture, now dotted with many other cultures wholly different from it, has begun to doubt its own right to exist. While tangible danger awaits the white man who wanders into the wrong part of town ("get out, you don't belong here," I was once told in my capital city), a more abstract, existential danger follows him wherever he goes, infects the media he is surrounded by, governs what he can and cannot say, colours the workplace he must operate in, fills his children's schooling with ideas he cannot control, and chastens (and even selects) the politicians he must vote for. Multiculturalism destroys the host culture in time, because it nullifies that host culture's claim to dominion in both the physical and intellectual realms - territory is ceded to an immigrant community, and British culture is no longer welcome there... with many such enclaves, British culture begins to seem like an intellectual fallacy, since there is nowhere that can be called wholly "British". Meantime, appeasement laws ensure that anywhere which is still predominantly British cannot complain when that predominance is threatened (for the "threat" is a positive one: you are being enriched!). In short, the idea of "Britain" becomes a joke when Britain is just a mish-mash of cultures, all vying for the top spot which "Britishness" used to occupy, and only does so now in name. This condition, which one may call national retardation, prepares a country for only one thing: that day in the future when a foreign flag is hauled over its parliament and the nation's name follows the transformation that has occurred in its nature, and the nation literally no longer exists. Powell thought cultural takeover would be purely a numbers game - in fact, as we have seen, a culture can be induced into existential despair even with a fairly small percentage of peaceful aliens. It is the very presence of the alien which makes the native doubt his right to his ancestral territory; the alien need do nothing more than sit at home on welfare and his cancerous influence on the mainstream will be as effective as if he were riding a camel into Buckingham Palace.

As for the 3/4 of the British public who sided with Powell back in 1968, I don't know where their wisdom came from. They were not deeply familiar with Indian tribal warfare like Powell was, so maybe their forebodings were simple knee-jerk racism. Or, perhaps they could see what was already happening in their towns and cities and detected that a profound change to their country (upon which they had never been consulted) was underway.

The standard line in the media nowadays is that the public, whilst supportive of Enoch Powell in 1968, later turned against him, and that it is only in the last few years (since a certain wake-up call) that the public have begun to reappraise his ideas. Between those events, we are told that the public held him in contempt, as a "racist", a "fascist", a "Nazi", etc.

But I think the truth is very different. A year after his infamous speech, a poll revealed that Powell was "the 'most admired person' in British public opinion". In 1972, he was voted the most popular politician in Britain. In 1998 (the high-point of New Labour multiculti fervour, when one would expect his reputation to be at an all-time low), 64% of a Channel 4 studio audience voted that Enoch Powell "was not a racist", suggesting, if not support for his views, a belief that those views were, nevertheless, perfectly reasonable. In 2002, he was voted the 55th greatest Briton of all time by the public - not a stellar performance, but certainly not that of a national hate figure.

I believe that Powell has never been despised by a majority of the British public, and that his "pariah status" has entirely existed in the minds of our media and political elites. What has really happened since 7/7 is that the media have realised they can no longer sustain the trick, no longer continue lying to the public about their own views on the man, when it has become so agonisingly obvious that he was right. Of course, it's also the case that the mass media no longer "set the narrative" like they did, thanks to the Internet.

Whatever the history, Enoch Powell is now far from a pariah. There is every reason to assume that his rehabilitation will, in the coming decades, proceed inexorably. Already he is talked about as "the greatest Prime Minister we never had". But I suspect his ultimate place in our history will be rather grander: he will be a guide for the rebuilding of Britain.

As we come to see the utter failures of immigration, welfare and European integration, Powell increasingly looks like the man who, time after time at critical junctures in our nation's history, was advising the right choice whilst our elite were hellbent on the wrong one (and we, on occasion, voted for it). For his trouble, he was ignored, over-ridden, sacked and demonised. It is hardly sufficient to say that a great wrong was perpetrated against him. He is becoming almost a Christ-like figure; the good man who suffered for our sins, and to whom we must now offer our sincerest apologies. Furthermore, the idea of Powell is becoming synonymous with the idea of Britain at a certain point in time, the last time it was "itself". When our elite rejected Powell, they were rejecting Britain.

In 1953, Powell objected to aspects of the Royal Titles Bill. He discerned...

... an abject desire to eliminate the expression "British". The same desire has been felt... to eliminate this word before the term "Commonwealth"... Why is it, then, that we are so anxious, in the description of our own Monarch, in a title for use in this country, to eliminate any reference to the seat, the focus and the origin of this vast aggregate of territories? Why is it that this "teeming womb of royal Kings", as Shakespeare called it, wishes now to be anonymous?


As far back as 1953, Powell perceived what we have spent the intervening years deciphering: that in the modern age, the only fate for a country that has pursued imperial greatness is to become, by hook or by crook, anonymous. The sin of empire is so great in our time that the perpetrator must wipe itself off the map, pulverise its own identity and its own people.

Throughout his parliamentary career, Powell railed against that process of anonymisation of Britain. When its people were threatened with genetic/cultural dilution, he protested. When its sovereignty was threatened by entry into the EEC, he protested. When its commonwealth was threatened (and when it failed to be morally sound in its activities in that same commonwealth), he protested.

Even if one disagrees with Powell's ideas, there is almost nothing to dislike about the man. The word "extraordinary" was never more apt. He rose from humble beginnings, went to grammar school, became the youngest professor (aged 25) in the Empire, was one of only two men who graduated from private to brigadier during WW2, earned an OBE within 2 years for his service to military intelligence, and regretted for his entire life that he survived the war while others did not. He combined so many traits that we cherish in the English character: moral probity, courage, intelligence, practicality, learning, honesty, rigour, immense determination, clear-sightedness, efficiency, adaptability, consistency, knowledge, wisdom, common sense, and that Victorian aloofness which we secretly know we, as a people, need. He combined passion with detachment and thus was rarely wrong in either his motives or his prescriptions. A speaker of 12 languages who was prepared to resign on principle 3 times, he never once accepted a raise in his parliamentary salary. He was a man of culture and learning who nevertheless retained the common touch, able to talk to people of much less education without ever patronising them, but without ever downplaying his refinement or pretending to celebrate their lack of it. While I will not claim that Powell was "the perfect Englishman", I think he was what most Englishmen wish they could be.

For a flavour of the man, here is a BBC interview from 1989. It is a popular radio programme called Desert Island Discs, in which a famous person is invited to select the music they would take with them if they were to be stranded on a desert island. Mr Powell's line-up entirely comprises classical music and his reasoning for each selection shows that he was no poseur; he had a deep connection to each piece of music and understood its place in the continuum of Western culture. As Ed West pointed out, can one possibly imagine David Cameron or Tony Blair selecting classical music, justifying each piece intellectually, and proudly doing so on a public forum?

That has been a common theme in the comments around Powell's centenary: how brightly he shines compared to the flotsam we now have in public life, in both the political and cultural spheres. With regard to both, we, the British public, have to acknowledge our part in the decline. Whether lied to by political or cultural liars, we were willing to be lied to. We have to admit our culpability for the past and our responsibility for the future if we are ever to undo the damage Powell tried to warn us about - and that will largely mean usurping the elite which, yet again, Powell warned us not to trust.

Men like Enoch Powell (and there are few) show what Britain was, before the decline began - and what we must strive to become again, no matter the factors political, economic, demographic or cultural that conspire against us. We led the world, and deserved to, because of men like him.

Mrs Thatcher [believed] that the Bomb was necessary for the defence of our values.

Powell: "No, we do not fight for values. I would fight for this country even if it had a communist government."

Thatcher: "Nonsense, Enoch. If I send British troops abroad, it will be to defend our values."

Powell: "No, Prime Minister, values exist in a transcendental realm, beyond space and time. They can neither be fought for, nor destroyed."
Elliott
 
Posts: 1800
Joined: 31 Jul 2011, 22:32
Location: Edinburgh

Re: Enoch Powell

Postby Mike » 23 Jun 2012, 02:27

Another thoughtful piece about Powell here.

I've always had a soft spot for Powell partly because he was once Professor in the same Classics Department at Sydney University where I later studied. His academic reputation from that time, incidentally, was formidable.

Your post encouraged me to read through the "Rivers of Blood" speech again, Elliott, and two things strike me particularly: one, it's an absurd and inflammatory title for people to give the speech given that the only reference to possible violence is in an offhand quotation from Book 6 of the Aeneid; two, its language is much more "objectionable" in hindsight, given the accretion of PC orthodoxy since that time, than it would have been in 1968. There are certainly parts of it that could have been phrased better, but I think Oborne is seeing the language in the speech through the lens of 2012. He is also a little categorical in saying that Powell was "wrong" about the bloodshed; it has hardly been comparable to post-colonial India (which I think was perhaps the spur for his view), but relations have hardly been peaceful nonetheless.

As I've said before on this forum, we seem to have less of a problem with assimilation of immigrants here in Australia. I think this is because there are a number of forces and incentives, both explicit and implicit, that encourage migrants to identify with and respect the laws of their adopted country very quickly. I'm not sure whether Powell ever visited Australia again after his period as a professor here in the thirties, but it would be interesting to hear what he thought of it.
Mike
 
Posts: 402
Joined: 01 Aug 2011, 11:08
Location: Australia

Re: Enoch Powell

Postby Gavin » 21 Jul 2012, 11:44

Here is a piece of music which reminds me of the values for which Enoch Powell stood.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: Enoch Powell

Postby Gavin » 13 Sep 2013, 20:29

A documentary about Powell. This may be fair-minded, despite being on the BBC, as it was recommended to me by someone who admires the man who was known fondly by the British people (though not the ruling liberal elite) as "Our Enoch".



Addition: this video was also recommended - Powell interviewed by recently deceased "arch-liberal" David Frost.

Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: Enoch Powell

Postby Elliott » 13 Sep 2013, 23:39

How nice to see a simple little TV production from that era! LWT is a company close to my heart.

I think Powell acquitted himself fairly well in that interview. Frost - my grandfather apparently always disliked him, finding him supercilious - tries to find holes in Powell's arguments, and on a few points succeeds, but on the whole comes across as being out to impugn the man. To Frost's credit, at least he is much more intelligent and consistent than a modern-day TV interviewer would be in a similar situation (consider Andrew Neil's disgraceful "interview" of Tommy Robinson).

What is most interesting is that the points on which Frost and Powell so lengthily disagreed have been completely wiped away by the developments since 1969. Quibbling over whether immigrants in 2000 would be 12.5% of the 2000 population or 12.5% of the 1969 population... who cares? They're over 50% of our capital city. Imagine what a fact like that, if it could have been known in advance, would have done to that debate back in 1969! Would anybody have even dared to challenge Powell then, if it had been known how things would actually turn out? (As it happens, in 2013 immigrants constitute 14.6% of the population of England, so Powell was right and the liberals claiming he was scaremongering were wrong.) The same goes for the quibbling over his claiming that there was a schoolroom somewhere with only one white child in it - again, later developments have blown such examples out of the water.

As for the inflammatory effects of his "rivers of blood" speech, I think Powell did well to say that he should not be called upon to dissociate himself from people with whom he is not associated, nor to condemn people who with their behaviour condemn themselves. However, pragmatically he'd have been better off just saying "yes, I condemn that sort of behaviour". This was probably an example of his tendency to shoot himself in the foot by being too clever and "robotic" for his own good.

All in all, an interesting and very enjoyable (for reasons of nostalgia!) interview.
Elliott
 
Posts: 1800
Joined: 31 Jul 2011, 22:32
Location: Edinburgh

Re: Enoch Powell

Postby Gavin » 14 Sep 2013, 19:34

Yes, I've just watched the Frost interview. Frost comes across as not only somewhat smug but also very silly and plainly wrong now. One sympathises with Enoch Powell, the prescient messenger, whom I thought Frost treated rather rudely. Frost probably thought he was being very progressive at the time.

To think, during in this interview in 1969 Powell cites Southall. That area is now majority Pakistani with its railway signs also written in Gurmukhi. Large areas of the UK are indeed now populated by immigrants, speaking their own languages and integrating with the host people and culture no more than they have to. As for the black man having the whip hand over the white man, in a sense this has happened in the form of positive discrimination and in the kind of street robbery shown in this photograph.

It is interesting to observe in the interview that the audience is largely on the side of Powell - as were the whole of the British public at the time. These days the audience members would be carefully selected such as to be ranged against against Powell, as we always see on the BBC's Question Time. Also I think the interviewer would be even more hostile towards Powell (as we saw in the case of Andrew Neil, who disgraced himself). This would be the case despite Powell now having been proved correct in his concerns about mass immigration. As the problem worsens, the denial compounds.

Powell was very well spoken and demonstrated a great grasp of logic and reason - this can be seen in him sharply rejecting entire premises and assumptions put by Frost and refusing to be led into framing himself. I am afraid that his being so well spoken today, though, would be regarded as a point against him and the tragedy is that one wonders whether such a figure could ever be democratically elected again in the western world.

At one point Frost directly asks Powell whether he believes black people are any less intelligent than white people. Powell refuses to be drawn on this question, however I believe I am right in saying that what studies that have been allowed to be conducted have suggested that this is the case. This may explain why European nations were the ones to become so advanced in the first place. If this seems to be the case, we might as well admit it, as Steven Pinker (though I am not his greatest fan) has openly argued. As he also said, this does not mean that we should cease to evaluate people as individuals. Dawkins, in contrast, will not tread in these areas (nor will TD, actually). In Dawkins' case this is probably a kind of cowardice, since he is happy to talk about kin theory, and so on, a great deal in other contexts. In TD's case perhaps he thinks some apparent truths are better left unsaid.

What can be said certainly is that multiculturalism has been a failure in that it has produced multiple massive "communities" in the UK that barely interact with each other at all. There has been very little racism on the part of indigenous whites, instead there has been widespread self segregation and maintenance of primitive cultures by the very large numbers of immigrants invited in by Tony Blair and his ilk - areas have been turned into shanty towns and no-go zones as a result. Powell was right about this happening, indeed people have felt forced out of their own areas (areas where they cannot even understand the languages being spoken) and barely a single politician since the much maligned (and actually fairly moderate) Powell has dared to do anything whatsoever to confront these problems. Clue for socialists: throwing money at the problem is not the answer - it rarely is. Insisting on standards and personal responsibility is the answer.

I sometimes wonder whether politicians think the problem is so massive now that they simply cannot do anything about it without being "the person who started the pan-European civil wars". But I think they could start to regain control and civilisation through small steps, while there is time. So they are probably just short-termist, opportunist and they really don't believe much at all. Quite a contrast with Enoch Powell.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: Enoch Powell

Postby Nathan » 14 Sep 2013, 20:02

I haven't got round to watching those interviews yet, but was fascinated to listen to the Desert Island Discs episode with him a while back. He comes across as a man who'd be absolutely in his element had he been born a couple of generations earlier when a British poltician acting in the best interests of his country was not met with such opprobrium. I'm aware that he was retired at the time he recorded that episode, but it is so refreshing to hear a politician of such conviction who seemed to be completely uninterested in actually being liked or in any PR considerations.

Either of his achievements in being the youngest professor or youngest brigadier of the twentieth century demands respect, never mind both, but as far as that speech is concerned, his willingness to sacrifice his career for his beliefs doesn't undo the fact that as Minister of Health he allowed tens of thousands of Commonwealth immigrants in to work in the health service.

Once we'd let a fair number of non-whites get established here, regardless of how high calibre they no doubt were, it created a massive barrier against views such as those in the Rivers of Blood speech ever being implemented and a reluctance to acknowledge them at all, regardless of how popular they were and are with the common man, with all the subsequent mental contortions that have been necessary since in the name of multiculturalism. I would say that the politicians of Enoch Powell's era who were responsible for the first waves of Commonwealth immigration must carry their share of the blame for the current state we find ourselves in, likewise for whatever is to come.
Nathan
 
Posts: 880
Joined: 08 Dec 2012, 17:58

Re: Enoch Powell

Postby Elliott » 14 Sep 2013, 20:56

I believe Powell intended them to be short-stay workers, not permanent immigrants. On the face of it that seems like a fine, humane decision - but realistically it does seem to be the case that people arrive here on a short-term license and then end up getting married and having five kids and we can't deport them. I don't know if that was going on as far as back as Powell's time. If so, he was naive to invite those workers over.
Elliott
 
Posts: 1800
Joined: 31 Jul 2011, 22:32
Location: Edinburgh

Re: Enoch Powell

Postby Gavin » 16 Nov 2013, 16:11

"In your town, in mine, in Wolverhampton, in Smethwick, in Birmingham, people see with their own eyes what they dread, the transformation during their own lifetime or, if they are already old, during their children's, of towns, cities and areas that they know into alien territory...

Of the great multitude, numbering already two million, of West Indians and Asians in England, it is no more true to say that England is their country than it would be to say that the West Indies, or Pakistan, or India are our country. In these great numbers they are, and remain, alien here as we would be in Kingston or in Delhi; indeed, with the growth of concentrated numbers, the alienness grows, not by choice but by necessity. It is a human fact which good will, tolerance, comprehension and all the social virtues do not touch.

The process is that of an invasion, not, of course, with the connotation either of violence or a premeditated campaign but in the sense that a people find themselves displaced in the only country that is theirs, by those who do have another country and whose home will continue to be elsewhere for successive generations."

- Enoch Powell, 1971


Birmingham, 2013.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: Enoch Powell

Postby Nathan » 24 Jul 2014, 15:41

I've just come across another Powell speech I hadn't heard of before. Other than the very nineteenth-century prose some of the things he said read as unbelievably contemporary considering he was speaking in 1977. Here are just some excerpts:

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 prescription—to prevent the open discussion and ventilation of it


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


One of the ordinary weapons for the suppression of free speech and of frank expression of opinion is to allege that those who warn of a danger, be they right or wrong, actually desire that danger; that those who warn of war desire war; that those who warn of the materials of hatred and conflict being heaped up desire to see hatred and conflict come about.


In his Christmas day sermon the Archbishop of Canterbury said this: “We can view the man with a colored face as a threat. . . . But we can think of it very differently. That man with a different skin color from mine could be an enrichment to my life and that of my neighbors.”


By talking about the consequences of two million New Commonwealth immigrants in England in terms of a single individual and thus ignoring all the facts and circumstances of the real situation, His Grace and those who speak as he does use the language most calculated to stir people to frenzy. To tell the indigenous inhabitants of Brixton or Southall or Leicester or Bradford or Birmingham or Wolverhampton, to tell the pensioners ending their days in streets of nightly terror unrecognizable as their former neighborhoods, to tell the people of towns and cities where whole districts have been transformed into enclaves of foreign lands, that “the man with a colored face could be an enrichment to my life and that of my neighbors” is to drive them beyond the limits of endurance.


The whole thing is very much worth reading.

http://www.traditionalbritain.org/conte ... c35897301a
Nathan
 
Posts: 880
Joined: 08 Dec 2012, 17:58

Re: Enoch Powell

Postby Gavin » 24 Jul 2014, 16:28

Thanks for that. When you compare Powell with any of today's politicians - such as Dianne Abbott, Ed Miliband, David Cameron or Nick Clegg - he is really a towering giant. So educated, knowledgable, patriotic and prescient.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: Enoch Powell

Postby Gavin » 10 Aug 2014, 09:19

I notice after searching on his name that Enoch Powell apparel is now available from various retailers online:

Image

I was going to say "Probably best not worn in Tower Hamlets", however let's be honest, most there will never have heard of him. It may be dangerous however to show the Union Flag there.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: Enoch Powell

Postby Gavin » 10 Aug 2014, 10:15

Re-reading Powell's most famous speech, made in 1968, the accuracy is striking, as is the integrity of the man in standing up for the will of his constituents.

I post the full text below, where I have taken the liberty of putting in bold some parts which are indubitably true today. Powell not only foresaw the serious problems of integration, but also proposed solutions. For this he was sacked from the Conservative Party - he would never even be admitted to the party today.

Yet, as Elliott said in his original post, even Powell's estimates were too optimistic, and he could not have predicted the very serious Islamic problem we now face. Even he would probably have been shocked that already we are seeing the following:

  • British soldiers murdered in broad daylight outside their own barracks
  • Churches being converted into mosques
  • Major parts of London and iconic buildings such as Harrods and the Shard being Qatari [Muslim] owned
  • British domestic and foreign policy being dictated by fear of domestic Muslim unrest and terrorism
  • Muslims in the Conservative Party and the House of Lords
  • White people a minority in their own capital city
  • A colossal welfare state, in part bloated to support unprecedented mass immigration from the Third World
  • English being the lesser heard language on London buses among a cacophony of African and Arab languages
  • The danger of it being impossible to ever elect a truly conservative government again due to sheer demographics

In 1968 Enoch Powell MP wrote:"The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.

One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.

Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen."

Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.

At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.

A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries.

After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said: "If I had the money to go, I wouldn't stay in this country." I made some deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn't last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: "I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan't be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas. In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man."

I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation?

The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth living in for his children.

I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking - not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.

In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General's Office.

There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.

As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase. Already by 1985 the native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact which creates the extreme urgency of action now, of 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 minimised lie several parliaments ahead.

The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by such a prospect is to ask: "How can its dimensions be reduced?" Granted it be not wholly preventable, can it be limited, bearing in mind that numbers are of the essence: the significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent.

The answers to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational: by stopping, or virtually stopping, further inflow, and by promoting the maximum outflow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the Conservative Party.

It almost passes belief that at this moment 20 or 30 additional immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every week - and that means 15 or 20 additional families a decade or two hence.

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 dependants, 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. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancés whom they have never seen.

Let no one suppose that the flow of dependants will automatically tail off. On the contrary, even at the present admission rate of only 5,000 a year by voucher, there is sufficient for a further 25,000 dependants per annum ad infinitum, without taking into account the huge reservoir of existing relations in this country - and I am making no allowance at all for fraudulent entry. In these circumstances nothing will suffice but that the total inflow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative measures be taken without delay.

I stress the words "for settlement." This has nothing to do with the entry of Commonwealth citizens, any more than of aliens, into this country, for the purposes of study or of improving their qualifications, like (for instance) the Commonwealth doctors who, to the advantage of their own countries, have enabled our hospital service to be expanded faster than would otherwise have been possible. They are not, and never have been, immigrants.

I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the population would still leave the basic character of the national danger unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten years or so.

Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the Conservative Party's policy: the encouragement of re-emigration.
Nobody can make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous assistance, would choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent.

Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted. I can only say that, even at present, immigrants in my own constituency from time to time come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such a policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity of the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter the prospects.

The third element of the Conservative Party's policy is that all who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority. As Mr Heath has put it we will have no "first-class citizens" and "second-class citizens." This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendent should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.

There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it "against discrimination", whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right up over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong.

The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming.

This is why to enact legislation of the kind before parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match on to gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is that they know not what they do.

Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth immigrant in Britain and the American Negro. The Negro population of the United States, which was already in existence before the United States became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they have only gradually and still incompletely come. The Commonwealth immigrant came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knew no discrimination between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free treatment under the National Health Service.

Whatever drawbacks attended the immigrants arose not from the law or from public policy or from administration, but from those personal circumstances and accidents which cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to be different from another's.
But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.

They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted.
They now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by act of parliament; a law which cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their grievances is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent-provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.

In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people, writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had expressed, and that they would risk penalties or reprisals if they were known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine.

I am going to allow just one of those hundreds of people to speak for me:
“Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.

“The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7am by two Negroes who wanted to use her 'phone to contact their employer. When she refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her door. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying rates, she has less than £2 per week. “She went to apply for a rate reduction and was seen by a young girl, who on hearing she had a seven-roomed house, suggested she should let part of it. When she said the only people she could get were Negroes, the girl said, "Racial prejudice won't get you anywhere in this country." So she went home.

“The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house - at a price which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. "Racialist," they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.

The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word "integration". To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members.

Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction.

But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.

We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population - that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate.

Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. The cloud no bigger than a man's hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly. The words I am about to use, verbatim as they appeared in the local press on 17 February, are not mine, but those of a Labour Member of Parliament who is a minister in the present government:

'The Sikh communities' campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.'

All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive that, and the courage to say it.

For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, 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. 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 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. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal."
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: Enoch Powell

Postby Rigsby » 12 Dec 2014, 19:38

Russell Brand scored a huge own goal comparing Nigel Farrage to Enoch Powell on QT last night. Most people I know...when they know they can speak safely, or with the Dutch courage of a few drinks under their belt...will emphatically say that Enoch Powell was right. He is far more popular than the MSM would want you to believe.

Russell Brand probably gifted UKIP a few thousand voters with that statement alone. We should insist on him being on the telly every night.

It makes me laugh when I listen to our 3rd world 'guests', dismissing him as an 'ignunt rayciss innit'. Cheered on by their self-loathing, middle-class, clueless white groupies. A working class boy that became a published author, a soldier, a man of honesty and principles, and a proud patriot.

Being compared to EP is no bad thing and I think if people could speak more freely they would say the same thing.
Rigsby
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 07 Dec 2013, 09:45

Re: Enoch Powell

Postby Nathan » 12 Dec 2014, 22:07

Ooh, isn't this interesting?!

Documents unearthed by The Telegraph show that Mr Farage asked Mr Powell for his support to win a by-election in 1994 and Ukip officials made repeated attempts to enlist his support

Curious that it has come out today of all days. Next time Farage gets asked his opinion of Enoch Powell I think he might as well be completely honest. All the attacks on UKIP have become so cliched and old-hat that it seems to me that he'd stand to win more than he'd stand to lose.
Nathan
 
Posts: 880
Joined: 08 Dec 2012, 17:58

Next

Return to Public Figures

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

User Menu

Login Form

This site costs £100 per year to run and makes no money.

If you would like to make a small contribution to help pay for the web hosting, you can do so here.

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 175 on 12 Jan 2015, 18:23

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
Copyright © Western Defence. All Rights Reserved.