Soldier, writer, poet, linguist, statesman, classical scholar, and truly democratic politician. He would have been 100 today.

I will be wearing my 'Enoch was Right' tee shirt today in his honour. :ok:

A great man, underestimated and much-maligned for stating the inconvenient truth.

It's a shame, for many reasons, that he's not around to see how right he was, but maybe he knows. Many of his prophecies were spot-on.

I'm sure Britain would today be a much better place if he had become PM.

'Enoch was Right'

In both senses of the word!

A great man, not forgotten in this household.

and lets just reflect on the speech in it's entireity


Transcript of Rivers of Blood Speech



Here is the full text of Enoch Powell's famous speech to the Annual General Meeting of the West Midlands Area Conservative Political Centre, Birmingham, England, April 20, 1968.



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 nationalized 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 have been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan't be satisfied till I have seen them settled overseas. In this country in fifteen or twenty 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 this 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 fifteen or twenty years, on present trends, there will be in this country 3 1/2 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 5-7 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 different 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 above all 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 minimized 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 twenty or thirty additional immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every week - and that means fifteen or twenty additional families of 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 fiancées 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 325,000 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. These 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 grants and 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 for the future.

It can be no part of any policy that existing family should be kept divided; but there are two directions in which families can be reunited, and if our former and present immigration laws have brought about the division of families, albeit voluntary or semi-voluntarily, we ought to be prepared to arrange for them to be reunited in their countries of origin. In short, suspension of immigration and encouragement of re-emigration hang together, logically and humanly, as two aspects of the same approach.

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 descendants 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 inquisition as to his reasons and motives 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 over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong. The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and 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 the gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is 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 knows 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 - and they were drawbacks which did not, and do not, make admission into Britain by hook or by crook appear less than desirable - 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 for 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. On top of this, 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 either 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. She did give her name and address, which I have detached from the letter which I am about to read. She was writing from Northumberland about something which is happening at this moment in my own constituency:

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 streets became a place of noise and confusion.

Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.

The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7 a.m. 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 her rates, she had 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 in a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out.

Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letterbox. 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 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 to boot.

We are on the verge of 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 action 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 organize 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.



just to reiterate one sentance...

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's the speech which Powell made nine years earlier on July 27th, 1959 and which Denis Healey called the greatest parliamentary speech ever made.

The speech was made in the context of the Hola Camp during the Mau Mau insurrections in Kenya. The last two or three noble paragraphs should be especially interesting to those who would outcast Powell but who will in fact have little interest in any argument that might reflect upon their own bigotry.

1.15 a.m.

§Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Wolverhampton, South-West) Many aspersions have been cast and many imputations made by hon. Members opposite in the course of this debate with which I could not for an instant associate myself. And yet I cannot regret that even at this hour the House is once again considering the affair of Hola Camp. For the further documents relating to the deaths which were issued as a White Paper last week confirm what was already pretty clear from the earlier evidence, that it could be to the credit neither of this House nor of this country that the matter should rest where it now stands.
The affair of Hola Camp was a great administrative disaster, and to that administrative disaster there were three aspects. There was the authorisation of an operation which in its nature was likely to have fatal results; there was the failure to see that that operation, such as it was, was at least carried out with the minimum of risk; and, finally, there was the incident, which it is difficult to find a word to describe, of the water cart communiqué. The new documents show that the responsibility for all three aspects of this administrative disaster goes higher than can be discharged by the premature retirement of the officer in charge of the camp or by the retirement, accelerated by a few weeks, of the Commissioner of Prisons.

The central document in the White Paper of last week, and it has often been referred to in this debate, is the minute of 17th February addressed by the Commissioner of Prisons to the Minister of Defence. That Minute enclosed two other documents, Folios 9 and 10 on the file. Folio 9 was the Cowan Plan as drafted and intended by Cowan and put up by him as a proposal to his senior officers. Folio 10 was the extraordinary message which Sullivan had sent to Cowan on the 14th which can hardly be described otherwise than as a cri de coeur. It is impossible to read that document without sensing through it the state of mind of the man who wrote it or being aware of the risks which were attendant upon the situation which it reveals.

I will only remind the House of the ominous facts which it disclosed, that the Ministry of Works on the site had asked to be "disassociated entirely from 233any such operation" and the request for a senior superintendent, "with appropriate powers of summary punishment", to "be present when the policy outlined is implemented". It was clear evidence, among other things, that the Cowan Plan, Folio 9, was not what Sullivan, vide Folio 10, thought he was expected to implement. Incidentally, therefore, if there is blame for the failure to implement the Cowan Plan accurately, that responsibility must rest on all those who should have become aware, through seeing Folio 10, that Sullivan had misunderstood the Cowan Plan. With these two documents underneath, went this Minute, Folio 11, from the Commissioner of Prisons to the Minister of Defence. The Commissioner of Prisons had not yet taken a decision on the Cowan Plan. Indeed, when he saw it he gave instructions that "no action should be taken until authority was given" by his office. When he looked at 9 and 10 together, he decided that he, on his responsibility, could not authorise any action to be taken, and submitted it to his Minister, saying—and I am sorry to quote these words again, but they are essential— The plans Mr. Cowan worked out at (9) could be undertaken by us, but it would mean the use of a certain degree of force, in which operation someone might get hurt or even killed. I think this situation should be brought to the notice of the Security Council and a direction given on what policy should be adopted. He then again referred to the action as planned at (9), with the risk of someone getting hurt or killed. Those were not idle words, the reference to someone getting hurt or killed. He said in evidence to the Committee of three that the risk he had in mind that someone might get killed or hurt included "warder staff as well as detainees." Since the Commissioner of Prisons knew that in the Cowan Plan the numerical superiority of the warders to the detainees was to be overwhelming, the fact that he regarded the likelihood of being killed as applying to warders as well as to detainees is evidence of the degree of risk and danger which he associated in his mind with the Cowan Plan—the original, correct Cowan Plan, Folio 9. This was apart from the evidence in Folio 10 that things were going wrong, that it would not be that plan which would be put into effect, and that Sullivan had misunderstood.

234He considered the responsibility for putting this into effect was not only one that he could not take, but it was one he could not advise his Minister to take alone, without reference to the Security Council.

Incidentally, the action of the Commissioner of Prisons disposes of the notion that the Cowan Plan for Hola was, as has often been said—and I quote the expression in the leading article in theDaily Telegraph yesterday— the application of a long-standing and highly successful technique of rehabilitation. The truth is that it was the application of a modification, and a very important modification, of the technique which had elsewhere yielded good results.

When my right hon. Friend spoke in the debate on 16th June last, he was careful to put that correctly. He said: The proposals were the adaptation of a proved and successful technique to the circumstances of Hola."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th June, 1959; Vol. 460, c. 280.] They were, in fact, as proposed now in the Cowan Plan, something which represented such a serious departure from anything attempted before, something so dangerous in themselves, that he could not envisage the responsibility to carry them out being taken otherwise than by the Security Council itself.

The Minister of Defence decided that it was not necessary, and the Minister of Defence and the Minister of African Affairs took upon themselves the responsibility for authorising an operation which they had been warned involved the risk of death, in a minute accompanied by a paper which showed to anyone who cared to read it that not even that operation, dangerous as it was, was the one which Sullivan contemplated carrying out.

The hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) was a little too kind to the Minister for African Affairs. She overlooked the fact that he as well as the Minister of Defence had all the relevant papers in front of him. Those two men took upon themselves, with their eyes open and with full knowledge, not only the responsibility for the Cowan Plan but the responsibility for allowing the deformed version of it to go forward. It was authorised—now we come to the second phase, the execution—with the indication that it should go forward 235"subject to the proviso that" the Commissioner should first ensure that he has a sufficient number of warders at Hola to cope with possible eventualities. So, warned of the danger implicit, aware from the S.O.S. that all was not well, the Ministers responsible, the Ministers who had given the decision, left the matter there and just sent it down the line.

Those two men, who knew that they had authorised—without reference, as advised by the Commissioner of Prisons, to the Security Council—an operation involving the risk of death, learnt on the afternoon of 3rd March that on the day on which that operation was carried out ten men had died at Hola Camp; and on 4th March, after—and these are the words of the publicity officer:a good deal of discussion as to whether violence was the cause of the deaths of these men in a meeting presided over by His Excellency the Governor, they were parties to the issue of the water cart communiqué.

Those documents, that evidence, prove to me conclusively that the responsibility here lies not only with Sullivan and Lewis, but at a level above them. It lies with those to whom they actually appealed for help, whom they warned of the danger, from whom they received indeed a decision which transferred responsibility upwards, but no other help or guidance. That responsibility, transcending Sullivan and Lewis, has not been recognised; but it cannot be ignored, it cannot be burked, it will not just evaporate into thin air if we do nothing about it.

I am as certain of this as I am of anything, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State from the beginning to the end of this affair is without any jot or tittle of blame for what happened in Kenya, that he could not be expected to know, that it could not be within the administrative conventions that these matters should be brought to his attention before or during the execution. When I say my right hon. Friend was in this matter utterly and completely blameless, that is of a piece with his administration of his high office generally, which has been the greatest exercise of the office of Colonial Secretary 236in modern times. It is in the name of that record, it is in the name of his personal blamelessness, that I beg of him to ensure that the responsibility is recognised and carried where it properly belongs, and is seen to belong.

I have heard it suggested that there were circumstances surrounding this affair at Hola Camp which, it is argued, might justify the passing over of this responsibility—which might justify one in saying, "Well, of course, strictly speaking, that is quite correct; but then here there were special circumstances."

It has been said—and it is a fact—that these eleven men were the lowest of the low; sub-human was the word which one of my hon. Friends used. So be it. But that cannot be relevant to the acceptance of responsibility for their death. I know that it does not enter into my right hon. Friend's mind that it could be relevant, because it would be completely inconsistent with his whole policy of rehabilitation, which is based upon the assumption that whatever the present state of these men, they can be reclaimed. No one who supports the policy of rehabilitation can argue from the character and condition of these men that responsibility for their death should be different from the responsibility for anyone else's death. In general, I would say that it is a fearful doctrine, which must recoil upon the heads of those who pronounce it, to stand in judgment on a fellow human-being and to say, "Because he was such-and-such, therefore the consequences which would otherwise flow from his death shall not flow."

It is then said that the morale of the Prison Service, the morale of the whole Colonial Service, is above all important and that whatever we do, whatever we urge, whatever we say, should have regard to that morale. "Amen" say I. But is it for the morale of the Prison Service that those who executed a policy should suffer—whether inadequately or not is another question—and those who authorised it, those to whom they appealed, should be passed over? I cannot believe that that supports the morale of a service.

Going on beyond that, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-Eeast (Mr. Peel) reminded the House how proud the Colonial Service is of the integrity of its administration and its237record. Nothing could be more damaging to the morale of such a service than that there should be a breath or a blemish left upon it. No, Sir; that argument from the morale of the Prison Service and the Colonial Service stands on its head if what we mean is that therefore the consequences of responsibility should not follow in this case as they would in any other similar case.

Finally it is argued that this is Africa, that things are different there. Of course they are. The question is whether the difference between things there and here is such that the taking of responsibility there and here should be upon different principles. We claim that it is our object—and this is something which unites both sides of the House—to leave representative institutions behind us wherever we give up our rule. I cannot imagine that it is a way to plant representative institutions to be seen to shirk the acceptance and the assignment of responsibility, which is the very essence of responsible Government.

Nor can we ourselves pick and choose where and in what parts of the world we shall use this or that kind of standard. We cannot say, "We will have African standards in Africa, Asian standards in Asia and perhaps British standards here at home." We have not that choice to make. We must be consistent with ourselves everywhere. All Government, all influence of man upon man, rests upon opinion. What we can do in Africa, where we still govern and where we no longer govern, depends upon the opinion which is entertained of the way in which this country acts and the way in which Englishmen act. We cannot, we dare not, in Africa of all places, fall below our own highest standards in the acceptance of responsibility.

§1.35 a.m.

In spite of Powell's warnings the race relations act came into being with entirely predictable results. Demands by rapidly growing immigrant groups that 'they' adapt to 'us' ... case of zero integration & the new tail wagging the old dog :(

iEngage - Media Awareness | Civic Engagment | Political Participation (http://www.iengage.org.uk/)

http://www.peterharrington.co.uk/content/store/products/22481/3/27461.jpg

A great man and visionary. Like most of them, sadly not seen as such by his own generation. :ugh:

If you can believe wiki -
"Powell was reading Ancient Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek) by the age of five and learned it from his mother. At the age of 70 he began learning his 12th and final language, Hebrew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew)"

Very clever..perhaps too clever for a politician. I think he would be disappointed to be remembered only for that speech.

It is YOUR FAULT and MY FAULT that we permitted those who must hate their own country with a vengeance to so misquote Enoch Powell that his memory was used by the destructive Left as a weapon against reason.

It is YOUR FAULT and MY FAULT that we permitted those who must hate their own country with a vengeance to so misquote Enoch Powell that his memory was used by the destructive Left as a weapon against reason.

the thing is Basil, i don't think that they hate their country, they are just more in love with their own self righteousness.

but you are right. we have been cowed, cajoled even bullied by these people away from free speech, freedom of thought, freedom to actually discuss by fear of being branded xenophobic, racist and so on that the resultant is the loss of objective reality and the slide toward separatism.

I've just come back from a braai (barbecue to lesser mortals) where we celebrated a friend's birthday and I mentioned that today would have been Enoch Powell's 100th birthday. Slightly shocked silence as my next words were awaited.

"Perhaps if more people had listened to his predictions and acted upon them, the UK would not have been in the state it's in today, with Islamisation gradually taking over."

"You can't going round saying things like that ..............."

"Ah, so I'm not allowed to speak the truth ......."

"Well, yes, but ............"

Frigging lefties ...........

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.................

And ISTR he was very anti political and currency union in Europe, saying something along the lines of "currency union can never work without fiscal union which can never work without political union."

Dublin, Lisobon, Madrid and Athens should have listened perhaps ....

It would be a shame indeed if he were only remembered for the River of Blood speech.

And when he did oppose the EEC/EU/whatever, he did it also in speeches in Italy, France and Germany, speaking in fluent Italian, French and German. Do we even have politicians who could do that today, let alone ALSO have been ther youngest University Professor in the country - oh, and the youngest Brigadier in the British Army ........

Sometimes I really wish I shared the lefty’s faith in their vision for the future. A future where the natural goodness in all people leads to a shared utopia, a rainbow world of peace, tolerance, and multi cultural harmony.
Here in UK and in other parts of Europe it's not like that, as Powell's predictions become reality, and oppressive laws straight out of Orwell's 1984 restrict our ability to protest. Where will the Islamisation process end? ... One can only hope for the least bad solution, where politicians finally wake up and stop all immigration. Then at least the numbers will stabilise of those whose agenda is an Islamic state with sharia law; voted in quite legitimately under our dysfunctional 'first past the post' form of 'democracy'.
The worst case makes me fearful for my children ... the 'Rivers of Blood' metaphor used by Powell might become not a figure of speech but a ghastly reality, as civil strife and urban warfare erupt in UK cities.

Sometimes I really wish I shared the lefty’s faith in their vision for the future.


there's the rub v-tail.. to do that, you need to be completely removed from reality and live in a world dominated by rhetoric and fantasy. those worlds do not exist, harsh reality has a habit of overpowering fairytales.

Basil said:
It is YOUR FAULT and MY FAULT that we permitted those who must hate their own country with a vengeance to so misquote Enoch Powell that his memory was used by the destructive Left as a weapon against reason.


Enoch said:
charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies.


Hmmm.

Now that the day, and usual myopic hysteria have passed....here's a little something to address the balance as it were.....you will have to read the full article however....never know, might even prove educational to some posters...there again......

Dennis Skinner: 'I was formed in the pits and the war' | Politics | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jun/17/dennis-skinner-formed-pits-war)

Krystal n chips, (Had Bolly & chips at the w/e)
Few would dispute Skinner's admirable qualities however, if anyone is fair game for a sharp ripost, it is he and I do believe that he declared that he would resign his seat when he reached the age of 65. It's easy to make left wing quips; stand-up comics do it for a living.
Miner for 20 years? Poor dear! There are plenty of other dangerous jobs in this world. Trawlerman, fireman, soldier, policeman, builder, industrial worker etc. etc. Not including bikes and the RAF I came close twice by the age of 20; a colleague had a ton or so of boiling hot water cascade over his legs.
Am I being dismissive of the man? No, but there are a lot of Dennis Skinners in industry and some of those I've met do better jokes.

Octopussy2,
Enoch said: charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies.
A word which comes from Spanish or Portuguese for 'small child' IIRC, something like: 'pequeño niño'.
That is not a misquotation; rivers of blood is.
Considering it is linked to a woman having excrement thrust through her letterbox, hardly an over reaction.

I'm reminded of when Hong Kong devolved to Chinese rule.

Thousands of Hong Kong citizens wished to emigrate to UK, but they were denied.

My opinion is that you can't have enough Chinese. They (in general, apologize for stereotyping) are hard working, they discipline and care for their children, and ask for nothing.

UK wanted nothing to do with them, but has done sommersaults to attract rent seeking Arabs and other Muslims, who arrive in masses to receive council housing, a monthly stipend, and no requirement to work or expend any effort to pay for the largesse granted by the UK taxpayer. Still, today, in the thousands per day.

I can tell you for certain that structure of immigrant policy has not worked and will not work. Ever.

The reason for the inclusion of the article about Dennis Skinner...for the benefit of those who lack the capacity to read and comprehend...was the reference to Enoch Powell...nothing more.

The much "revered", and conveniently misquoted "rivers of blood" speech on the other hand is precisely that...a gift to those who would probably condemn a Battenburg cake as being an example of their bigoted perceptions of multiculturalism....and offered up to those with a mind that makes granite look porous ever since as a "dire warning".......really ?....:rolleyes:

Boris, you are correct in that there are plenty of dangerous occupations...and you mention a few quite rightly...but surely, the point is that Dennis Skinner had first hand knowledge of working life...not some theoretical model churned out at Oxbridge for those destined for the Westminster village....which would you really prefer ?

Krystal & chips,
Keep up the good work. I was going to reply to this thread but I really can't be bothered.

I thought Capetonian had been banned?

The reason 'rivers of blood' is so widely quoted and remembered is that it expressed a long ago vision ever-increasingly, and alarmingly and precisely, borne out by unfolding reality.

That's what makes it special, particularly to those of us sharing the sentiment whose concern has been mocked and stifled by the forces of multiculturalism, who are seemingly blind to the often barbaric nature, antithetical to the noble values they presume to hold, of the culture they champion.

...........
:D:D:D:D

Deleted. Too silly.

The situation in Egypt whilst different in many respects, gives a good indication of what could just possibly happen here.

Imagine a UK general election in say 2030 ... general apathy & total disillusion with the mainstream parties ... those native voters who could be bothered vote, do so for the Greens, the 'New Liberals', the Monster raving loonies Mk II, the 'Put Britain back in the EU' party, the Home rule for England party, and the British Americans for a 53rd State party.
Meanwhile there has been a block vote by every Muslim, and the 'New UK Muslim Brothers' have won a huge majority... they are forming a government with an Islamic republic as their aim.
Either apathy will become absolute and veils & beards the new must have fashion ... or civil war will break out.
I can only hope that if this nightmarish fantasy of mine actually happened, the Army (assuming it still existed!) would take over as in Egypt. :eek::confused:

Hopefully, vee-tail-1, Brits will have come to their senses and will turn around the gathering storm. I'm afraid, though, there will be blood in bringing about the righting of the ship. Good men will ultimately have to step up.

You should re-arm the citizenry.

for the benefit of those who lack the capacity to read and comprehend...

ironic, isn't it, that those seek to censor views that do not comply with their own narrative make such statements.

Krystal n Chips has a talent for condescension I wish I could master to such a degree, but it comes unnaturally to me.

stuckgear admirably posted the whole transcript for us, an excerpt here: A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalized 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 have been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan't be satisfied till I have seen them settled overseas. In this country in fifteen or twenty years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.'

All of the first 5 posts on this thread ending with; A great man, not forgotten in this household. eminently suffice to describe all the most poisonous influences that these posters and others have injected into the UK, encouraging racial prejudices especially, over about the past 4 decades beginning about 1972-1974, and which I also sufferred from as a child.

Enoch Powell today, should be recognised for what he was: a small but quite adroit minority-politician relying on cheap publicity-seeking measures (the media were more innocent in those days) to promote his personal abhorrent and over-simplified beliefs. If it's any consolation to the first 5 posters, they did work. But I believe that the UK finally came to terms with their hordes of immigrants (coloured or not) sometime in the late '90s. Too late for me for sure.

PS. It's not too late for you to download and print all types of posters which could be attached to the walls of your Spanish villas or otherwise. Along the lines of.. my (perhaps illegal) African domestic worker is my friend. Pleasqe don't harm her when she goes out for the shopping...

Sometimes I have to cringe in the face of... :sad:

Apparently I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalized industries So this racist didn't actually have much to say concerning the "nationalised industries" (oops, nationalized induestries more precisely):

You will eventually all die out, as will I and my sort. Those whom are left today (in positions of power or influence) could probably do without all our old arguments (even if many would still be worthy of prosecution in 2012).

BandAid,your note is spot on,as Enoch Powell was spot on with his 'Rivers of Blood',-no-one listened to him,and just look at the state this country is in today,muslim scum raping white school girls and grooming them for sex,etc.etc.,R.I.P.Enoch-the only tory with a brain.:D:D:D:D:D

All I ask is that everyone here bravely endeavours to "wear their badges" whilst walking down their local high-streets and doing their weekly-shopping.

40 years afterwards, most of you continue to prefer to hide yourselves from public view. Why?!

BOO! What's changed? Can't you chase the little Paki or Indian kids down the street anymore on their way home from school (or encourage your kids / grandkids from doing so)...?

You should all rein in your necks, wherever you are (in the UK or elsewhere in the EU). I doubt very much if the UK or even the EU will at some stage in the future attempt to make any amends. But don't believe that anything's forgiven or forgotten...

With kind regards,
airship.

most of you continue to prefer to hide yourselves from public view. Why?!

airship: Location+personal details: Why should it matter to anyone

It does matter when you make such incoherent posts as above.
I gather you suffered discrimination when young. I gather that you do not feel part of the native population of these isles. You appear to have a real problem with the views of some posters on this thread. Please explain why? Without hysteria or rhetoric ... I genuinely need to know in order to understand your views and those of others like you. :ouch: :)

With all due respect vee-tail-1, you genuinely don't need to know anymore about me. If still interested, you could perhaps search here on JB for more info (but probably since deleted).

You and your ilk come across very clearly. Once upon a time, you wouldn't be allowed the time of day here. In some way, I still hope that most JBers will at some stage fight-back. And put you all back where you belong (ie. a long way away from reasonable adult discussions here).

Anything you still don't understand?!

PS. Surely there must be any numbers of other websites where you could express your extremist views and possibly be welcomed, instead of here on JB?!

Imagine a UK general election in say 2030...
VT1 - you will see the formation of the Islamic Republic of
Britain within your lifetime and 2030-2035 being a realistic
median of dates. Its really way too late now to do anything
solid to remedy the problem. Best you start growing a beard
and learn how to bang your head on the floor 5 times a day
as well as stoning women and decapitating adulterers. Don't
know if marrying off girls as young as 9 will be easily passed,
but give that a further 15 years.

Airship,

You seem to be going off the rails, ranting. You're better than that, as I know from long history.

vee-tail-1 hasn't expressed any sort of extreme or bigoted views here. It's you who are projecting your own hobgobblins upon him (her?).

As to allowing opinions counter to the left-leaning bent of the site administration, I applaud their apparent recent restraint and hope it continues, despite your protestations, airship.

I haven't been banned in over a year, despite my expressed views. I appreciate that. I miss my friends, though.

Put us back where we belong with logic and reason, airship. Win the argument, if you can. If you can't, please withold the invective and do the best you can.

VT1, you say to Airship 'I gather that you do not feel part of the native population of these isles...Please explain why? Without hysteria or rhetoric ...' A look at some of the comments on this thread provides a possible explanation , for example(plenty of hysteria in this little gem): 'I'm afraid, though, there will be blood in bringing about the righting of the ship. Good men will ultimately have to step up. You should re-arm the citizenry. ' One charmer described us horrible liberals as 'white scum' but I am glad to see that this post was removed.

Airship's experience of racism shows that there can be consequences to acting the hard man on an internet forum. Let us all just be respectful here. By all means have a sensible discusion about the pros and cons of immigration (as impossible as that seems to be these days), but as you say VT1, let's all leave out the hysteria and rhetoric.

I think that my views are fairly typical of a white Englishman of my age group (mid 30's). I have no recollection of a time when the UK was 99%+ white. I have been to nursery, school, university, served in the forces and worked with non white people as well as have many who are friends and neighbours.

There is good and bad in all groups and I could not care less about a persons skin colour or their religion (so long as they don't try to impose it on others). What I do care about is the way that people behave in my country for no other reason than I and my relatives and many of my friends have no choice but to live here.

I feel that the problem does not lie with the vast majority of immigrants and their descendants but rather the fact that for nigh on 40 years every criminal, corrupt politician, corrupt businessman, racist, religious fanatic and useless employee whose skin colour happens to be anything but white use the race card to try to get themselves off the hook and there is often enough gullible idiots in the establishment to believe them as everyone is scared of being called a racist. Diane Abott and Ali Disaei are but two high profile examples.

This has left us in the farcical situation whereby no one dares openly state the obvious fact that one demographic was over represented in last years 'rioting' (semi organised thieving but that is for another thread), that the deputy prime minister can make ignorant generalisations about white people on twitter and still keep her job and that the leader of one of the gangs of child rapists (thats what they are after all) after sentencing calls the judge a 'racist ****' because he sub consciously thinks that this will get him out of trouble.

So what can be done about it? The last thing that this country needs is more legislation. I would suggest that there should be a change in attitude towards people who play the race card for their own gain or who make malicious accusations of racism so that they are vilified and generally shunned by the general populous (of whatever pigmentation). There also needs to be a thorough overhaul of the compensation culture which fuels much of this behaviour. Then I think that over time the problem will solve itself.

One contributor to this thread has a long history of seeing the end of days & the hordes coming over the horizon. And yet it's never happened.

I would not like to be imprisoned by my own bunker mentality in such a state.

Me, neither.

But if the hordes appear, I'm well-armed, and would not give up my daughter.

Alonso Quijano.