Sunday, April 15, 2018

50 years on, Enoch Powell was right

This is the full text of Enoch Powell's so-called 'Rivers of Blood' speech, which was delivered to a Conservative Association meeting in Birmingham on 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 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.

Labels: , ,


Blogger tublecane April 15, 2018 5:37 AM  

I'm shocked the BBC allowed an anniversary broadcast. Maybe it was for publicity's sake.

In any case, their tolerant, open-minded ruling class politely rejected it after a fair hearing.

Just kidding, they flipped out.

Anonymous Anonymous April 15, 2018 5:41 AM  

Conservatism is a suicide pact. Alt-Right or die.

I wonder at the armed state of " a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries." at the time.

Information on UK firepower is a bit limited here:

Here in the states,there will be blood. theirs.

Blogger tublecane April 15, 2018 5:41 AM  

The Virgilian allusion gets all the play, but I use that "whip hand" phrase daily.

Blogger DonReynolds April 15, 2018 5:58 AM  

I am probably not the oldest person who is fond of Vox here. I have followed him from one site or another for years, previously known as Memphomaniac. But during my time virtually every politician has been a total expert at kicking the can down the road and that can is usually anything and everything that might turn out to be unpleasant, or unpopular at the time, or might have negative blowback in the short term. Kicking the can is fun and attractive to people who are afraid, and weak, and cheap....because they can always put off solutions until later. There may even be good reasons for doing so (in their mind) to rationalize their avoiding what they know would be necessary. Maybe it will be more affordable later. Maybe a better solution will bubble up. Maybe the situation will correct itself. Often times, doing nothing might be the best thing to do now. It does not seem to be a dire emergency to anybody else, maybe I should not be the one to raise the alarm. Cannot get too far ahead of the voters, ya know. That could end a career pretty fast. Besides, everyone else wants to play kick the can, and I am not in charge.

They think they can kick the can down the road and every time they catch up with the can....they can just kick it again. After all, we do that with everything else, why not with immigration?

What every politician in my lifetime refuses to understand or believe, is that the can doubles in size every time it is kicked. It is magic like that. And after it while, it takes more effort to kick the can as it grows, until it becomes too big and too heavy to kick again. So they try to roll it a few feet or a few months further. But ultimately, it becomes immovable and will not budge another inch. Now it is a big problem and the old solutions no longer work. We are less wealthy than we used to be and things seem to cost more and more must be borrowed. WE have reached the time to act or fail, and if we do not act, people beyond our influence will force the same events that we hoped to avoid all along.

Blogger Johnny April 15, 2018 6:02 AM  

First there are the endless crisis. Every week or two we seem to have another one. A journalist once criticized a politician for trying to "scare people." Yeah right. Scaring people is the job of the journalist class, and they don't like others intruding on their turf.

Combine the endless wars and epidemics and crises against this or that, along with the lies, along with the normal puffing up of every sort of thing, and the public tunes out.

And of course ordinarly mental sloth plays a role. Most people don't like having to think about stuff. Until there is real pain, a kick in the rear or a whack on the head, they don't respond.

Blogger AdognamedOp April 15, 2018 6:17 AM  

I'm glad that fker was right and those nasty Brits are getting overrun. Serves them right for starting two World Wars and trying to start a third. Fk them. They could've stopped this five, ten, fifty, years ago but they,., they doubled down.

Anonymous Anonymous April 15, 2018 6:26 AM  


"But during my time virtually every politician has been a total expert at kicking the can down the road and that can is usually anything and everything that might turn out to be unpleasant, or unpopular at the time, or might have negative blowback in the short term."

Don, you have followed Vox longer than I since I only became really aware of him when he started this site. I have read him on and off since then. But odds are I am older than you and I can agree with your point.

The difference between myself and most here, I think, is that I believe that the nation-State is the real enemy of mankind. The State will become ever more oppressive towards its population which it views as its property. And the State prefers its subjects dumb, poor, and passive.

The government of Britain set up the situation mentioned in the speech. We have a man who saw what was coming in '68 just as a young Mark S. was telling his high school social studies teacher what was going to happen with the coming consolidation of a black high school and our high school (95% white). I was right of course, and said teacher told me so when he saw me a few years later over at the local college.

We can see that the whites are shit out of luck in this country just as whites were shit out of luck in Britain. Trump might slow down the evil, but the State has stacked the deck so that it is either war of the end of "whiteness".

Our only chance is to break up the US into various smaller parts and hold on to some of them as real nations. Nation as a people bound together by race, religion, culture, language, common myth, family, and so forth.

I have reached the point where my prediction is that white people might hold Russia and some of eastern Europe. That is all. The rest is lost due to the soy boys who are afraid to fight the invaders. (plus all the satanic traitors)

Oh, what a downer I just wrote. Sorry, but that is how I see it.

Blogger Wynn Lloyd April 15, 2018 6:38 AM  

He was a very persuasive speaker. The elderly woman who lost her husband and sons having her business destroyed and getting told off by the early-period SJW is infuriating to hear.

Another part that stood out to me was when he talked about the problem reaching "American levels." The American levels were those of 1968. If he could see the extent of the madness today.....
Yet there are those who STILL claim we need more diversity.

Blogger Stilicho April 15, 2018 6:45 AM  

Powell's speech is rather tame by today's standards, but it would still get him banned from all leftist platforms today.

The BBC understands that it is prophetic, it just that the Beeb wants to make sure those are rivers of English blood only.

Blogger Twisted Root April 15, 2018 6:45 AM  

Patient zero of outrage culture. His real crime was was showing up his colleagues as intellectual pygmies.

Blogger Steve April 15, 2018 6:48 AM  

The reason the left (and the cucked "right") still remembers Powell's speech 50 years on, and still regularly invokes him like a tongue reaching for a sore tooth, is because he was telling the truth.

He was right then, he is even more right now. Multiculturalism is a lie, multiracialism is a nonsense only white people pretend to believe, and our uninvited guests need to go back.

Blogger Aeoli April 15, 2018 7:07 AM  

What an odd world, where I find myself speculating on the wisdom of lower class men who beat their wives randomly on the general principle of keeping them in line (i.e. in fear). Have we really progressed beyond that?

Blogger Aeoli April 15, 2018 7:09 AM  

Of course, I should say "their baby mommas" rather than wives, this being thee current year, with all the nonjudgmentalism that demands, nay, commands.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine April 15, 2018 8:40 AM  

"What an odd world, where I find myself speculating on the wisdom of lower class men who beat their wives randomly on the general principle of keeping them in line (i.e. in fear). Have we really progressed beyond that?"

Some have, some have not. If the woman behaves like an unruly child she should be punished like an unruly child. Similarly, if the man behaves like an unruly child he ought to be whipped like an unruly child.

Blogger Skyler the Weird April 15, 2018 9:28 AM  

Just look at Texas. The Mexican Government invited the Anglos to settle in their Northernmost province. Within 15 years the Anglos outnumbered the native and Hispanic populations and declared independence.

It will happen again in reverse in SoCal very soon.

Blogger Brick Hardslab April 15, 2018 10:14 AM  

Here's the problem for Powell, he was right. He was if anything, too tame in his assessment of what would happen in Great Britain. People can denounce him all they like but everything he warned of has come to pass.

So who will be America's Enoch Powell? No one, no politician has the guts to say what needs to be said. Instead we will lose a couple states, have our civil liberties further violated and see blood in the streets. If we do not act now it will be too late and no one is acting now.

Blogger Crush Limbraw April 15, 2018 10:56 AM  

Enoch Powell = DaWatchman of Ezekiel 33 - might be worth reading.

Blogger seeingsights April 15, 2018 11:09 AM  

Enoch Powell was also opposed to the UK being part of European Economic Community. HIs views on that matter can be heard on the internet, such as on YouTube. That put him at variance with Conservative leaders, such as Edward Heath and Margaret Thatcher.

Enoch Powell was ahead of his time--a forerunner of the nationalist politicians currently in Europe.

I'm trying to figure out why Enoch Powell broke from his fellow Conservatives on the issues of immigration and the EU. I think those Conservatives were influenced by libertarianism--the free movement of peoples is fine, the free movement of goods and services is fine.
But on those two issues, realty does not correspond to abstract libertarian models.

Blogger Snowdens Jacket April 15, 2018 11:10 AM  

Fortunately for our largest voting block, the boomers, all of the cans have been kicked out to about 2034. When they'll all be dead.

Blogger Jonathon Davies April 15, 2018 11:33 AM  

He should have said Thames instead of Tiber but apart from that everything has come true.

Blogger James April 15, 2018 11:57 AM  

I remember in the 70's that Eric Clapton said some supportive things about what Powell was saying. He was smeared as racist because, well, those smearing him had no intention of addressing the point. Ad hominem and the problem was solved. Clapton apologized a few years later. But, this from a White man that had helped pollute Western Civilization by promoting the music of non-Whites. Supposedly, Paul McCartney's original version of Get Back had the line "Don't want no Pakistanis taking peoples jobs". This was written the same year as Powell's Rivers of Blood speech. No one in the music or film industry is going to speak the truth about racial things, immigration, Islam, or anything that doesn't fit the narrative. They might have to work for a living at something that doesn't pay near as well.

Blogger Rory April 15, 2018 12:43 PM  

I don't know what it is that made the BBC decide to broadcast this.

But watching the freaking out that occurred is very pleasant. The fear is palpable, from everyone decrying this. They can sense what's coming. They can sense it in the air.

Anonymous Anonymous April 15, 2018 12:59 PM  

I had only read spots of Powell's speech until today, but never heard it presented in its entirety, especially via voice. It's a powerful presentation.

The man was 50 years ahead of his time. He not only discussed limiting immigration to "negligible" figures, he goes logically one step beyond and proposes repatriation policies to send them back to their own country.

The modern side commentary within the speech is priceless. The erudite crowd on VP will appreciate its absurdity. These people actually believe their delusions. No wonder they've tried to suppress it for decades.

I know the Beeb was trying to illustrate just how absurd Powell's immigration thoughts were for modern Britain, but it's gonna spectacularly backfire. If Middle England heard this speech today, they're going to cheer and demand implementation. Especially repatriation.

The presentation is worth a listen (56:30 minutes):

Blogger Azure Amaranthine April 15, 2018 1:14 PM  

"I think those Conservatives were influenced by libertarianism"


"They can sense what's coming. They can sense it in the air."

Like the sudden scent of ozone during a thunderstorm.

This is, all in all, another example of TPTB painting a giant bullseye on their foreheads in the medium of ignited napalm.

Blogger Bobiojimbo April 15, 2018 2:52 PM  

Thanks for sharing this. It is great. Maybe permanent link it on the site? It'd be useful to find it quickly so it can be shared easily.

Blogger DonReynolds April 15, 2018 3:19 PM  

@15 Skyler the Weird
"Just look at Texas. The Mexican Government invited the Anglos to settle in their Northernmost province. Within 15 years the Anglos outnumbered the native and Hispanic populations and declared independence."

You need to read more Texas history.

The Anglos who settled in the Texas province of Mexico did not see themselves as Americans. Virtually ALL of the Heroes of Texas were citizens of Mexico. The crisis that became the Texas war of independence was not about ethnic demographics. Even the ethnic Hispanics in Texas fought against Santa Ana.

So why did the Texans revolt in 1836 after being part of an independent Mexico since 1824?
1. Santa Ana tore up the Mexican Constitution of 1824.
2. Santa Ana made himself dictator of all Mexico.
3. Santa Ana abolished all state governments (including Texas) and the state legislatures in what had formerly been a Federal system and declared his government to be the central government. (Sound familiar?)

The Texan rebellion was about restoring self-governing states, restoring the 1824 Mexican Constitution, and getting rid of an absolute dictator. Other states besides Texas also rebelled against Santa Ana. This was not an Anglo invasion.

Anonymous Anonymous April 15, 2018 3:53 PM  

It's been awhile since I read this. His prophecy turned out to be even more true than he could have imagined. Cuck Island is an evil totalitarian state where they allow the invaders take the natives' kids and sell them into sex slavery. Not a damned thing is done in response to it either - except to double, triple and quadruple down on the cucking. Jonestown writ large.

Blogger Jack Amok April 15, 2018 4:01 PM  

I don't know what it is that made the BBC decide to broadcast this.

But watching the freaking out that occurred...

I'd guess that's your answer right there. They wanted to freak leftists out, give them a two-minute hate to get them stirred up.

Blogger tublecane April 15, 2018 5:06 PM  

@11- Not just that he was right, but the manner in which he expressed himself. Which denied them the ability to call him a toothless hick or ignorant chav.

They also couldn't call him an out of touch old man or egghead, either. Because the speech makes sense to ordinary listeners.

Every article I read addressing this speech treats the Virgil part in particular like a sore spot. Either they try to argue he got it wrong, or they bitch about it, or they just bring it up over and over without explaining what it is they don't like.

That's because they own higher culture, see, and you can't hold Powell's opinion and also be familiar with the classics. That would mean the Cathedral failed to brainwash you properly, and the Cathedral doesn't fail.

Blogger rumpole5 April 15, 2018 5:21 PM  

I and many other Boomers have been kicking the damn can back the other way for much of our lives. Both Reagan and Trump (who is also a Boomer) were elected primarily because of Boomer votes. I suggest that it is the so called "Great" generation before us (Jimmy Carter, the Kennedys, and the like) who gave away the farm. The Boomers and later generation are just trying to keep up the mortgage payments! Moreover, I definately plan to live past 2034!

Blogger DonReynolds April 15, 2018 5:57 PM  

@1 tublecane
"I'm shocked the BBC allowed an anniversary broadcast. Maybe it was for publicity's sake."

One of the weaknesses of the Leftist Liberals is their total blindness to the fact that reasonable and rational and thoughtful people could have an opinion contrary to their Leftist agenda. They are always shocked. I have seen this many times.

The only time they will knowingly tolerate any speech contrary to their Leftism is when they are certain that no one in the audience could possibly agree. Their purpose is not to demonstrate free speech but to animate their own base and give support to their own activist causes.

The Leftists are driven by the agenda of the week and their favorite t-shirt or bumper sticker politics. That is how they can live on a steady diet of contradictions and inconsistencies, which the rest of the world knows as lies and hypocrisy.

Blogger Dirk Manly April 15, 2018 7:36 PM  


"I'm trying to figure out why Enoch Powell broke from his fellow Conservatives on the issues of immigration and the EU. I think those Conservatives were influenced by libertarianism--the free movement of peoples is fine, the free movement of goods and services is fine.
But on those two issues, realty does not correspond to abstract libertarian models."

He explains all of that in his speech -- because it leads to exactly what he predicted would happen.

Blogger Ceerilan April 15, 2018 7:41 PM  

What I really and truly don't understand is that disregard of the future that leftists seem to have. If equality is their goal, how can they justify racist policy? How can they justify deliberate population replacement? They can't. The only possible explanation is that the left hates white people.

Blogger tublecane April 15, 2018 9:04 PM  

@DonReynolds- I suppose that's why they're always surprised when audiences take characters like Archie Bunker or Bill the Butcher seriously. Because the people who write them figure it'll be obvious to everyone that they're villainous or mere objects of fun.

Blogger Jack Amok April 16, 2018 3:11 AM  

The only possible explanation is that the left hates white people.

They're little fish looking for the smallest pond they can find. Or create.

Sooner or later they'll get it... held face down until they stop moving.

Blogger David Power April 16, 2018 12:12 PM  

Enoch the first lived to the age of 365. Which makes him the oldest man that ever lived.

Enoch2 turned 106 last February and growing stronger with every passing year. Who's to say he won't break that record.

Blogger David Power April 16, 2018 12:19 PM  



Kick the can down the road for long enough and eventually the can starts kicking you.

Blogger Wandering man April 21, 2018 10:24 AM  

Oh how many "militias" I have seen, just a bunch of dumb rednecks with guns decked out to the nines but no idea how to field strip them and maintain them. They wear army surplus cammo, but have not tactical experience, nor the necessary supplies other than more ammo.

Hope I'm in another country before 2034. 😞

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts