The BBC documentary on Enoch Powell’s 1968 “rivers of blood” speech in Birmingham, currently featured on The Occidental Observer, reminds us of how White loyalism has been systematically defeated since the Second World War throughout the West (though with some recent exceptions in Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, and even Britain). It also reminds us of the tragic failure of our elites to respond to prophetic, principled voices such as Powell’s.
Nevertheless I think Enoch Powell is an inappropriate role model for White activists.
The documentary begins well enough by reporting the actual speech, including electrifying film excerpts, and the vast popular support it received.
However as the program continues critical themes come to dominate. Powell’s use of the word ‘piccaninny’ is harped on. Because he used that word, one set of friends broke off their relationship with Powell. The sneering social rejection increases. Tory leader Edward Heath announces his sacking of Powell in a moralistic tone, accusing the speech of being “inflammatory.” Alleged attacks on non-Whites are emphasized, though never documented. There are reports of fear and apprehension on the part of immigrants.
As the criticism mounts so does the bias. The voices opposed are allowed to overwhelm those in support. There is no mention of Black crime. No mention of immigrants taking jobs or going on welfare. Apart from Roger Scruton, no intellectuals are interviewed who agree with Powell. There are no educated voices explaining that, of course, all peoples wish to retain their ways of life and their national identities; that the passions Powell released are normal in every society but are repressed in the West. Description of those opposed to coloured immigration is not balanced by analysis of the elite forces promoting it.
Why is the heavy artillery directed at Powell? Because he demonstrated the possibility of rolling back the invasion. And that was because the reaction to his speech showed what could be achieved politically when the people are led by someone who champions their interests. Powell’s speech demonstrated the fragility of the elite program once a member of the elite political class breaks ranks. Opinion polls were showing 80% support for Powell’s views. Heseltine and others interviewed explain that if Powell had run for the leadership of the Conservative Party in 1968 he would have won by a landslide; and if the Conservatives had run with him as leader they would have won, again by a landslide.
The Left and minority activists knew they had to destroy Powell politically. They mobilized all available forces. In my own academic career I keep coming across old professors who boast of joining the fight against Enoch Powell. After listening to a senior sociology professor boast about how he had advised politicians about frustrating Powell’s efforts, I asked him whether he thought it was at all reasonable for a people to seek to retain control of their own country. The old fox replied with a revealing non sequitur: “Look around London. It’s too late now!” He had not the least interest in British aspirations or interests. His drive was not academic but political. It did not occur to him that he shared an ethnic interest with the despised working class and middle class bigots. He did not have a thought about his descendants’ welfare in a minority White society.
After the controversy ended, the clamp down on discussion of immigration resumed. Powell was effectively shut out of national politics. He resigned from the Conservative Party and returned to Parliament as an Ulster Unionist.
The courageous leftist politician Frank Field, a Labour MP, explains how the Powell threat was defeated:
There was a conspiracy I’d say between the leadership of the two major parties. Neither side wanted to discuss this issue, the Tories because it was so embarrassing, and ours because of this genuine feeling about the brotherhood of man and so on and how appalling it was that vulnerable newcomers should be picked on this way. So both sides found it very convenient not to discuss the issue, certainly not in front of the children, i.e. the voters.
The horrible 1981 race riots by non-White minority youths in Brixton and Liverpool, the first civil disturbance in Britain in the 20th century, seemed to vindicate Powell’s prophetic speech. He could not capitalize on the public reaction to the riots because by 1981 he was largely isolated. Margaret Thatcher, who had come to power as head of the Conservative Party in the 1979 elections, reacted to the riots not by reducing immigration but by imposing more multiculturalism. This was a humiliating defeat for a man who could have swept to power only 13 years earlier. One weakness was that Powell had not built a political machine. He had no newspaper of his own, no street activists. And to be fair, the elite had deserted him or had been frightened away. The mainstream media were opposed to his ideas. The coercive tactics of multiculturalism had done their work. Powell faded into old age.
Despite personal failure as a politician, Powell could have succeeded in the long term by planting the seeds of understanding and thus resistance in the public mind. Unfornately his argument was flawed. He did not get to the heart of the issue, of why Western nations need to stop large scale immigration. Yes, violent unrest is bad. But Powell would have had Britons believe that violence was the only threat. People soon realized that rivers of blood were unlikely to flow. Indeed, over time Powell’s emphasis of violence may have worked against immigration restriction because he effectively set the criterion of success so low that immigration even of tsunami proportions passed the test. There was no civil ear. The Thames did not froth with much blood.
In Powell’s defence, it might be argued that he necessarily left many of his premises unstated, that he knew that his listeners would join the dots, that their common sense and shared sense of grievance would suffice. True enough. But we see in Part 5 (David Frost interview, from 2’12”) Powell denying that he believed that people of different races differed “in civilization or capability of civilization”. That meant he could not explain to the public that races of different capabilities inevitably become stratified and that this causes resentment and hostility. The collection of Powell’s speeches and views on immigration up to 1969 (Freedom and Reality, Paperfronts, pp. 281–314) contains no assertion that the peaceful replacement of White Britons is against their interests, nor that ethnic diversity has deleterious social impacts even in the absence of violence. His reference to piccaninnies indicated sympathy for those who felt alienated by Third World immigration but there was no analysis. The interest everyone has in having and holding a country was not stated as a principle. Powell did not talk about the nature of nations, about the special properties that are lost as diversity rises. He did not talk about the treachery of Britain’s elite or its causes. The fact that Labour were importing a new electorate beholden to them, just as America’s Democratic Party has imported a new constituency, was not part of his message. At no time did he a mention Jewish interests or influence.
It would have been a patriotic service to have exposed the Jewish factor in Britain’s immigration disaster. Why did Thatcher, of all people, not cut immigration after the 1981 riots? She was no fool. She was probably patriotic in her own way. But she was first and foremost a political survivor. Like Winston Churchill, there is strong evidence she saw her political fortunes as best assured in cooperation with the Jewish community. This was a dimension of politics Enoch Powell never broached. As reported in the European Jewish Press (30 Dec. 2005) it was known in government circles that Thatcher had a long-running close relationship with the Jewish community and that there was a large and supportive Jewish constituency in her electorate. Her Jewish ties were so pronounced that the Foreign Office believed they would harm Britain’s relations with the Arab world. She belonged to the Conservative Friends of Israel. Foreign Office official advised her to sever her official ties to the Jewish community, even before she became prime minister. They were right. While she was still leader of the opposition Arabs had “fears and suspicions” that Margaret Thatcher was already “a prisoner of the Zionists”.
Surely Powell knew of Thatcher’s Jewish ties and understood political Zionism. If he had talked about these and other underlying issues he would still have been met with overwhelming opposition. But more of the public would have realized over time that he was right. They could have made sense of what was happening to them as the passing years saw their dispossession accelerate.
Enoch Powell was a great patriot, a man of immense courage and decency. Still he was ignored. Courage and decency are not enough. Victory will only come from a radical approach that tackles the fundamental causes of our malaise. White activists should learn from Enoch Powell’s errors as well as his achievements.
Facing the Future as a Minority
Hey, isn’t this the same fella who stood up in Parliament to say, “In the opinion of this honourable member, the wogs start at Calais”?
Good for him if he did, you troll. Screw “nice polite genteel”. Make a SCENE.
You enemies should be scared to DEATH of you.
I happen to not be a troll; further, I admire Enoch, and have for years, even though my ancestors qualified as “wogs”. That one line I quoted is part of a longer statement he made in Parliament.
Enoch Powell was a genius – he was awarded a double starred first in Latin and Greek, the highest grade possible at Cambridge. He also became the youngest ever professor in the British Empire at the age of 25. His anti-immigration stance was prescient and extremely popular.
However, I have my doubts as to the motivations of the man. Interesting that he made the so called “rivers of blood” speech on April 20, 1968. He then attended the Bilderberg meeting in Canada from April 26th-28th of 1968. Prime Minister Heath, another Bilderberger, had fired Powell from the cabinet on April 21.
Was Enoch an agent provocateur? He went out on a limb against mass immigration and was massacred by the press. No prominent politician since then has come out against this obviously suicidal policy.
If he was a commited Bilderberger, he did more to damage the legitimacy of anti-immigration sentiment than just about anybody else. The mendacity of the cosmopolitan elite is well known. In their world of propaganda, up is down and black is white.
Whose side was he really on?
Only takes a minute to do a little research, Mr. Barkingmad. Here is what Wikipedia has to say:
“The saying “The wogs begin at Calais” was originated by George Wigg, Labour MP for Dudley, in 1949. In a parliamentary debate concerning the Burmese, Wigg shouted at the Tory benches, “The Honourable Gentleman and his friends think they are all ‘wogs’. Indeed, the Right Honourable Member for Woodford [i.e. Winston Churchill] thinks that the ‘wogs’ begin at Calais.”"
This must be how smears were started against Enoch Powell, and then morphed into facts by the dominant media culture.
I stand corrected, and I thank you for your information. However, I wouldn’t consider this a smear even if he had been the one to make this statement.
I am a “Mrs.” and not a “Mr.”
Mr. Dodgson;
The “Tragic failure of our political elites to respond to prophetic, principled voices such as Powel’s”
and just how exactly did these “political elites” achieve such power over your life,? by what process was it accomplished? Did they force their way into the top position with machine guns and grenades?
Hitler said in his book “It is impossible for an honest man to achieve high office in a democracy”
But he didn’t stop there, he went on to explain why it is that democracy is government of the lowest common denomenator, why “the people” will ALWAYS vote for their own destruction.
And they will do it even without an alien people or peoples in their midst.
In fact, if there are no Jews, Negroes, Muslims etc. around to cause strife…THEY WILL VOTE TO ADMIT SOME!
In a democratic system larger than the community or township level..EVIL PEOPLE RISE TO THE TOP LIKE OIL FLOATS ON WATER.
agreed on democracy. here’s a damning analysis that explains the long unwinding of civilization under universal suffrage:
http://www.4shared.com/document/2tdDX1qy/HOPPE_Hans-Hermann_Democracy_-.htm
In truth, both Chuchill and Powell strongly advocated the wogs begin at Calais argument. When it was rumoured that Prince Charles might marry Archduchess Marie-Astrid of Austria, Powell was one of the first to object.
@ buckle …
They were not exaggerating. The wogs certainly do begin at Calais, or to be more precise, at the controversial refugee camp in the commune of Sangatte, which is next to Calais. This is where the illegal ‘refugees’ from Central Asia and Africa would congregate waiting for an opportunity to stow themselves away on HGVs travelling the Channel Tunnel. Although, this camp was eventually closed in 2002. Riots took place in both 2001 and 2002.
Thanks for this article. I was unaware of Margaret Thatcher’s ties with the Jewish community.
All of these mistakes of Powell were the result of Britain’s blundering on a gigantic scale by declaring war to the only nationalist European state that freed itself from the One Ring of greed and power (so often wield by the Jews).
The blunder of the Anglo-Saxons both in Europe and America was so astronomic that even patriots like Powell never became aware of the research done in the think tanks of NS Germany, which proved that the Jewish Problem was not hallucinatory.
The research started long before the Third Reich. Had it been translated and appreciated in the UK, Powell would have counted with the intellectual weapons to formulate his point on the basis of the anti-Semitic movement in Germany since the 19th century (long before Hitler) led by Wilhelm Marr, Heinrich von Treitschke, Heinrich Graetz, Otto Böckel, Friedrich Austerlitz, Baron Karl von Vogelsang, Georg Ritter von Schönerer, Karl Lueger and Houston Steward Chamberlain. It’s worth noting that Albert Schweitzer, Winston Churchill, George Bernard Shaw and D.H. Lawrence liked Chamberlain’s Foundations of the Twentieth Century (1900).
Obviously a more scientific basis to understand both race and the Jewish Problem, like Prof. MacDonald’s evolutionary strategies of ethnic groups, would have developed in Powell’s time were it not for Churchill’s blunder.
Now, in the coming race wars blood in the UK will flow ankle-deep in the streets, rivers certainly as Powell predicted.
Those Marrs are a brilliant lot!
The old fox replied with a revealing non sequitur: “Look around London. It’s too late now!”
Di you ask that vile demented POS WHY he thought destroying Enlgand was such a hot idea?
Did you stick a knife in his rotten old guts, on the spot, and watch that filthy DEVIL bleed out in front of you, kicking his head in the last minutes of his Satanic life?
This is a fight for existence. Whites have to STOP worring aobut being NICE.
Bloody he’ll Ciaran, you been popping the angry pills or what?
I do not understand the reasons why, for centuries, Whites have allowed Jews to high jack our civilizations via money? We lament White flaows – this is the critical one. Why do we do this?
We can invent all kinds of stuff, but we continue to allow our Oldest Enemy to “manage the money”.
@ Ciaran …
They are not capturing ‘our’ money. Their ‘success’ comes from capturing and managing the money that once belonged to Royalty and their various hangers on. This is precisely how granddaddy Rothschild established his dynasty and thereby set the ball rolling towards the NWO.
Income tax exists so that the interest charged on the huge amounts of money borrowed from these Jewish bankers by Royalty and/or by our ‘elected’ Governments can be paid. There is no other logical way of explaining the reasons for income tax.
Ciaran:
“Why do we do this?”
When your government system is based on money, how can you expect anything else?
In a “democracy” people vote in the interest of their own pocket-book…TODAY. Not the future well-being/survival of their race, their children, or even thelmselves.
This is why democracy is known as the best government money can buy, among other things.
This is why whites continue to spend tens of millions every four years electing Jew-approved yes men (agents) to both houses of congress…money…greed…the libs think a democrat will make them more money, while the cons think the republicans will make them more money. Posterity be damned.
The Jews are indeed a problem, but it does no good to through rocks at a snake while being swallowed by an alligator.
White people will continue to self destruct as long as they can blame Jews for what they are doing themselves.
Here’s a novel idea; STOP ELECTING YOUR ENEMIES!….
All it takes is one White to open the door to the vampire. Through central banking and multinational corporations the Jewish elite have created a monetary system that literally cannot fail them.
Imagine standing in a pool throwing buckets of water around. This is what bankers do – to put it simply. No matter which direction that water is thrown, it always returns back to their available pool. This is why they are able to fund literally thousands of NGO’s, many poorly run.
The money has to be thrown around anyway, in order to maintain a money supply, but it can be thrown in any direction they choose.
The Enoch Powell’s of the world are able to light an ideological fire in their nations, but they are taking on an infinite money supply.
Had Hitler remained in power do you think the subsequent administration would have kept the doors locked to those vast infinite pools of capital? Would they have resisted the temptation of the bribe?
How many Czar’s stood firm against that wealth, while the vampires worked tirelessly in the background fomenting revolution. During the Russo-Japanese war of 1904 American banking interests financed a propaganda campaign among Russian POW’s held in Japan. The purpose of this campaign to was to foment the revolutionary ideology. (The Kennan-Russel Anti-Tsarist Propaganda Campaign among Russian Prisoners of War in Japan, 1904-1905 by Frederick F. Travis)
How do you stop a foe that is tireless and immortal?
The Jewish question really is a Gordian Knot, that’s probably why so many proposed solutions mirror Alexander’s.
From 1959 to 1992, Margaret Thatcher was the Member for Finchley in Middlesex. In 1965 the area of this constituency was joined to other districts to form the London Borough of Barnet, in Greater London.
You could say that Barnet is almost as Kosher as Manhattan’s Lower Eastside used to be, but not quite as thuggish.
Her whole philosophy was shaped by two prominent Jews: the manic ideologue, Sir Keith Joseph … and the Monetarist from Chicago: the charlatan known as Milton Friedman.
Her favourite Home Secretary, another Jew named Leon Brittan, went on to become a senior Commissioner in the E.U. serving two terms if I remember correctly. During Thatcher’s term in office, a Jewess by the name of Lady Shirley Porter headed up Westminster City Council, whereupon she used her power to enrich herself grossly. To escape justice, Porter then ran away to Israel in 1994 and claimed immunity.
Shirley Porter is the daughter and heir of Jack Cohen, the founder of the famous Tesco supermarket chain. Her husband, the late Sir Leslie Porter, was once Chairman of Tesco.
See how it all works? Now you know why Thatcher has been lauded as Britain’s 2nd greatest PM after the Jewish pervert, Winston Churchill himself. The ancient land known as ‘England’ has been more thoroughly ‘Jewdyfied’ than a Torah Scroll.
@ “Why do we do this?”
It all started in the French Revolution. Albert Lindemann’s treatise Esau’s Tears explains it thoroughly.
BTW, why is my previous comment still “awaiting moderation”?
He said that the British would fight to keep their county, he was predicting a white backlash to the alien wedge of immigration. But that did not happen and it won’t.
Powell re-interpreted the Gospel said that Jesus was not crucified by the Romans but stoned to death by the Jews (like it says in the Talmud). In the late 1940′s he said that nuclear weapons would not be used – and so far he has right.
On the Rivers of Blood video that’s currently up (6 of 8), a couple cowardly Britsh politicians actually blame Powell for the descent into runaway immigration that led to the 1981 riots, because (they claim) he created such a NAZI vibe in Britain (with his ’68 speech) that any attempt to curb immigration by less extreme politicians would’ve been viewed as “Powell-esque” and therefore unacceptable.
Umm…wouldn’t Powell’s opponents who actually called him a NAZI back in ’68 be the ones responsible for creating that NAZI vibe?
It’s like the sky really DID fall, and they’re blaming it all on Chicken Little.
Powell was not an apologist nor an advocate for Pax Americana. He foresaw quite clearly that the United States had neither the wisdom nor the necessary elite to run an empire. We simply lacked the background to rule.
To the surprise of some David Irving has had much the same feeling. The criticism of Powell’s language reveals a childish academic quality.
I think the violence commited by immigrants is one of the few issues that the voting public understand. And I don’t think that many in 1968 could imagine the impact of Muslim immigration. Back then it was black criminality that was the threat, now we know that black immigration is less a threat than Muslim immigration. And given the violence prone nature of Muslim immigrants, their violent tendencies are an excellent point of emphasis for a statesmen or a movement.
Methinks you are too harsh on a great man.
When it comes to ordinary (non-terrorist) violent crime UK blacks have far higher rates than UK Muslims. Muslims are a greater threat because they have coherent and hostile alternative culture that is opposed to Western liberalism in its current weak, degenerate state. It’s crazy to claim that the average South Asian Muslim is more violent than the average Afro-Caribbean negro.
Anglo Saxon March 7, 2011
We are both being thumbed down!
I was merely attempting to demonstrate the problem of Powell and it’s curious to read the logical implications of your response. You too (like Powell) are equating the “refugee camp in the commune of Sangatte” with the “Archduchess Marie-Astrid of Austria”. In other words they are all foreigners and should be categorised accordingly. Which is of course why Powell objected to a union between Prince Charles and Marie-Astrid.
I question the wisdom of this judgement and the philosophy which underpins it. In fact, one can see why the Americans threw the likes of Powell out of their country in the 18th Century.
@ buckle …
Hope you are well in Leeds, Liverpool, or is it Manchester!
Yes, after opening up this page again after a good night’s sleep, I was astonished to see the amount of “down thumbs” throughout the thread, affecting nearly all commenters. The amount your initial comment received is simply silly.
What we could tentatively conclude is that due to the high number of erudite articles published since December last, and the high quality of commenting they in turn have attracted, some petty minded, organized group is attending with a strategy to interfere with, or sabotage, normal discourse.
I have been commenting online, under various guises, for the past 10 years, and I would like to think I have acquired a keen eye for troublemakers and trouble-making strategies.
I am being quite serious when I tell you that Mossad literally does maintain a department, in Tel Aviv, or just north of Tel Aviv (where Mossad is headquartered) that employs ex-IDF personnel to manipulate public opinion online. They are encouraged to adopt various guises in order to infiltrate blog-sites and discussion forums that they perceive to be hostile to Jews, Judaism, the Rothschilds, and/or Israel.
In Britain, a similar function is organized and supervised by the so-called “far left” organization, SEARCHLIGHT. This operation was begun by the Anglo-Jew named Gerry Gable, and during the Tony Blair era it received extra funding from New Labour via indirect channels.
That (by the way) is how the leader of the BNP was framed and dragged into court for inciting racism, after being secretly filmed (camera inside an attache case) by two students from Liverpool, who were being sponsored by the Searchlight apparatus yet had infiltrated a BNP public meeting being held on private property.
Otherwise, we are certainly being monitored; of that you can bet your boots. Safe to assume we have them rather more than rattled!
Yee-Haar! I love a good battle.
James – “angry pills”? Soem vile old “Academic” TRAITOR – RACE TRAITOR sneered – It’s too late now hahaha!”
Damned RIGHT I’m angry. Why aren’t you? Why don’t you want that creature’s blood spilled? That’s what creatures like It did o th UK, and the USA. What the REASON? Why aren’t you murderously furous at the betrayal, and sheer EVIL of it all? What are you taking? Pussy Pills?
Anglo Saxon – your short answer to my question aobut “why” is excellent – but not enough. I’ve read the the Catholic Church would appoint various Jewish officials to collect revenue, at the doors of the Church, from the congregants. I know about the betrayel of White Elites – but why do Whites put up with this in general? Why didn’t the congregants toss the Joo Revenoo’ers in the local river – and toss the priests that “hired” them. in as well?
I know of a lovely white family, with 2 amazing little boys, who adopted a feral Guatamalen female Orc, They’ve have nothing but problems with her – and she’a a freaking TODDLER. The mother won’t admit that she destest the kid. They’ve just adopted a $&^*$#$ SOMALIAN – all cause the Catholic Church told them to.
I heard about this. I could not ever speak to these people again. cause I will rain HELL on ‘em, for being insane.
Ciaran, you’re absolutely right, but it doesn’t just involve the Catholics – my protestant denomination and congregation has gone overboard with supporting immigrants from africa. Needless to say, I no longer give them money. Not even a penny.
I was just at a public hearing for a failed attempt to pass legislation designed to enforce immigration laws. I was nauseated by the pro-illegal Christian clerics ( not from my church ) in their collars earning their way into heaven at the expense of the rest of us here on Earth. It became apparent to me that the clergy weren’t there just to save the downtrodden. They came to condemn all of the modern day heretics – those who dare to usurp today’s only TRUE religion – the religion of political correctness.
Think about it…who can the modern, liberal, self-righteous clergyman condemn nowadays? Prostitutes? Drug addicts? Murderers? No, that would demonstrate a lack of compassion. It’s not like the old days, when there where a plethora of mortal sins. There’s only one final arena where the pious and self-righteous can condemn souls to hell, only one mortal sin left in the world, and that’s the sin of “racism.” These are exactly the same personality types that hit the temperance circuit 100 years ago and plastered scarlet “A”s on people 300 years ago. They love it and they live for it.
I’m a Christian, but was raised agnostic, and retain much of my contempt for organized religion, mostly because of people like this. I always rely on God but rarely have use for clergy.
I know, I know, Ciaran. There is always more!
I sometimes compare the work of alternative history research to the natural activity of a mole. There is no end to the number of new tunnels you can dig, that all offer a safe way to the surface in order to read in bright light, what you have just brought to the surface.
P.S. With most people around the world going nuts, sanity has now become the “new insanity”.
It may, or may not, be true that with Powell as leader the Tories could have won an election but I don’t believe for one minute that Powell could have been elected leader of the party. If he could have he would have.
Heseltine and the other opponents of Powell who say he was was close to success are self serving (like Jon Cruddas claiming that the BNP are close to a breakthrough); they are just making themselves seem more heroic, pretending that they were up against it.
The idea that he would have stood a better chance of getting his views on immigration accepted if he had said that Jews were behind it is laughable. These people could not see what was happening in front of their eyes so they’d never have understood about the Jewish strategy: that was far more difficult to apprehend. Quite apart from Heath, in the Shadow cabinet Iain Macleod, Edward Boyle, Quintin Hogg and Robert Carr represented the political center of gravity of the party on a variety of subjects and they insisting that if Powell stayed they would go. In the media only the Daily Express was anywhere close to Powell’s position. Powell did get some support from working class people but the Labour party with its led by middle class people with Oxbridge ‘firsts’ were never going to pay any attention to the opinion of the man in the street.
Yes that’s the problem, but the fact remains that white people are peaceable by nature. As Kevin Macdonald points out the “tendency toward simple family structure based on the nuclear family” is an important part of what makes Western culture – with its universalism and individualism – unique. Well in England family structure has been more nuclear than in any other country for several hundred years. The English population have been selected over many, many generations (as documented in Gregory Clark’s work) for characteristics that mitigate against seeing things in ethnic terms. A lot of nationalist thinkers have said that white people would not tolerate being displaced by non white immigrants (Powell actually said that mass immigration of Germans would be far more dangerous that of non-whites).
Given the difficulty in getting the influential part of the population to accept his point about immigration( which was was blindingly obvious) Powell never stood a chance of converting the people who matter to the idea that Jews were a problem. Those people (the higher reaches of society) just can’t see it because something important has been lost in the process that Gregory Clark talks about. The “best of the gentiles” are the Jews’ secret weapon.
An insight into how Powell thought about immigration and the British nation from 1973.
the only way to disenfranchise the powers-that-be is for ordinary people to become educated and disaffected with the current monetary regime. fractional reserve banking and legal tender laws are the deadliest weapons in the enemy’s armory. the founding fathers’ wariness towards paper money was well-founded.
http://www.4shared.com/document/P6H_tOja/HLSMANN_Jrg_Guido_The_ethics_o.htm
@Ciaran March 7, 2011 – 5:09 pm
Presumably they adopted from abroad because all the white kids have either been aborted or contracepted out of existence. How can the Catholic Church be blamed for that?
I agree. The problem is gung-ho liberals who see a career in the church (catholic or protestant) as a vehicle for pushing their political visions/agenda.
Visitor: Yes, thank you for the link The German NAILED it!
Also, there is the book published a few years ago (written by a Harvard professor of history, no less) called “Whats wrong with democracy.” In this book, the author compares Athenian democracy to modern America, and predicts a similar end.
But it doesn’t take a History professor to figure out that most people…the “majority”… neither knows nor cares about anything other than who won the game on TV, who’s the “biggest loser”, or who won “American Idol”…
Old joke: television “man-on the-street reporter polls a passerby; “What is america’s biggest problem, ignorance or apathy?” the passerby answers “I don’t know, and I don’t care”
Henry B,
You said it rightly: “I don’t know, and I don’t care”.
I asked my youngest son who is in college. He said the problem is that we are overdosed with information, we can’t sift and know what is true and not true. He does’nt trust the news, and knows it is stripped, biased (political correct) and scaled, spoon fed to keep everyone ignorant. What we need to know to make good decisions, or have a healthy world view is withheld from us, so we are left to search for knowledge on our own. And as you know, in this Computer age, it is vast. But only few young kids make the effort, and some will get lost if they don’t have or know reliable sources. Some will give up along the way. There is no healthy system in this country that grants some security for survival, so everyone lives from day to day, week to week, struggels and hopes for the best. They are not free to think or care for the future, because they are consumed to deal with the nasty present, of the day to day american-life. The problem is the dichotomy between the rich and poor. The “majority” is poor.
“The idea that he would have stood a better chance of getting his views on immigration accepted if he had said that Jews were behind it is laughable. These people could not see what was happening in front of their eyes so they’d never have understood about the Jewish strategy: that was far more difficult to apprehend. ”
Right on. i’m in the 96% i.Q. range, a born white nationalist and I didn’t understand WHY the jews pushed non-white immigration until 1996.
Pat Buchanan has harped on immigration for years, and against wars for Israel about as long.
He could not have missed the Jewish connection to immigration, yet he never mentions it.
You are right, why Jews like immigration of Mexians and Philipinos is not obvious to 90% of the populaiton, but why they support going to war for Israel is understood by 90% of the people in their gut.
I think Buchanan realized saying immigration was the plot of the jews was too difficult to get across, and it was better to just demonstrate their self centered nature with their much more readliy understood war policy.
Now that jews credibility has been destroyd by the wars, the people will be much more easily persuaded of the jewish treachery in the immigration disaster.
We can only hope.
There’s two types of white people in the world….The white people who think that it doesn’t matter if their grandchildren have 3/4 non-white genes, and those who do. Which one are you?
:) That’s what I’d say to someone.
anyone notice the bbc’s gratuitous use of the soundtrack from stanley kubrick’s a clockwork orange?
powell was strongly influenced by von mises and hayek, and was certainly a small-government man (though he’s generally only recalled for his stance on immigration). he wrote a good (short) paper arguing against britain joining the common market:
http://is.gd/qLcniR
“Unfortunately his argument was flawed. He did not get to the heart of the issue, of why Western nations need to stop large scale immigration.”
It doesn’t matter at all. His argument was better than his opponents’. He could not win on the mere strength of a perfect pro-white argument. What he needed was courageous support from his fellow politicians.
If politicians had to be perfectly honest, coherent and logical in order to hold power, the anti-white left would have been purged from government and the media a long time ago, since what they say doesn’t make sense AT ALL. Most of them do not even even have an objective or a political ideal. They simply try to have a politically correct posture. They never promote race-replacement, they promote “diversity”. If we ask them about immigrant crime, the birth rate, and what they think will become of the white race, they try to elude the questions. By contrast, white advocates are honest and don’t like to elude tough questions, but maybe they should.
There is a debate going on over whether we should be explicit and spell everything out. I think the answer is yes and no. It depends who we are speaking to. White advocates tend to be too honest. For example, we have to be explicit about the need to protect our existence as white people, and the need to reconquer our freedom of assembly, but it doesn’t mean that we have to use the words “white race”. If we talk about the white race, we must not use the words more than once in every speech. It’s absurd, but many people are afraid of words.
If we use the argument that Blacks on average have low IQ and are prone to violence, what we should say is that we recognize them as our full equals, but that their violence and low IQ is a problem. It doesn’t make any sense, but we have to be devious to survive.
“There’s two types of white people in the world….The white people who think that it doesn’t matter if their grandchildren have 3/4 non-white genes, and those who do. ”
Masculinity
“If we use the argument that Blacks on average have low IQ and are prone to violence, what we should say is that we recognize them as our full equals, but that their violence and low IQ is a problem. It doesn’t make any sense, but we have to be devious to survive.”
Armor
Two thoughts; A beautiful yong white woman I knew, who was in the porcess of breaking up with her black boyfriend confided in me that she couldn’t understand why her prospective inlaws hated her guts.
All sane people want their grandchildren to carry on their genes. To do that most efficiently their children have to marry within their race.
A white man and woman who marry each other, since they share many genes just because they are both white, are able to get a larger payback in the evolutionary sense than if they had married a black or asian.
A community has miscegenation laws so that ongoing generations will have that same opportunity, the chance for a more efficient passing on of genes.
The ultimate in race blending, a populaiton genetically 1/3 white, 1/3 black and 1/3 asian would be a population in which NO ONE would be able to find such a compatible high genetic reproduction efficiency partner.
As to political tactics, I wouldn’t harp on the low intelligence or even the pervasive violence among blacks.
That is seen by the average white as an attack on blacks.
The minute you go there your target white audience will have the knee jerk reaction to stick up for the underdog, who at that precise moment to them is the black.
You don’t have to remind whites about black violence. They see it reported every night on the 11:00 news.
Ditto low i.q.
Just go on about white victims of affirmative action or some horrendous crime “just because they (victims)
were white.” The average white will understand you must be talking about a situation involving blacks as affirmative action recipients or criminals.
Since the blacks do such a good job of demonizing themselves, don’t pile on with your condemnation.
Experienced politicians refer to this as “when your opponent is busy beating himself up, don’t get in his way.”
I.E. , If the other politician has been exposed in the media cheating on his wife, don’t you go tatteling on about it. That makes you into the attacker for the moment, and in the same moment the philanderer is now the victim. That is just a normal human knee jerk reaction.
whiterabbitradio.net has an excellent example. They have a 3 minute video by a gal originalsavagechick. It is beautifully done and she says virtually nothing about the evil blacks, or what not, just the destruction of the white race, then it gets into comparing whites to endangerd cute little panda bears etc.
She does mention the Zionist plot, but doesn’t use the word jew. Plus the video has great plantive back ground music. You gotta hear this on you tube or whiterabbitradio.net.
“As to political tactics, I wouldn’t harp on the low intelligence or even the pervasive violence among blacks. That is seen by the average white as an attack on blacks. The minute you go there your target white audience will have the knee jerk reaction to stick up for the underdog, who at that precise moment to them is the black. You don’t have to remind whites about black violence. They see it reported every night on the 11:00 news. Ditto low i.q.”
A point not without merit, but “harp” tends to bias the case. How many times is someone permitted to mention violence or IQ before it crosses the threshold into harping?
In any case, we racially sane whites sure have our work cut out for us. We must not offend other whites by mentioning facts about which they are already aware, but refuse to do anything about.
I once talked to a fellow white man who was running for mayor of Los Angeles and came in a distant, but still miraculous, second. I expressed my viewpoint that whites should not be dispossessed, and he said, “Yes, everyone has a right to exist.”
I believe that is an argument that a lot of people understand. (Yes, “rights” mean nothing without aggressively asserting them, and that is what we are at the beginning of doing.) In all of these Mainstream Media reports on whites soon losing their majority status, they never go on to mention the next obvious step, that the percentage of whites will then continue to fall each year after that, also true throughout all Western nations. Without a wholesale shipping people back–which the media would spontaneously combust just to entertain for one second–any other scenario is almost impossible to imagine.
I hope that the few people on our side who occasionally get quoted by the press will emphasize this point more. If not, it easer for the media to couch the loss the our majority status as if the whole issue were merely about petulant racist whites being resentful about getting knocked off their high horse as the majority, rather than the reality, that whites will one day fondly recall when they were at a massive 49 percent.
Of course once we are down to 10 percent, or whatever, it will be another version of the Zimbabwe or South Africa fun-fest, only this time replayed in North America.
@Anglo-Saxon
What I was trying to say is that, wrapped up in the Powell package is not peace and prosperity, but endless wars against neighbours: he was hostile to the USA, to Chamberlain’s reasonable peace deals, supported on-going involvement with imperialist projects and only liked white people if they were the “right sort”. In short, a collection of incongruities and inconsistencies that are difficult to follow.
To reduce him to a one issue politican, as this debate is doing, is an absurdity.
@ buckle …
While at the same time wishing to avoid criticizing Charles Dodgson for his excellent article, I would agree with you. It is always a cardinal error to pin one’s hopes upon a particular politician or personality. Surely history teaches us this in abundance? Enoch Powell was indeed full of incongruities and inconsistencies, but please be informed his natal Sun-sign is Gemini (highly changeable and mercurial) … so this is what you must expect to get from all Gemini born people!!
I would be very interested to know what somebody who deals with criminality on a daily basis – and therefore knows the consequences of the deterioration of the race, the effects of immigration, and so on, and – would say about this topic.
Hey – I know someone who fits the bill: David Longley.
But you witch-hunted him away, didn’t y’all?
No. We didn’t. Just post under your real name, David.
“Just post under your real name, David.”
LOL. Good response. Can you imagine someone like Longley being a psychologist? That’s like someone who eats Twinkies all day long writing a diet book.
Sorry. The mental image of Longley posting the above comment justy struck me as comical for some reason. I don’t know why.
Jim, and Buckle – I NEVER EVER intended to single out or rain disdain on the Catholic Church. I know all the “Christian” denominations have been wholly infiltrated, and subverted. I was raised as a Methodist – I recently stalked out of a corrupted “churc” after the “minister” gave a mindless “sermon” on how it would be “rilly rilly rilly nice to turn guns into statues of bunny rabbits”. She showed picsof same, as well as other Communist agitprop “artwork”. I told her off in front of the entire congregation. They got mad at me, for being public about it. (“You should have told her privately”. My reaction was “NO! She should be denounced PUBLICLY!” Etc…I know – a female “minister” is perversion in itself).
It’s not Catholics, alone, at all. I am still perplaxed by this couple. They are “intelligent”, very functional, and lively – yet their blind obedience, to an obviously illegitimate authority – astonished me. They KNOW the Guat Orc is a DISASTER – yet they take an even more feral specimen into their home.
Though I admire the Catholic church in many ways, I’m certainly no apologist for them. I know there’s been a hijacking of the Christian message in all branches of Christianity. The thing is, I live in a white Catholic neighborhood and I can’t tell you how good it makes me feel to see white families with 4 or 6 or 8 kids.
Yes, the church also encourages procreation in Mexico, and Mexican families are, on average, larger than American families, but younger couples aren’t listening to the church – they’re having 1 to 2 kids. In 30 years, the population of Mexico will start declining (so they say.)
Thanks for standing up and putting down that mindless preacher.
“Enoch Powell was indeed full of incongruities and inconsistencies, but please be informed his natal Sun-sign is Gemini (highly changeable and mercurial) … so this is what you must expect to get from all Gemini born people!!”
Anglo Saxon
Being a gemini and having a grandfather from Oxforshire I’d say Enoch was probably a bit bi-polar like Churchill and virtually all human leaders above platoon level.
One characteristic of we bi-polars is the tendency to have quick mood changes and to be able to change our minds, tactics, allies etc on a moments notice.
At the end of WWII in Europe, Churchill cabled Montgomery, paraphrasing; “As you take the surrender of the German armies on the North German plain see to it that their arms are stacked in such a way as that they can be immediately reissued, and under no circumstances is any captured German military equipment to be destroyd.”
Churchills worry was that the 400 divisions of the Red Army were just beyond the Rhine and might have the intent of continuing on right to the English channel.
Winston was preparing for a possible sudden side switch.
I think that the author is being a bit unfair to the memory of the great man Enoch Powell in using pejoratives like “failure”. One must remember that the man was a politician and in politics one must make compromises. It is amazing that he was able to say as much as he did about the colored immigration that was starting to plague Britain at the time. One must admire him for standing up as much as he did for his race considering that there was nothing in it for him except ridicule and ostracism from his peers. Mr. Powell could have remained silent and led the very comfortable life of the Classical Scholar that was his first occupation. He didn’t because he was obviously a man of integrity and didn’t enter politics for the perks but because he cared deeply about his country. How many politicians in Great Britain and other White countries can you say this about today! I truly think that we can look up to the legacy of Enoch Powell as well as others as leading the way to victory.
Right you are Rod McKenzie, right you are.
Well said Jim. Jesus left us many warnings of certain men creeping into the church but Christians no longer read His Word as they/we all know better now.
Did you read the recent FATWA by Pope Benedict XVI blaming Christian Bible (NT) for wrongly saying that Jews killed Jesus?
Abraham Foxman who had demanded in 2006 in his book that all referrences to Jews in the NT be removed because they create ‘anti-Semitism’ and were the main reason behind Nazis Holocaust of the Jews in 1940s.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/benedict-xvi-jews-did-not-kill-jesus/
The pope blamed it on the jew temple leaders, not the jews collectively. In other words, the scheming jews at the top.
@Rehmat,
all subtly coherced. The Truth becomes the Lie, and the Lie becomes the Truth? What an upside down world. Anything is being said to please the Jews. What’s wrong with people, and whats wrong with the Jews.? Where are the naked sciences to end all this. (an evaluation of their mental state)
Lil ole me:
I am no authority on this but it seems to me common sense says when you mix different people together, confusion, suspicion, jealousy, and hostility are the result…And the more different the people, the more problems you can expect. It is (mass immigration) an attack on the host people prima facie. That said, any people who have been so whipped and degraded as to elect politicians that perpetrate this evil have already lost their cultural identity long before immigration became an issue, When we lost (practically speaking) the 5,000 year-old institution of marriage in the last century, people were already so dumbed-down and indoctrinated they hardly noticed. The thinking person has to ask what kind of people would allow this….A people who have lost all male instincts and who have been feminized, spiritually neutered and legally castrated. The male of the species stumbling forth like a sonambulistic zombie looking for his next meal, Oblivious to the events around him.
But to your question; Immigration, especially bringing black people to white land DESTROYS THE CULTURE ie. marriage, religion, economy, education, gene pool, etc. etc
Which in turn causes crime. given this fact, it seems to me Mexican/Muslim immigration is the least of our worries. Better to attack the root of the problem jmo
Enoch Powell in 1968 must be naive not to recognize that western socities were not controlled by non-White immigrant or their offsprings born in the West – but the Khazarian Turk Jews whom they had expelled from almost every European country. Now, since the Zionist Jews and Christians have grip over every European nd North American country – the defeative nature of Whitefolks have to find a non-Jewish donkey to kicj around – and who could be better than the already marginalized non-White minorities especially the Muslims.
As the Israel-born British writer and famed Jazz-player, Gilad Atzmon, wrote recently that it’s not the Muslim minorities which poses threat to western civiliztion but the fanatic Jews who hate everything about the Christian religion and culture.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/no-mosque-in-athens/
The jew has total control of the federal government so that the only way to help ourselves is at the state level. The Arizona state laws against illegal immigrants for instance, which have been copied by a lot of other states my own included which I agitated for.
Before the beginning of the Tennessee state legislative session I contacted my state senator and representative and asked them if there were any way we could have a Tennessee currency and get rid of the Federal Reserve. This is madness you might say. Well check this out.
http://www.wbir.com/news/article/160804/2/State-Sen-wants-TN-to-consider-creating-currency
Of course the article says that its unconstitutional but the jew thugs use the Constitution when it suits them and ignore it when it doesn’t. We no longer have rule of law and that is evident with all the illegals.
The FCC is now working on a plan to censor the internet and no doubt the Occidental Observer will be blocked when they get their way and talk radio will be history.
So I contacted my state legislators and asked for a law that would end in members of the FCC being locked up for treason in Tennessee if they attempt to take away our internet and talk radio.
The only way to beat the jews is locally as I have said before. jews control the feds just as they control the government of Great Britain.
Barbara – I wrote a post on that subject on May 24, 2010.
Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and dean of the LA Wiesenthal Center had objected to Cardinal Roger Mahony’s comparison of the Arizona immigration law with Nazi era Holocaust because the Rabbi believes that such comparison will negate the importance of Jewish sufferings.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/anti-immigration-law-holocaust-racism-and-israel-lobby/
Rehmat, its so stupid. We’re not allowed to talk about anybody’s suffering but the jews and they even say this and explain the reason – so that their suffering will appear greater and it will appear that they’re the only ones who suffer.
how come people let them get away with this?
“How come people let them get away with this?”
JMO. People follow the path of least resistance. So if their belly is full and they are relatively comfortable they will continue doing/believing as before. Only those who have BEEN HARMED by trying to take this path will seek a different path. Which is good for us in the long run, the rougher the path gets, the more people will wake up.
As former Secretary of State Baker famously said..”The Economy stupid!”
Reading this piece I have the same reaction I get when I read right wingers complain about Pat Buchanan or Jared Taylor.
The logic goes as follows:
1) The West is in crisis
2) These men have done about as much as anyone to try to fight what was wrong. In Powell and Buchanan’s case they sacrificed great establishment credentialsl
3) Here are what we percieve as strategic mistakes, plus they didn’t go far enougn, or talk about the Jews
4) Therefore they are failures and if they just listened to me, then they would be president/prime minister.
Here’s the facts. Powell more than any other Statesmen post WWII spoke out forcefully in favor of in the interests of the West. He was without a doubt one of the most intelligent, articulate, and forceful speakers. He made great personal sacrifices and never apologized.
The problem was that he was just one man, and there was no one there to stand beside him, just like Pat Buchanan.
We cannot expect one person to somehow solve everything, but we should be grateful that once in awhile people like Powell come along.
@Michael March 10, 2011 – 4:41 pm
Powell was not interested in the “West” per se. If you read my posts here (some thumbed down), Powell proved himself to be as hostile to his fellow “Westerners” as he did 3rd World immigrant groups. To the point of equating Luxembourg’s Princess Marie-Astrid (a possible bride for Prince Charles) with non-white immigration.
Like Hitler, many Americans think they understand the British but manifestly do not. My golden rule for dealing with the Britain is simple: understand fully the difference between and history of the two codes of rugby (league and union); and, even then, only negotiate at arms length and with a gun.
The greatest support Powell received was from the working class. The dockworkers marched in support of Enoch. He was betrayed by Heath and his kin.
A very interesting article, Charles, which i enjoyed very much. I would just like to point out that Powell was late to the issue. The great Cyril Osborne Conservative (Louth) began campaigning against immigration in 1954 and was joined by Norman Pannell Conservative(Liverpool.Kirkdale) in 1956. In fact Churchill tried to havea Bill iontroduced to control immigration in 1955 butit was not ready until 2 months after he had to retire because of his health. Anthony Eden shelved it. Churchill also wanted the Conservtive Party to campaign inthe 1955 general election behind the slogan “Keep England White.”
http://nationalconservatism.blogspot.com/2010/11/churchill-role-model-for-new-generation.html
http://nationalconservatism.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2010-12-05T13%3A26%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=7
There is an interview of Enoch where he is asked if his speech caused racism. Enoch was a great man unlike Griffin and did not try to deny it but changed to a word he preferred. “Whats wrong with racialism? Its the bedrock of Nation.” I have not been able to find it but its on youtube.
Actually, Enoch made many speeches on immigration and the Common Market. What we have to remember is he was a different era. He was born in 1912. My favourite speech was his “Uniform of Colour” which although not completely accurate is a work of genius.
http://nationalconservatism.blogspot.com/2010/10/rt-hon-j-enoch-powell-mp.html
This is a masterpiece of Traditional Conservatism applied to race from the first issue of the Salisbury Review in 1982. Unfortunately John Caset was persecuted for it and recanted. But we still have it.
http://nationalconservatism.blogspot.com/2010/10/one-nation-politics-of-race.html
“The immigration laws on the books are designed to fail. That is their purpose. Making it virtually impossible for workers to be admitted legally, in the face of both a tremendous need for their labor in this country, and the difficulty or impossibility of their getting a job in their own country, means that they are going to come here illegally. Bet on it. How could it be otherwise?
“If the purpose of the system from point of view of those in power, is to maintain an underclass of workers that can be exploited, it is working very, very well. If it were not working for those with political power, they would change it. Would they not?”—-Dawn McCarty, “A New Mandate for Immigration Reform,” June-August 2011 issue of the Houston Catholic Worker.