#1 Enoch Powell thread

[Henry.]

Originally Posted by Englisc

So what? Britain (unfortunately) didn't surrender in 1940 either. She may have noticed, it's NOT a historically accurate book.

Shame on Powell for (apparently) being in support of the brothers war.

Powell went from Private to Brigadier. The youngest Brigadier ever in the British Army IIRC; however I also believe he was a desk-jockey and not seen in action.

People who attach themselves to Powell as some lost hero of nationalism are deluding themselves. As a minister in the early 60s he brought many immigrants to Britain and was an admirer of Indian (including Pakistan) culture and history. He became alarmed after Asian immigrants began pouring into Wolverhampton and began upsetting his white constituents who in turn bore down on him.

He was also a great admirer of the Jews and just prior to his death had been studying Hebrew with a view to translating Jewish scripture.

When the SHTF over his speech he received enormous support in the country and from all sections of the community: full spectrum support from hardcore trade unionists, to Tory toffs, to Labour voters, to hardcore nationalists. He could have built a party of considerable force, but rather than take up the issue he'd raised that night, in 1968, he chose instead to join the bowler-hatted loons in Ulster .

And we know how successful they were...Not!

[Bev]

Originally Posted by Henry.

Powell went from Private to Brigadier. The youngest Brigadier ever in the British Army IIRC; however I also believe he was a desk-jockey and not seen in action.

People who attach themselves to Powell as some lost hero of nationalism are deluding themselves. As a minister in the early 60s he brought many immigrants to Britain and was an admirer of Indian (including Pakistan) culture and history. He became alarmed after Asian immigrants began pouring into Wolverhampton and began upsetting his white constituents who in turn bore down on him.

He was also a great admirer of the Jews and just prior to his death had been studying Hebrew with a view to translating Jewish scripture.

When the SHTF over his speech he received enormous support in the country and from all sections of the community: full spectrum support from hardcore trade unionists, to Tory toffs, to Labour voters, to hardcore nationalists. He could have built a party of considerable force, but rather than take up the issue he'd raised that night, in 1968, he chose instead to join the bowler-hatted loons in Ulster .

And we know how successful they were...Not!

Thank the non-existent deity of your choice that you said this 'cos I'm getting sick of saying it.

Powell was no hero to the indigenous Brits. He started the influx of immigrants. He attended the Bilderberg shindig in the same year. He's as much to blame for the state of Britain as Blair or the basement dwellers or anyone else.

[Englisc]

Originally Posted by Henry.

Powell went from Private to Brigadier. The youngest Brigadier ever in the British Army IIRC; however I also believe he was a desk-jockey and not seen in action.

People who attach themselves to Powell as some lost hero of nationalism are deluding themselves. As a minister in the early 60s he brought many immigrants to Britain and was an admirer of Indian (including Pakistan) culture and history. He became alarmed after Asian immigrants began pouring into Wolverhampton and began upsetting his white constituents who in turn bore down on him.

He was also a great admirer of the Jews and just prior to his death had been studying Hebrew with a view to translating Jewish scripture.

When the SHTF over his speech he received enormous support in the country and from all sections of the community: full spectrum support from hardcore trade unionists, to Tory toffs, to Labour voters, to hardcore nationalists. He could have built a party of considerable force, but rather than take up the issue he'd raised that night, in 1968, he chose instead to join the bowler-hatted loons in Ulster .

And we know how successful they were...Not!

Thanks for clearing this up.

[Gibson]

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net...-show-of-guilt

Originally Posted by Kevin MacDonald

Peter Hitchens’s Show of Guilt: Enoch Powell Was Right

Now that Britain has been utterly transformed to the point that turning back the muilticultural assault and reclaiming the traditional British nation would be cataclysmic, we are treated to some hand-wringing in the mainstream media. In his “How I am partly to blame for mass immigration” Peter Hitchens writes that when he was a Trotskyite supporting as much immigration as possible,

Hitchens’ comment that “it wasn’t because we liked immigrants, but because we didn’t like Britain” is particularly noteworthy. As throughout the West, these transformations did not occur because of love of immigrants or love of humanity, but because of hatred to the traditional people and culture of the West. They were revolutions carried out by hostile elites against the wishes of the majority and hence without any legitimacy.

While Hitchens is willing to accept some blame, he places the real blame on, of all people, Enoch Powell:

This is a slur on Powell. The reality is that the victory over Powell was accomplished by the same sort of hypocritical, dishonest rhetoric that Hitchens decries when he writes things like “Nobody – especially their elected representatives – would listen to [those who opposed immigration] because they were assumed to be Powellite bigots, motivated by some sort of unreasoning hatred.”

In fact, Powell was successfully smeared using the typical tactics of describing him as a racist and a bigot that Hitchens now professes to despise. Powell was deeply concerned about the plight of ordinary Brits inundated by foreign peoples and cultures. Here’s Hitchens decrying the effects of immigration on the un-rich:

Powell had the same feelings, but in his case I strongly suspect that his feelings are genuine, not what I suspect are the crocodile tears of an ex-Trotskyite. Indeed, what is memorable about Powell’s “Rivers of Blood” speech are not racialist arguments but his recounting heartfelt pleas of his constituents, some of which are remarkably like the sentiments Hitchens exhibits:

The above quote is from an article by Ciarán J. Burke in the Amsterdam Law Forum, “Like the Roman’: Enoch Powell and English Immigration Law“). The article emphasizes the disconnect between elites and the opinions expressed by most Brits at the time—again emphasizing the point that, as in all Western countries, the transformational changes wrought by the left have been a top-down phenomenon completely out of step with popular opinion.

Burke concludes that Powell was not a bigot but an assimilationist who wanted to avoid the sectarian violence he had witnessed in India in the 1940s. “For Powell, an integrationist approach had to take precedence over any multiculturalist agenda. If people wanted to come to Britain, they had to be willing to become as British as possible.” Part of the alienness of the newcomers was their race, and Hitchens is offended that Powell made clear references to that. For example, his reference to a black child as a “picaninny”. This is obviously a cosmetic issue. The fact is that Powell was attacked wherever his opponents thought they could do damage, preferably where they could avoid the substance of his argument.

Hitchens’s attack on Powell is dishonest because he avoids the core issues: What constitutes alienness? What constitutes an organic society? What is Englishness? This shows at the end where he eulogizes Britain as a hallowed place and envisions a utopian society where a “great effort” will ”bring us all together, once again, in a shared love for this, the most beautiful and blessed plot of earth on the planet”

Not only is such an effort anathema to the multicultural elites that, by Hitchens’ admission, still rule. The idea that this hodgepodge of disparate religions and races, often with their own historical hatreds and long traditions of cultural separatism, will ever come together and develop a sense of being a people with a common culture is ridiculous on the face of it. As Hitchens says about the Muslims: “As any observant visitor finds, Bradford’s Muslim citizens and its non-Muslim citizens live in two separate solitudes, barely in contact with each other. Much of the Islamic community is profoundly out of step with modern Britain.”

That’s not going to change. Far more likely is that, unless the present trajectory is altered, the future of England will be a Muslim theocracy in which the native Brits become a despised minority in a bit of land that their ancestors lived in, many of them for thousands of years. In his “Rivers of Blood” speech, Powell predicted that Commonwealth immigration to the U.K. would be 10% by 2000. He was off by a bit—it was only 8%. But in the years since, the immigrant population has exploded, constituting 17% of the population as a result of Labour importing voters useful for making the revolution of the hostile elites permanent (see “The Labour Party’s War Against White Britain“).

Enoch Powell was right.

[Bev]

Normally I agree with much of his writings but that very last line - oh dear. Enoch Powell might have been right, but why is it that the speech is all he is known for, and not his actually beginning the trend of opening arms to migrant workers?

[M. Gerard]

Thanks to him, and his undoubted attempt to mobilise racial hostility, the revolutionary liberals have ever afterwards found it easy to accuse any opponent of being a Powellite.

This is a slur on Powell. The reality is that the victory over Powell was accomplished by the same sort of hypocritical, dishonest rhetoric that Hitchens decries when he writes things like “Nobody – especially their elected representatives – would listen to [those who opposed immigration] because they were assumed to be Powellite bigots, motivated by some sort of unreasoning hatred.”

In fact, Powell was successfully smeared using the typical tactics of describing him as a racist and a bigot that Hitchens now professes to despise.

I don't know too much about Powell - I've seen a few very good speeches or remarks that he made - but no doubt he was labeled and abused by the media elite who were international jewish scum (as were the anti-communist spokesmen in the USA abused).

[Bev]

List of Bilderberg participants contains such notables as - guess who?

Enoch Powell, (deceased) (1968),[89] MP and Ulster Unionist

Wikipedia (Links)

List_of_Bilderberg_participants

[Gibson]

Originally Posted by Bev

Normally I agree with much of his writings but that very last line - oh dear. Enoch Powell might have been right, but why is it that the speech is all he is known for, and not his actually beginning the trend of opening arms to migrant workers?

I guess he's remembered for that speech because that's the only thing that distinguishes him from the thousands of other MPs of his time. All those thousands of others carried on pushing for (or at least accepting) more immigration.

Another factor is that "there is more joy in heaven over one lost sinner who repents and returns to God than over ninety-nine others who are righteous and haven't strayed away!". Should it be this way? Discuss.

[Vance Stubbs]

Enoch Powell was right.

That's a weird way of spelling "Adolf Hitler"...

[Bev]

Originally Posted by Gibson

I guess he's remembered for that speech because that's the only thing that distinguishes him from the thousands of other MPs of his time. All those thousands of others carried on pushing for (or at least accepting) more immigration.

.....and a week after making that speech he was off to the Bilderberg shindig in Canada, a fact actually noted elsewhere on the Occidental Observer.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net...-enoch-powell/ (warning - this link not suitable for those currently wailing over Maggie's death)

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.

Another factor is that "there is more joy in heaven over one lost sinner who repents and returns to God than over ninety-nine others who are righteous and haven't strayed away!". Should it be this way? Discuss.

I take it/hope you're being metaphorical, 'cos I don't like theology! If the repenting is genuine and not just noticing that the seats on this bandwagon look more print-profitable comfortable than the one you're currently parked in, yes, agreed.

[Bev]

Somewhere around, there's a thread that details Hitchens and his musing over planning on standing for election. Cynical? Me? It seems to be trendy to repent at the minute; David Goodhart has also seen the Daily Mail paycheque light. (ignore the strange and random bolding, that refers to the deconstruction job I did on his conversion.)

[andy]

I find it amusing that the system are seeking to use their man of straw after he is dead,rather than invest in a new one.I expect the movement rubes encouraged by the touts to amen this and claim it as a victory.
Any privy Councillor as powell was who does not take a stand for the race,despite having all the inside information is a coward.Powell proved his cowardice in a different way he could have become Leader of the National Front that he did not was another victory for the system and proof of his insincerity.

[Gibson]

Originally Posted by Bev

.....and a week after making that speech he was off to the Bilderberg shindig in Canada, a fact actually noted elsewhere on the Occidental Observer.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net...-enoch-powell/ (warning - this link not suitable for those currently wailing over Maggie's death)

I'd like to think he was on a mission to convert them to our side. </devil's advocate>

Originally Posted by Bev

I take it/hope you're being metaphorical, 'cos I don't like theology!

Metaphorical - yes, that. But I'm still offended that you're offended by my metaphor

Originally Posted by Bev

If the repenting is genuine and not just noticing that the seats on this bandwagon look more print-profitable comfortable than the one you're currently parked in, yes, agreed.

I doubt he found much profit or comfort after his Rivers of Blood speech, and I doubt he expected to. He knew it was career suicide.

Now, we could treat him in two different ways. (1) We could hold him in high esteem, as a heroic prophet who warned Britannia of her own destruction, or (2) we could question his motives and criticise his pre-speech record, and by questioning and criticism, we would deconstruct and destroy the reputation of a pro-White hero. A jew would choose option (2) obviously, but which will we choose?

[Bev]

Originally Posted by Gibson

I'd like to think he was on a mission to convert them to our side. </devil's advocate>

Optimist, much?

Metaphorical - yes, that. But I'm still offended that you're offended by my metaphor

I wasn't offended, I just wanted to make sure that it was a metaphor and not a thumping. But now I'm offended that you're offended by thinking I was offended when I wasn't. (I think. )

I doubt he found much profit or comfort after his Rivers of Blood speech, and I doubt he expected to. He knew it was career suicide.

I don't know. I don't think he realised the impact he would have - after all, wasn't it primarily about his being offended by the Race Relations act introduction, rather than about hordes of immigrants?

Now, we could treat him in two different ways. (1) We could hold him in high esteem, as a heroic prophet who warned Britannia of her own destruction, or (2) we could question his motives and criticise his pre-speech record, and by questioning and criticism, we would deconstruct and destroy the reputation of a pro-White hero. A jew would choose option (2) obviously, but which will we choose?

It all depends on what we think of his actions post-speech.

As andy said, he could have joined the NF when asked or even rode his wave of popularity all the way to the shores of his own, new party.

Or he could have waited until the Tories were in in 1970 and then advised everyone to vote Labour.

Which did he do?

[Bev]

Originally Posted by Bev

Or he could have waited until the Tories were in in 1970 and then advised everyone to vote Labour.

Although to be fair, his Labour voting caper was in protest at the way the Tories performed a stitch up on the question of the Common Market. Of course, Labour later turned out to be as much in love with the EU as the 1970 Tories were but Enoch wasn't to know that.

Perhaps we could grudgingly forgive his pro-Labour comments if looked at ONLY in the context of getting out of the EU.

[andy]

The whole Powell thing "Just does not look right",He lived next door to ted heath in eaton terrace he shared the same concealed alley exit that heath had his rent boys delivered at.He made anti immigrant speeches long before 68.It was if (The media presence proves it) it was a pre arranged stunt.I would have thought that you with your conspiracy mind would have looked at it.1968 The Nf getting going, til death us do part top tv show,paki bashing on a nightly basis, synagogues vandalised daily soccer hooligans having pitched battles involving thousands.There was plenty of "action" as it were.
You see if we are to believe that Thatcher stole the NF's vote in 79 how many did Powell steal ? How many of the respectable electorate said to themselves "We don't need the NF we have Powell the tories will see us alright " Remember Heaths leadership was always shaky many thought he would be replaces many ordinary voters wanted Powell as he had made many anti immigrant speeches.
I can see the reasoning behind using him as a well known personality for political campaigning but even then when one encounters such a bogus poseur one is entitled to ask what was going on behind the scenes ? No political party wants to promote him as their lost leader then find out he was enjoying a spit roast with Heath and Hendrix

[Bev]

Originally Posted by andy

No political party wants to promote him as their lost leader then find out he was enjoying a spit roast with Heath and Hendrix

Absolutely, but don't you think that if he was and if they knew, this would have been out long ago? I mean, rumours about Cyril Smith and Savile have been around for years and turned out to be true - there's never been one such rumour about Powell and if there had, Blair's Labour would have made sure it got leaked.

[andy]

Originally Posted by Bev

Absolutely, but don't you think that if he was and if they knew, this would have been out long ago? I mean, rumours about Cyril Smith and Savile have been around for years and turned out to be true - there's never been one such rumour about Powell and if there had, Blair's Labour would have made sure it got leaked.

It depends on the value to the system.Smith is a good deflection from Thorpe and savile a good deflection for the entire libertine entertainment industry. Neither nonce was ever held in high regard by serious people neither are still cited as examples to emulate. Powell on the other hand is considered relevant and useful to the system. Which is why I posited the above disgusting scenario which experience tells us could well be true

[NewsFeed]

Enoch Powell Rivers of Blood/The Great Betrayal


by: Tanstaafl

This month’s special program is a reading of the momentous speech delivered by Enoch Powell at the Midland Hotel in Birmingham on 20 April 1968. It will be broadcast each Wednesday and Friday starting at 9PM ET, streaming continuously until the next scheduled program.

Though is has been described as “the most controversial speech in modern British history”, there is apparently no complete recording available on the internet. A BBC documentary ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ), produced circa 2008, starts with a reporter, Reg Harcourt, describing how he was there with a camera team. The BBC documentary intersperses snippets of the black and white film of the speech with “anti-racist” spin attempting to explain that Powell was wrong.

Powell’s speech serves as a reminder and lesson to Whites: However bad you may believe the situation is, or may yet become, you are likely underestimating. Looking back, we find many sober expressions of fear and foreboding such as Powell’s. Always they are countered with the same fraud and trickery. What our enemies initially deride and dismiss as a stupid, crazy, or evil vision invariably metastasizes into an even more disgustingly degenerate reality, which they then celebrate.

Our program was transcoded from “Rivers of Blood” The Great Betrayal. Full speech. , read and posted by Martin Willett. The description attached to the video reads:

Published on Oct 14, 2011

The 1968 speech given by Enoch Powell known as The Rivers of Blood speech. In full. No editing, cuts, omissions, spin, commentary, propaganda or tricky sound effects. Just the speech.

These are words written in 1968, and not by me. Don’t shoot the messenger, just listen to the message and judge for yourself.

The FULL TEXT of this speech can be found here:

http://right2think.org/index.php/politics-main/68-rivers-of-blood-speech

If you want to debate this matter in depth join my debate forum:

http://right2think.org/index.php/forum/

Total runtime: 20:09

Podcast: Download

read full article at source: http://thewhitenetwork.com/2014/03/0...reat-betrayal/

[NewsFeed]

Enoch Powell: Rivers of Blood/The Great Betrayal


DailyStormer.com

Tanstaafl

The White Network

March 9, 2014

This month’s special program is a reading of the momentous speech delivered by Enoch Powell at the Midland Hotel in Birmingham on 20 April 1968. It will be broadcast each Wednesday and Friday starting at 9PM ET, streaming continuously until the next scheduled program.

Though is has been described as “the most controversial speech in modern British history”, there is apparently no complete recording available on the internet. A BBC documentary ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ), produced circa 2008, starts with a reporter, Reg Harcourt, describing how he was there with a camera team. The BBC documentary intersperses snippets of the black and white film of the speech with “anti-racist” spin attempting to explain that Powell was wrong.

Powell’s speech serves as a reminder and lesson to Whites: However bad you may believe the situation is, or may yet become, you are likely underestimating. Looking back, we find many sober expressions of fear and foreboding such as Powell’s. Always they are countered with the same fraud and trickery. What our enemies initially deride and dismiss as a stupid, crazy, or evil vision invariably metastasizes into an even more disgustingly degenerate reality, which they then celebrate.

Our program was transcoded from “Rivers of Blood” The Great Betrayal. Full speech. , read and posted by Martin Willett. The description attached to the video reads:

Published on Oct 14, 2011

The 1968 speech given by Enoch Powell known as The Rivers of Blood speech. In full. No editing, cuts, omissions, spin, commentary, propaganda or tricky sound effects. Just the speech.

These are words written in 1968, and not by me. Don’t shoot the messenger, just listen to the message and judge for yourself.

The FULL TEXT of this speech can be found here:

http://right2think.org/index.php/politics-main/68-rivers-of-blood-speech

If you want to debate this matter in depth join my debate forum:

http://right2think.org/index.php/forum/

Total runtime: 20:09

Download

read full article at source: http://www.dailystormer.com/enoch-po...reat-betrayal/