‘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.’
The above quote is a line from Enoch Powell’s famous Rivers of Blood speech. Not the sort of line that you hear from your average politician these days. I’d say that it really has the quality of thinking of a statesman, not just a politician. I’d also say that it’s a line that’s pretty difficult to disagree with if you have any sort of concern for the future of your nation. Enoch Powell had a better grasp of the profound issues of our time than most, perhaps as somebody said he was the best Prime Minister Britain never had. He had more insight in his little finger than a lot of current politicians in a month of Sundays.
I have just read Enoch Powell’s infamous speech and am struck by how relevant it is to today. I wonder how many people have actually read the speech rather than relying on other peoples’ interpretation of the speech. It is commonly known that left wing thinking has dominated the political debate since that speech, but what Powell said had much support amongst the so called working classes. You only have to note the letters he has received as well from constituents. I have just made such an effort to read it and it’s well worth it. There’s a copy for you to read on the website. I have to ask the question how much of it is really racist? A profound concern about huge numbers coming into the country and the effect on the culture is hardly racism. I would say that Enoch Powell displayed extraordinary prescience and perception, the message is nothing less than prophetic. The first five paragraphs demonstrate his ability to see the big picture with the quality of a statesman. The speech indicates to me that this man, who also had an incredible intellect, stood head and shoulders above his peers in his foresight and sheer grasp of the big picture. As an article written by Simon Heffer recently said, Enoch Powell was right on the big issues. I myself remember reading his biography years ago. He was right on the EU for sure, encapsulating the problem in one single sentence which cuts through all the obfuscation and dissimulation that surrounds this issue. His simple conclusion was to the effect ‘Do you want to be ruled by an external authority?’ This says it all in a nutshell. Grand panjandrums in the House of Lords hinting that the British cannot be trusted at present with such a complicated question of whether we should stay in the EU or not would no doubt have suffered his scorn.
Despite his enormous intellect, he also understood that man was not the measure of all things. Of Northern Ireland and its intractable problems he once said to Northern Irish MP Geoffrey Donaldson that only God was the answer. A giant intellect can actually believe in God. Well whatever next?
Reading about his life you realise that this was a man who had a profound love for his country although he might have been somewhat patrician and old fashioned in his bearing. If he was still alive today I imagine he would weep for his country if he saw what had happened to it and how misguided politicians and leaders had busily built up what many would consider is indeed a funeral pyre for this remarkable nation. Many people knew that what he said was absolutely right, but the political elite and opinion formers built a giant shibboleth that shut down the debate for far too long. Now that shibboleth has to be destroyed, rooted up from the ground. Free movement of labour within the EU and New Labour’s shameless immigration policy, key drivers of the current immigration debate, are now being seen for what they are.
He was well aware of the demographics, saying that the immigrant population would amount to five to seven million by 2000. The actual census in 2001 showed a figure of 4, 896,600, not too far off the lower estimate of Enoch Powell. The actual figure for 2011 was 7.7million, or 13% of the population. This compares with a figure of 2,118,600 in 1951, when immigrants made up 4.2% of the population (all official census figures).
He did suggest a solution to the problem, one which would now be unthinkable to many people in 2014, and that was repatriation fuelled by assistance.
This is how he saw it in 1968: ‘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.’
Such are the numbers and strength of immigrant populations that this is just unrealistic. However, the State has every right to expel from the country anyone who foments sedition, preaches hatred or tries to undermine the rule of law. Certainly there should b e a debate on whether it is now time for a moratorium on immigration and to concentrate on removing from the UK all who should not be here. Somehow I think that would be pretty popular.
There are so many elements in this speech that touch a nerve. His constituent telling him that he would like to emigrate and that the country will not be worth living in for his children. The remarkable thing is that this speech could have been written yesterday, it has such clear echoes with comments made in newspapers, on blogs, in the pub and on the street this very hour, about people being strangers in their own country, having to wait in line for their hospital appointments, struggling to get their children into overcrowded schools, etc.
The speech also shows that Enoch Powell had got it over the whole antidiscrimination agenda, that every natural born Englishman and citizen who has immigrated has the full rights to citizenship in this country, therefore there is no need for ‘anti-discrimination’ legislation as all are equal before the law. Wow, we need a good dose of what it means to be a true Englishman now. Anti discrimination, equality and human right legislation has now built a state enforceable code to replace the natural ways and mores of a mature culture that Enoch Powell would have been able to predict all along:
‘There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it “against discrimination.’
The accusation that Powell was a racist is unconvincing. There is nothing in the speech that suggests that he thought that immigrants were in any way inferior to British people. His attitude towards the 1959 Hola camp massacre in Kenya during the closing days of the British Empire which the British government tried to cover up was not one of a racist as he reminded us of the high standards that should apply to colonial governance.
Hola camp was a detention camp where a massacre took place in 1959 during the Mau Mau uprising against British colonial rule in Kenya. A plan was forged to force some of the uncooperative workers to work and as a result of this action 11 detainees were clubbed to death. 77 surviving detainees ended up with serious permanent injuries.
The Guardian said in an article on the 5th October 2012 that ‘Enoch Powell suggested it would be a betrayal of everything England believed its colonial mission was about if the authorities tried to evade responsibility for the massacre of Mau Mau suspects at the Hola detention camp.’
Here is an excerpt from Powell’s celebrated speech in Parliament at the time:
‘Finally it is argued that this is Africa, that things are different there. Of course they are. The question is whether the difference between things there and here is such that the taking of responsibility there and here should be upon different principles. We claim that it is our object—and this is something which unites both sides of the House—to leave representative institutions behind us wherever we give up our rule. I cannot imagine that it is a way to plant representative institutions to be seen to shirk the acceptance and the assignment of responsibility, which is the very essence of responsible Government.
Nor can we ourselves pick and choose where and in what parts of the world we shall use this or that kind of standard. We cannot say, “We will have African standards in Africa, Asian standards in Asia and perhaps British standards here at home.” We have not that choice to make. We must be consistent with ourselves everywhere. All Government, all influence of man upon man, rests upon opinion. What we can do in Africa, where we still govern and where we no longer govern, depends upon the opinion which is entertained of the way in which this country acts and the way in which Englishmen act. We cannot, we dare not, in Africa of all places, fall below our own highest standards in the acceptance of responsibility.’
Pray tell me where there is any racist attitude in this speech?
The ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech has a prophetic edge from a person who could see more clearly than anyone the future of the nation. Prophets upset people because they confront people with reality even if that reality only comes to fruition in the future. They didn’t take too kindly to prophets in the Old Testament who would point out to Kings and rulers the error of their ways and impending judgment on the nation. If you offended the ruling elite by telling the truth you ended up being hounded, thrown in a pit, imprisoned or killed. In our more ‘genteel’ society the punishment is not quite so severe, but even in 1968 it spelt the end of Powell’s favour in high places. Now increasingly it means social ostracism, verbal and sometimes physical abuse, possible court cases and the day is not too far away when it will mean prison, especially if we stay in the EU. Meanwhile, the Titanic continues to speed towards the iceberg.
Then we have the ‘thin edge of the wedge’ argument. Here is another excerpt from the speech:
‘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.’
This excerpt encapsulates all that has gone wrong in the UK in recent decades, the fruit of a multicultural ideology which refuses to discriminate and differentiate between different cultures, which is terrified of offending , and has not the clear moral foundations to stand clearly for something. It is utter poison that has been injected into the UK bloodstream. It reminds me of the famous story of Sir John Charles Napier, the British army’s commander in chief in India in the days of the British Empire, who would have immediately been sent on a diversity course if alive today because of the grave sin of offending another culture. When faced with the barbaric practice of suttee whereby the widows of Indian men were burnt on their husband’s funeral pyre, he uttered the following words
“You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”
I’d venture to say this man had a governing spirit about him, and knew exactly what he stood for. Great Britain right now is crying out for this type of unequivocal cultural confidence. Trouble is, the so called opinion formers and elite in this country do not seem to stand for very much apart from the overarching doctrine of ‘equality,’ and this doctrine has wormed its way into the highest levels of government, the courts and even the church.
Tom Winsor, the chief inspector of Constabulary, this week said that there are certain communities in the UK where the police never go because they are never called, the communities supposedly deal with their own troubles. These are people that he refers to as ‘born under different skies.’ No prizes for guessing that they don’t hail from deepest Somerset or the Lincolnshire Wolds. Peter Hitchens has picked this up in today’s Daily Mail, noting it as a very significant admission and indictment of the way our society is going.
I’m pretty sure that Enoch Powell would be devastated if he were alive today but would have been able to predict that this would happen from his experiences in India after the war of witnessing the break-up of India and intercommunal relations. And so the continuing establishment of parallel societies continues its remorseless pace.
As a footnote it is interesting to note that he distinguishes between those who come here for study or education and those who come here for settlement. The former are not immigrants and should not be classed as so. Students should not be classed as migrants or lumped in with general immigration policy.
Decide for yourself whether you think he was a racist.