On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:52:28 +0000 (UTC), "Ray"
wrote:


Rivers of Blood





Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech is known of by many, but
few have read the full text of what he said.

I certainly never.



Anyone who has discussed immigration and race relations in the UK will,
at some time, have heard of Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech.

Especially for UK posters

Thanks, and past on elsewhere.

Given at the Annual General Meeting of the West Midlands Area
Conservative Party, Powell's reference to Virgil's prediction of war, during
which the Tiber would foam with blood, it has become universally known as
the "Rivers of Blood" speech.

Powell's speech was to say the least "contentious", and generated
considerable debate at the time.


Which was a real shame. We need more real men in politics to call a
spade, a spade so to speak. I fear it is too late anyway, the gene
pool is far too diluted now to recover.

Many saw Powell as a true visionary, voicing the concerns which were
held at the time. Others were shocked by his language. Edward Heath, the
Leader of the Opposition, sacked Powell from his Shadow Cabinet, condemning
his speech as "racialist", and Powell never held a seniour political
position again.

Powell recived over a hundred thousand letters in support of his
stance against immigration after his infamous speech, and London dock
workers marched through the streets in support of his views.

Many others were equally vocal against his apocolyptic visions, and
the result of his speech, which lead to an increase in inter-race tensions
in the UK.

The importance of Powell's speech, whether one supports or rejects his
views, is undeniable. It was probably the one speech which brought the
debate on immigration, anti-immigration, and racial integration to the fore.
It brought views held behind closed doors into the open, and revealed the
simmering tensions in the UK on the matter.

Britain has moved on since 1968, but immigration is still high on the
political agenda, with refuges, both economic and political, displaced by
conflict and intolerance hoping to make Britain their home.

The debate on immigration is as intense, and as complex, as ever; on
one hand the government has opened Britain's doors to short-term immigration
for those it believes can fulfill job vacancies in the UK, while with the
other, closing the doors to those who seek asylum without meeting the
government's criteria for entry.

There are more immigrants, and those born of immigrant families, in
the UK now than there was in 1960, and there is a greater tolerance now than
it appeared when Powell made his speech, however, racially motivated crime
has not been erradicated, and there are still many who hold
anti-immigration, and anti-immigrant views.

Powell's "Rivers of Blood", speech is by far the most widely
acknowledged as being pivotal to the debate in the late 1960's, it is
refered to by both sides of the debate, and it is still quoted by the
National Front today.

Despite the widespread knowledge of his speech, which is what has
defined the persona of Powell since he made it, very few people have heard
the speech in full, and many were not even born when he uttered his words.
Powell is judged not on what he said, but on the sound-bite echoes that the
speech has left behind.

The entirety of Powell's speech is given here, without comment, other
than to say that I do not agree with what he says, and that I do consider
his views to be racist.

The language used by Powell may be abhorant to many readers now, and
it gives an insight into how immigrants were viewed by many at the time. It
is a speech which has been recorded in the history books of race relatuions,
and it is a speech reflecting sentiments which are still held by some
Britons today.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Rivers of Blood
Enoch Powell - 20th of April, 1968.
The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against
preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are
deeply rooted in human nature. One is that by the very order of things such
evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred; at each stage in their
onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or
imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison
with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing; whence the
besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate
present at the expense of the future.

Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for
causing troubles and even for desiring troubles. "If only", they love to
think, "If only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen".
Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the
thing, the name and the object, are identical.

At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now,
avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most
necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it
deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.

A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a
middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised
industries. After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said, "If
I had the money to go, I wouldn't stay in this country". I made some
deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn't last for
ever; but he took no notice, and continued, "I have three children, all of
them have been through grammar school and two of them are married now, with
family. I shan't be satisfied 'till I have seen them all settled overseas.
In this country, in 15 or 20 years' time, the black man will have the whip
hand over the white man".

I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a
horrible thing ? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by
repeating such a conversation ?

The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a
decent, ordinary, fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town
says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth
living in for his children. I simply do not have the right to shrug my
shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and
hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking - not throughout Great
Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total
transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English
history.

In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be, in this country,
three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That
is not my figure; that is the official figure given to Parliament by the
spokesman of the Registrar General's Office. There is no comparable official
figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven
million, approximately one tenth of the whole population, and approaching
that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from
Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and
parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant
and immigrant-descended population.

As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant
descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same
route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase. Already, by 1985 the
native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact which creates the
extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is hardest
for politicians to take; action where the difficulties lie in the present
but the evils to be prevented or minimised lie several Parliaments ahead.

The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by
such a prospect is to ask, "How can its dimensions he reduced ?". Granted it
may not be wholly preventable. Can it be limited, bearing this in mind, that
numbers are of the essence; the significance and consequences of an alien
element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different
according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent. The answers
to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational; by
stopping, or virtually stopping, further in-flow, and by promoting the
maximum out-flow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the
Conservative Party.

It almost passes belief that at this moment 20 or 30 additional
immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every
week - and that means 15 or 20 additional families a decade or two hence.
Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad,
literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual in-flow of some
50,000 dependents, who are for the most part the material of the future
growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation
busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we
actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a
family with spouses and fiances whom they have never seen.

Let no one suppose that the flow of dependents will automatically tail
off. On the contrary, even at the present admission rate of only 5,000 a
year by voucher, there is sufficient for a further 25,000 dependents per
annum ad infinitum, without taking into account the huge reservoir of
existing relations in this country - and I am making no allowance at all for
fraudulent entry. In these circumstances, nothing will suffice but that the
total in-flow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible
proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative measures
be taken without delay.

I stress the words "for settlement". This has nothing to do with the
entry of Commonwealth citizens, any more than of aliens, into this country,
for the purposes of study or of improving their qualifications, like ( for
instance ) the Commonwealth doctors who, to the advantage of their own
countries, have enabled our hospital service to be expanded faster than
would otherwise have been possible. These are not, and never have been,
immigrants.

I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate
of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be
substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the
population would still leave the basic character of the national danger
unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the
total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten
years or so.

Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the
Conservative Party's policy; the encouragement of re-emigration. Nobody can
make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous assistance, would
choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other
countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent.
Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted. I can only say
that, even at present, immigrants in my own constituency from time to time
come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such a
policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity of
the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter the
prospects.

The third element of the Conservative Party's policy is that all who
are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that
there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public
authority. As Mr Heath has put it we will have no "first-class citizens" and
"second-class citizens". This does not mean that the immigrant and his
descendent should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the
citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his
own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another, or that he should be
subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one
lawful manner rather than another.

There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is
entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it
"against discrimination", whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney
and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930's
tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or
archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes
pulled right up over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically
wrong. The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of
resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom
they have come and are still coming. This is why to enact legislation of the
kind before Parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match onto
gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and
support it is that they know not what they do.

Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth
immigrant in Britain and the American Negro. The Negro population of the
United States, which was already in existence before the United States
became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the
franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they
have only gradually and still incompletely come. The Commonwealth immigrant
came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knew no discrimination
between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the
possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free treatment
under the National Health Service. Whatever drawbacks attended the
immigrants arose not from the law or from public policy or from
administration, but from those personal circumstances and accidents which
cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to be
different from another's.

But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to
privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing
population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend,
and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never
consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.

They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth,
their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and
neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the
future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the
immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the
native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more
voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. They now learn that
a one-way privilege is to be established by act of Parliament; a law which
cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their
grievances is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the
agent-provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.

In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke
on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature
which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament
are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and
alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people,
writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they
had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed
themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had
expressed, and that they would risk penalties or reprisals if they were
known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is
growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are
affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly
imagine. I am going to allow just one of those hundreds of people to speak
for me ...

Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was
sold to a Negro. Now only one white ( a woman old-age pensioner ) lives
there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war.
So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house.
She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put
something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing
fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a
place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.

The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7am by two
Negroes who wanted to use her 'phone to contact their employer. When she
refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was
abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her
door. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she
always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying rates, she
has less than £2 per week. She went to apply for a rate reduction and was
seen by a young girl, who on hearing she had a seven-roomed house, suggested
she should let part of it. When she said the only people she could get were
Negroes, the girl said, "Racial prejudice won't get you anywhere in this
country". So she went home.

The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her
out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house - at a price
which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in
weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows
are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes
to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning
piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know.
"Racialist", they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this
woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong ? I begin to
wonder.

The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or
otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word "integration".
To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical
purposes indistinguishable from its other members. Now, at all times, where
there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is
difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the
Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years
or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose
every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction. But to imagine that
such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants
and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.

We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of
circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of
integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population -
that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers
and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which
normally bear upon any small minority did not operate.

Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against
integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of
racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual
domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the
population. The cloud no bigger than a man's hand, that can so rapidly
overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown
signs of spreading quickly. The words I am about to use, verbatim as they
appeared in the local press on 17 February, are not mine, but those of a
Labour Member of Parliament who is a minister in the present government ...

The Sikh community's campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in
Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the
public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions
of their employment. To claim special communal rights ( or should one say
rites ? ) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This
communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to
be strongly condemned.

All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive
that, and the courage to say it.

For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in
the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is
the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to
consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow
citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which
the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am
filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber
foaming with much blood".

That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on
the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the
history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our
own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical
terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the
century.

Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there
will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All
I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.



No comment, but please note.

This great speach was made before the threat that the Muslims pose to
our society.


Terrorist scum is not the sole domain of Muslims, in fact that is a
slander against Muslims, most Muslims, as with society as a whole are
peace loving brothers and sisters, we are quite happy to live and take
each other as we come.

Sadly it's a minority, although large minority that are desperate to
spoil it for the whole world, it's a cancer and retribution should be
swift and final. I fear it is already too late, the world is doomed.

We are now in a world where being white is a crime in terms of PC
bullshit, where we can have a black police officers federation, but
not a white police officers federation in the UK, and examples of
political correctness gone crazy are to be found everywhere.

Yes, we could do with more people like Enoch in politics.

Mind you in Blair and Bush we have gone much further than an other
politician dared.

Democracy sucks unless you are a sane, normal person. Sadly the nuts
are taking over, otherwise why would people hunt foxes with hounds,
factory farm animals etc.l

Like they say, those that abuse animals will inevitably go on to abuse
society. The fact it is legal is of no relevance.

RIP Enoch.

"B Z Bee" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:52:28 +0000 (UTC), "Ray"
wrote:


Rivers of Blood





Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech is known of by many,
but
few have read the full text of what he said.

I certainly never.



Anyone who has discussed immigration and race relations in the UK
will,
at some time, have heard of Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech.

Especially for UK posters

Thanks, and past on elsewhere.

Given at the Annual General Meeting of the West Midlands Area
Conservative Party, Powell's reference to Virgil's prediction of war,
during
which the Tiber would foam with blood, it has become universally known as
the "Rivers of Blood" speech.

Powell's speech was to say the least "contentious", and generated
considerable debate at the time.


Which was a real shame. We need more real men in politics to call a
spade, a spade so to speak. I fear it is too late anyway, the gene
pool is far too diluted now to recover.

Many saw Powell as a true visionary, voicing the concerns which
were
held at the time. Others were shocked by his language. Edward Heath, the
Leader of the Opposition, sacked Powell from his Shadow Cabinet,
condemning
his speech as "racialist", and Powell never held a seniour political
position again.

Powell recived over a hundred thousand letters in support of his
stance against immigration after his infamous speech, and London dock
workers marched through the streets in support of his views.

Many others were equally vocal against his apocolyptic visions, and
the result of his speech, which lead to an increase in inter-race
tensions
in the UK.

The importance of Powell's speech, whether one supports or rejects
his
views, is undeniable. It was probably the one speech which brought the
debate on immigration, anti-immigration, and racial integration to the
fore.
It brought views held behind closed doors into the open, and revealed the
simmering tensions in the UK on the matter.

Britain has moved on since 1968, but immigration is still high on
the
political agenda, with refuges, both economic and political, displaced by
conflict and intolerance hoping to make Britain their home.

The debate on immigration is as intense, and as complex, as ever;
on
one hand the government has opened Britain's doors to short-term
immigration
for those it believes can fulfill job vacancies in the UK, while with the
other, closing the doors to those who seek asylum without meeting the
government's criteria for entry.

There are more immigrants, and those born of immigrant families, in
the UK now than there was in 1960, and there is a greater tolerance now
than
it appeared when Powell made his speech, however, racially motivated
crime
has not been erradicated, and there are still many who hold
anti-immigration, and anti-immigrant views.

Powell's "Rivers of Blood", speech is by far the most widely
acknowledged as being pivotal to the debate in the late 1960's, it is
refered to by both sides of the debate, and it is still quoted by the
National Front today.

Despite the widespread knowledge of his speech, which is what has
defined the persona of Powell since he made it, very few people have
heard
the speech in full, and many were not even born when he uttered his
words.
Powell is judged not on what he said, but on the sound-bite echoes that
the
speech has left behind.

The entirety of Powell's speech is given here, without comment,
other
than to say that I do not agree with what he says, and that I do consider
his views to be racist.

The language used by Powell may be abhorant to many readers now,
and
it gives an insight into how immigrants were viewed by many at the time.
It
is a speech which has been recorded in the history books of race
relatuions,
and it is a speech reflecting sentiments which are still held by some
Britons today.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Rivers of Blood
Enoch Powell - 20th of April, 1968.
The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against
preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are
deeply rooted in human nature. One is that by the very order of things
such
evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred; at each stage in
their
onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or
imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison
with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing; whence
the
besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate
present at the expense of the future.

Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for
causing troubles and even for desiring troubles. "If only", they love to
think, "If only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't
happen".
Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and
the
thing, the name and the object, are identical.

At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now,
avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most
necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it
deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come
after.

A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a
middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our
nationalised
industries. After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said,
"If
I had the money to go, I wouldn't stay in this country". I made some
deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn't last
for
ever; but he took no notice, and continued, "I have three children, all
of
them have been through grammar school and two of them are married now,
with
family. I shan't be satisfied 'till I have seen them all settled
overseas.
In this country, in 15 or 20 years' time, the black man will have the
whip
hand over the white man".

I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a
horrible thing ? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by
repeating such a conversation ?

The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a
decent, ordinary, fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town
says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth
living in for his children. I simply do not have the right to shrug my
shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands
and
hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking - not throughout Great
Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total
transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of
English
history.

In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be, in this
country,
three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants.
That
is not my figure; that is the official figure given to Parliament by the
spokesman of the Registrar General's Office. There is no comparable
official
figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven
million, approximately one tenth of the whole population, and approaching
that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from
Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns
and
parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the
immigrant
and immigrant-descended population.

As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant
descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same
route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase. Already, by 1985 the
native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact which creates
the
extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is
hardest
for politicians to take; action where the difficulties lie in the present
but the evils to be prevented or minimised lie several Parliaments ahead.

The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by
such a prospect is to ask, "How can its dimensions he reduced ?". Granted
it
may not be wholly preventable. Can it be limited, bearing this in mind,
that
numbers are of the essence; the significance and consequences of an alien
element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different
according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent. The
answers
to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational; by
stopping, or virtually stopping, further in-flow, and by promoting the
maximum out-flow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the
Conservative Party.

It almost passes belief that at this moment 20 or 30 additional
immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone
every
week - and that means 15 or 20 additional families a decade or two hence.
Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad,
literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual in-flow of some
50,000 dependents, who are for the most part the material of the future
growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a
nation
busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that
we
actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of
founding a
family with spouses and fiances whom they have never seen.

Let no one suppose that the flow of dependents will automatically
tail
off. On the contrary, even at the present admission rate of only 5,000 a
year by voucher, there is sufficient for a further 25,000 dependents per
annum ad infinitum, without taking into account the huge reservoir of
existing relations in this country - and I am making no allowance at all
for
fraudulent entry. In these circumstances, nothing will suffice but that
the
total in-flow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible
proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative
measures
be taken without delay.

I stress the words "for settlement". This has nothing to do with
the
entry of Commonwealth citizens, any more than of aliens, into this
country,
for the purposes of study or of improving their qualifications, like (
for
instance ) the Commonwealth doctors who, to the advantage of their own
countries, have enabled our hospital service to be expanded faster than
would otherwise have been possible. These are not, and never have been,
immigrants.

I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the
rate
of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be
substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the
population would still leave the basic character of the national danger
unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of
the
total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last
ten
years or so.

Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the
Conservative Party's policy; the encouragement of re-emigration. Nobody
can
make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous assistance, would
choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other
countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent.
Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted. I can only
say
that, even at present, immigrants in my own constituency from time to
time
come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such
a
policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity
of
the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter
the
prospects.

The third element of the Conservative Party's policy is that all
who
are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that
there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by
public
authority. As Mr Heath has put it we will have no "first-class citizens"
and
"second-class citizens". This does not mean that the immigrant and his
descendent should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that
the
citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of
his
own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another, or that he should be
subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one
lawful manner rather than another.

There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is
entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it
"against discrimination", whether they be leader-writers of the same
kidney
and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930's
tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or
archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes
pulled right up over their heads. They have got it exactly and
diametrically
wrong. The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of
resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among
whom
they have come and are still coming. This is why to enact legislation of
the
kind before Parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match onto
gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and
support it is that they know not what they do.

Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth
immigrant in Britain and the American Negro. The Negro population of the
United States, which was already in existence before the United States
became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the
franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they
have only gradually and still incompletely come. The Commonwealth
immigrant
came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knew no
discrimination
between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the
possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free
treatment
under the National Health Service. Whatever drawbacks attended the
immigrants arose not from the law or from public policy or from
administration, but from those personal circumstances and accidents which
cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to
be
different from another's.

But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to
privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing
population was very different. For reasons which they could not
comprehend,
and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never
consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.

They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in
childbirth,
their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and
neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for
the
future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to
the
immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of
the
native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more
voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. They now learn
that
a one-way privilege is to be established by act of Parliament; a law
which
cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their
grievances is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the
agent-provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.

In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last
spoke
on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature
which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament
are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and
alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people,
writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they
had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed
themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I
had
expressed, and that they would risk penalties or reprisals if they were
known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is
growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which
are
affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly
imagine. I am going to allow just one of those hundreds of people to
speak
for me ...

Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house
was
sold to a Negro. Now only one white ( a woman old-age pensioner ) lives
there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the
war.
So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding
house.
She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put
something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing
fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became
a
place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.

The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7am by two
Negroes who wanted to use her 'phone to contact their employer. When she
refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was
abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her
door. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she
always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying rates,
she
has less than £2 per week. She went to apply for a rate reduction and was
seen by a young girl, who on hearing she had a seven-roomed house,
suggested
she should let part of it. When she said the only people she could get
were
Negroes, the girl said, "Racial prejudice won't get you anywhere in this
country". So she went home.

The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help
her
out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house - at a
price
which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants
in
weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows
are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she
goes
to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning
piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know.
"Racialist", they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this
woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong ? I begin
to
wonder.

The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or
otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word
"integration".
To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical
purposes indistinguishable from its other members. Now, at all times,
where
there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration
is
difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the
Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen
years
or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and
whose
every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction. But to imagine
that
such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of
immigrants
and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.

We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of
circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of
integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant
population -
that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their
numbers
and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which
normally bear upon any small minority did not operate.

Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against
integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of
racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual
domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the
population. The cloud no bigger than a man's hand, that can so rapidly
overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has
shown
signs of spreading quickly. The words I am about to use, verbatim as they
appeared in the local press on 17 February, are not mine, but those of a
Labour Member of Parliament who is a minister in the present government
....

The Sikh community's campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in
Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the
public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and
conditions
of their employment. To claim special communal rights ( or should one say
rites ? ) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This
communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is
to
be strongly condemned.

All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to
perceive
that, and the courage to say it.

For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed
in
the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here
is
the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to
consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow
citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons
which
the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am
filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber
foaming with much blood".

That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror
on
the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the
history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our
own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In
numerical
terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the
century.

Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether
there
will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know.
All
I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.



No comment, but please note.

This great speach was made before the threat that the Muslims pose
to
our society.


Terrorist scum is not the sole domain of Muslims, in fact that is a
slander against Muslims, most Muslims, as with society as a whole are
peace loving brothers and sisters, we are quite happy to live and take
each other as we come.

Sadly it's a minority, although large minority that are desperate to
spoil it for the whole world, it's a cancer and retribution should be
swift and final. I fear it is already too late, the world is doomed.

We are now in a world where being white is a crime in terms of PC
bullshit, where we can have a black police officers federation, but
not a white police officers federation in the UK, and examples of
political correctness gone crazy are to be found everywhere.

Yes, we could do with more people like Enoch in politics.

Mind you in Blair and Bush we have gone much further than an other
politician dared.

Democracy sucks unless you are a sane, normal person. Sadly the nuts
are taking over, otherwise why would people hunt foxes with hounds,
factory farm animals etc.l

Like they say, those that abuse animals will inevitably go on to abuse
society. The fact it is legal is of no relevance.

RIP Enoch.





Where I live there is a newspaper "Written by black people for black
people". This is known as community building.

If it were a newspaper "Written by white people for white people" it would
be called racist!

Go figure?

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:54:06 +0100, "Steve Black"
wrote:


"B Z Bee" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:52:28 +0000 (UTC), "Ray"
wrote:


Rivers of Blood





Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech is known of by many,
but
few have read the full text of what he said.

I certainly never.



Anyone who has discussed immigration and race relations in the UK
will,
at some time, have heard of Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech.

Especially for UK posters

Thanks, and past on elsewhere.

Given at the Annual General Meeting of the West Midlands Area
Conservative Party, Powell's reference to Virgil's prediction of war,
during
which the Tiber would foam with blood, it has become universally known as
the "Rivers of Blood" speech.

Powell's speech was to say the least "contentious", and generated
considerable debate at the time.


Which was a real shame. We need more real men in politics to call a
spade, a spade so to speak. I fear it is too late anyway, the gene
pool is far too diluted now to recover.

Many saw Powell as a true visionary, voicing the concerns which
were
held at the time. Others were shocked by his language. Edward Heath, the
Leader of the Opposition, sacked Powell from his Shadow Cabinet,
condemning
his speech as "racialist", and Powell never held a seniour political
position again.

Powell recived over a hundred thousand letters in support of his
stance against immigration after his infamous speech, and London dock
workers marched through the streets in support of his views.

Many others were equally vocal against his apocolyptic visions, and
the result of his speech, which lead to an increase in inter-race
tensions
in the UK.

The importance of Powell's speech, whether one supports or rejects
his
views, is undeniable. It was probably the one speech which brought the
debate on immigration, anti-immigration, and racial integration to the
fore.
It brought views held behind closed doors into the open, and revealed the
simmering tensions in the UK on the matter.

Britain has moved on since 1968, but immigration is still high on
the
political agenda, with refuges, both economic and political, displaced by
conflict and intolerance hoping to make Britain their home.

The debate on immigration is as intense, and as complex, as ever;
on
one hand the government has opened Britain's doors to short-term
immigration
for those it believes can fulfill job vacancies in the UK, while with the
other, closing the doors to those who seek asylum without meeting the
government's criteria for entry.

There are more immigrants, and those born of immigrant families, in
the UK now than there was in 1960, and there is a greater tolerance now
than
it appeared when Powell made his speech, however, racially motivated
crime
has not been erradicated, and there are still many who hold
anti-immigration, and anti-immigrant views.

Powell's "Rivers of Blood", speech is by far the most widely
acknowledged as being pivotal to the debate in the late 1960's, it is
refered to by both sides of the debate, and it is still quoted by the
National Front today.

Despite the widespread knowledge of his speech, which is what has
defined the persona of Powell since he made it, very few people have
heard
the speech in full, and many were not even born when he uttered his
words.
Powell is judged not on what he said, but on the sound-bite echoes that
the
speech has left behind.

The entirety of Powell's speech is given here, without comment,
other
than to say that I do not agree with what he says, and that I do consider
his views to be racist.

The language used by Powell may be abhorant to many readers now,
and
it gives an insight into how immigrants were viewed by many at the time.
It
is a speech which has been recorded in the history books of race
relatuions,
and it is a speech reflecting sentiments which are still held by some
Britons today.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Rivers of Blood
Enoch Powell - 20th of April, 1968.
The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against
preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are
deeply rooted in human nature. One is that by the very order of things
such
evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred; at each stage in
their
onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or
imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison
with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing; whence
the
besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate
present at the expense of the future.

Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for
causing troubles and even for desiring troubles. "If only", they love to
think, "If only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't
happen".
Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and
the
thing, the name and the object, are identical.

At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now,
avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most
necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it
deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come
after.

A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a
middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our
nationalised
industries. After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said,
"If
I had the money to go, I wouldn't stay in this country". I made some
deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn't last
for
ever; but he took no notice, and continued, "I have three children, all
of
them have been through grammar school and two of them are married now,
with
family. I shan't be satisfied 'till I have seen them all settled
overseas.
In this country, in 15 or 20 years' time, the black man will have the
whip
hand over the white man".

I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a
horrible thing ? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by
repeating such a conversation ?

The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a
decent, ordinary, fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town
says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth
living in for his children. I simply do not have the right to shrug my
shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands
and
hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking - not throughout Great
Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total
transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of
English
history.

In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be, in this
country,
three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants.
That
is not my figure; that is the official figure given to Parliament by the
spokesman of the Registrar General's Office. There is no comparable
official
figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven
million, approximately one tenth of the whole population, and approaching
that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from
Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns
and
parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the
immigrant
and immigrant-descended population.

As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant
descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same
route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase. Already, by 1985 the
native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact which creates
the
extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is
hardest
for politicians to take; action where the difficulties lie in the present
but the evils to be prevented or minimised lie several Parliaments ahead.

The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by
such a prospect is to ask, "How can its dimensions he reduced ?". Granted
it
may not be wholly preventable. Can it be limited, bearing this in mind,
that
numbers are of the essence; the significance and consequences of an alien
element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different
according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent. The
answers
to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational; by
stopping, or virtually stopping, further in-flow, and by promoting the
maximum out-flow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the
Conservative Party.

It almost passes belief that at this moment 20 or 30 additional
immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone
every
week - and that means 15 or 20 additional families a decade or two hence.
Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad,
literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual in-flow of some
50,000 dependents, who are for the most part the material of the future
growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a
nation
busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that
we
actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of
founding a
family with spouses and fiances whom they have never seen.

Let no one suppose that the flow of dependents will automatically
tail
off. On the contrary, even at the present admission rate of only 5,000 a
year by voucher, there is sufficient for a further 25,000 dependents per
annum ad infinitum, without taking into account the huge reservoir of
existing relations in this country - and I am making no allowance at all
for
fraudulent entry. In these circumstances, nothing will suffice but that
the
total in-flow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible
proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative
measures
be taken without delay.

I stress the words "for settlement". This has nothing to do with
the
entry of Commonwealth citizens, any more than of aliens, into this
country,
for the purposes of study or of improving their qualifications, like (
for
instance ) the Commonwealth doctors who, to the advantage of their own
countries, have enabled our hospital service to be expanded faster than
would otherwise have been possible. These are not, and never have been,
immigrants.

I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the
rate
of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be
substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the
population would still leave the basic character of the national danger
unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of
the
total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last
ten
years or so.

Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the
Conservative Party's policy; the encouragement of re-emigration. Nobody
can
make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous assistance, would
choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other
countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent.
Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted. I can only
say
that, even at present, immigrants in my own constituency from time to
time
come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such
a
policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity
of
the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter
the
prospects.

The third element of the Conservative Party's policy is that all
who
are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that
there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by
public
authority. As Mr Heath has put it we will have no "first-class citizens"
and
"second-class citizens". This does not mean that the immigrant and his
descendent should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that
the
citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of
his
own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another, or that he should be
subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one
lawful manner rather than another.

There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is
entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it
"against discrimination", whether they be leader-writers of the same
kidney
and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930's
tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or
archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes
pulled right up over their heads. They have got it exactly and
diametrically
wrong. The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of
resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among
whom
they have come and are still coming. This is why to enact legislation of
the
kind before Parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match onto
gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and
support it is that they know not what they do.

Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth
immigrant in Britain and the American Negro. The Negro population of the
United States, which was already in existence before the United States
became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the
franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they
have only gradually and still incompletely come. The Commonwealth
immigrant
came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knew no
discrimination
between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the
possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free
treatment
under the National Health Service. Whatever drawbacks attended the
immigrants arose not from the law or from public policy or from
administration, but from those personal circumstances and accidents which
cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to
be
different from another's.

But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to
privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing
population was very different. For reasons which they could not
comprehend,
and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never
consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.

They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in
childbirth,
their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and
neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for
the
future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to
the
immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of
the
native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more
voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. They now learn
that
a one-way privilege is to be established by act of Parliament; a law
which
cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their
grievances is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the
agent-provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.

In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last
spoke
on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature
which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament
are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and
alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people,
writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they
had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed
themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I
had
expressed, and that they would risk penalties or reprisals if they were
known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is
growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which
are
affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly
imagine. I am going to allow just one of those hundreds of people to
speak
for me ...

Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house
was
sold to a Negro. Now only one white ( a woman old-age pensioner ) lives
there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the
war.
So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding
house.
She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put
something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing
fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became
a
place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.

The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7am by two
Negroes who wanted to use her 'phone to contact their employer. When she
refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was
abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her
door. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she
always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying rates,
she
has less than £2 per week. She went to apply for a rate reduction and was
seen by a young girl, who on hearing she had a seven-roomed house,
suggested
she should let part of it. When she said the only people she could get
were
Negroes, the girl said, "Racial prejudice won't get you anywhere in this
country". So she went home.

The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help
her
out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house - at a
price
which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants
in
weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows
are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she
goes
to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning
piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know.
"Racialist", they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this
woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong ? I begin
to
wonder.

The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or
otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word
"integration".
To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical
purposes indistinguishable from its other members. Now, at all times,
where
there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration
is
difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the
Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen
years
or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and
whose
every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction. But to imagine
that
such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of
immigrants
and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.

We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of
circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of
integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant
population -
that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their
numbers
and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which
normally bear upon any small minority did not operate.

Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against
integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of
racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual
domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the
population. The cloud no bigger than a man's hand, that can so rapidly
overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has
shown
signs of spreading quickly. The words I am about to use, verbatim as they
appeared in the local press on 17 February, are not mine, but those of a
Labour Member of Parliament who is a minister in the present government
...

The Sikh community's campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in
Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the
public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and
conditions
of their employment. To claim special communal rights ( or should one say
rites ? ) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This
communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is
to
be strongly condemned.

All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to
perceive
that, and the courage to say it.

For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed
in
the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here
is
the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to
consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow
citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons
which
the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am
filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber
foaming with much blood".

That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror
on
the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the
history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our
own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In
numerical
terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the
century.

Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether
there
will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know.
All
I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.



No comment, but please note.

This great speach was made before the threat that the Muslims pose
to
our society.


Terrorist scum is not the sole domain of Muslims, in fact that is a
slander against Muslims, most Muslims, as with society as a whole are
peace loving brothers and sisters, we are quite happy to live and take
each other as we come.

Sadly it's a minority, although large minority that are desperate to
spoil it for the whole world, it's a cancer and retribution should be
swift and final. I fear it is already too late, the world is doomed.

We are now in a world where being white is a crime in terms of PC
bullshit, where we can have a black police officers federation, but
not a white police officers federation in the UK, and examples of
political correctness gone crazy are to be found everywhere.

Yes, we could do with more people like Enoch in politics.

Mind you in Blair and Bush we have gone much further than an other
politician dared.

Democracy sucks unless you are a sane, normal person. Sadly the nuts
are taking over, otherwise why would people hunt foxes with hounds,
factory farm animals etc.l

Like they say, those that abuse animals will inevitably go on to abuse
society. The fact it is legal is of no relevance.

RIP Enoch.





Where I live there is a newspaper "Written by black people for black
people". This is known as community building.

If it were a newspaper "Written by white people for white people" it would
be called racist!

Go figure?

Crazy.

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:16:42 +0100, B Z Bee
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:52:28 +0000 (UTC), "Ray"
wrote:


Rivers of Blood





Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech is known of by many, but
few have read the full text of what he said.

I certainly never.



Anyone who has discussed immigration and race relations in the UK will,
at some time, have heard of Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech.

Especially for UK posters

Thanks, and past on elsewhere.

Given at the Annual General Meeting of the West Midlands Area
Conservative Party, Powell's reference to Virgil's prediction of war, during
which the Tiber would foam with blood, it has become universally known as
the "Rivers of Blood" speech.

Powell's speech was to say the least "contentious", and generated
considerable debate at the time.


Which was a real shame. We need more real men in politics to call a
spade, a spade so to speak. I fear it is too late anyway, the gene
pool is far too diluted now to recover.

Many saw Powell as a true visionary, voicing the concerns which were
held at the time. Others were shocked by his language. Edward Heath, the
Leader of the Opposition, sacked Powell from his Shadow Cabinet, condemning
his speech as "racialist", and Powell never held a seniour political
position again.

Powell recived over a hundred thousand letters in support of his
stance against immigration after his infamous speech, and London dock
workers marched through the streets in support of his views.

Many others were equally vocal against his apocolyptic visions, and
the result of his speech, which lead to an increase in inter-race tensions
in the UK.

The importance of Powell's speech, whether one supports or rejects his
views, is undeniable. It was probably the one speech which brought the
debate on immigration, anti-immigration, and racial integration to the fore.
It brought views held behind closed doors into the open, and revealed the
simmering tensions in the UK on the matter.

Britain has moved on since 1968, but immigration is still high on the
political agenda, with refuges, both economic and political, displaced by
conflict and intolerance hoping to make Britain their home.

The debate on immigration is as intense, and as complex, as ever; on
one hand the government has opened Britain's doors to short-term immigration
for those it believes can fulfill job vacancies in the UK, while with the
other, closing the doors to those who seek asylum without meeting the
government's criteria for entry.

There are more immigrants, and those born of immigrant families, in
the UK now than there was in 1960, and there is a greater tolerance now than
it appeared when Powell made his speech, however, racially motivated crime
has not been erradicated, and there are still many who hold
anti-immigration, and anti-immigrant views.

Powell's "Rivers of Blood", speech is by far the most widely
acknowledged as being pivotal to the debate in the late 1960's, it is
refered to by both sides of the debate, and it is still quoted by the
National Front today.

Despite the widespread knowledge of his speech, which is what has
defined the persona of Powell since he made it, very few people have heard
the speech in full, and many were not even born when he uttered his words.
Powell is judged not on what he said, but on the sound-bite echoes that the
speech has left behind.

The entirety of Powell's speech is given here, without comment, other
than to say that I do not agree with what he says, and that I do consider
his views to be racist.

The language used by Powell may be abhorant to many readers now, and
it gives an insight into how immigrants were viewed by many at the time. It
is a speech which has been recorded in the history books of race relatuions,
and it is a speech reflecting sentiments which are still held by some
Britons today.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Rivers of Blood
Enoch Powell - 20th of April, 1968.
The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against
preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are
deeply rooted in human nature. One is that by the very order of things such
evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred; at each stage in their
onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or
imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison
with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing; whence the
besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate
present at the expense of the future.

Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for
causing troubles and even for desiring troubles. "If only", they love to
think, "If only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen".
Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the
thing, the name and the object, are identical.

At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now,
avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most
necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it
deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.

A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a
middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised
industries. After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said, "If
I had the money to go, I wouldn't stay in this country". I made some
deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn't last for
ever; but he took no notice, and continued, "I have three children, all of
them have been through grammar school and two of them are married now, with
family. I shan't be satisfied 'till I have seen them all settled overseas.
In this country, in 15 or 20 years' time, the black man will have the whip
hand over the white man".

I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a
horrible thing ? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by
repeating such a conversation ?

The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a
decent, ordinary, fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town
says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth
living in for his children. I simply do not have the right to shrug my
shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and
hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking - not throughout Great
Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total
transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English
history.

In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be, in this country,
three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That
is not my figure; that is the official figure given to Parliament by the
spokesman of the Registrar General's Office. There is no comparable official
figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven
million, approximately one tenth of the whole population, and approaching
that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from
Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and
parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant
and immigrant-descended population.

As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant
descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same
route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase. Already, by 1985 the
native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact which creates the
extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is hardest
for politicians to take; action where the difficulties lie in the present
but the evils to be prevented or minimised lie several Parliaments ahead.

The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by
such a prospect is to ask, "How can its dimensions he reduced ?". Granted it
may not be wholly preventable. Can it be limited, bearing this in mind, that
numbers are of the essence; the significance and consequences of an alien
element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different
according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent. The answers
to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational; by
stopping, or virtually stopping, further in-flow, and by promoting the
maximum out-flow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the
Conservative Party.

It almost passes belief that at this moment 20 or 30 additional
immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every
week - and that means 15 or 20 additional families a decade or two hence.
Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad,
literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual in-flow of some
50,000 dependents, who are for the most part the material of the future
growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation
busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we
actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a
family with spouses and fiances whom they have never seen.

Let no one suppose that the flow of dependents will automatically tail
off. On the contrary, even at the present admission rate of only 5,000 a
year by voucher, there is sufficient for a further 25,000 dependents per
annum ad infinitum, without taking into account the huge reservoir of
existing relations in this country - and I am making no allowance at all for
fraudulent entry. In these circumstances, nothing will suffice but that the
total in-flow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible
proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative measures
be taken without delay.

I stress the words "for settlement". This has nothing to do with the
entry of Commonwealth citizens, any more than of aliens, into this country,
for the purposes of study or of improving their qualifications, like ( for
instance ) the Commonwealth doctors who, to the advantage of their own
countries, have enabled our hospital service to be expanded faster than
would otherwise have been possible. These are not, and never have been,
immigrants.

I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate
of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be
substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the
population would still leave the basic character of the national danger
unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the
total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten
years or so.

Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the
Conservative Party's policy; the encouragement of re-emigration. Nobody can
make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous assistance, would
choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other
countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent.
Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted. I can only say
that, even at present, immigrants in my own constituency from time to time
come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such a
policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity of
the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter the
prospects.

The third element of the Conservative Party's policy is that all who
are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that
there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public
authority. As Mr Heath has put it we will have no "first-class citizens" and
"second-class citizens". This does not mean that the immigrant and his
descendent should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the
citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his
own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another, or that he should be
subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one
lawful manner rather than another.

There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is
entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it
"against discrimination", whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney
and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930's
tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or
archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes
pulled right up over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically
wrong. The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of
resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom
they have come and are still coming. This is why to enact legislation of the
kind before Parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match onto
gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and
support it is that they know not what they do.

Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth
immigrant in Britain and the American Negro. The Negro population of the
United States, which was already in existence before the United States
became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the
franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they
have only gradually and still incompletely come. The Commonwealth immigrant
came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knew no discrimination
between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the
possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free treatment
under the National Health Service. Whatever drawbacks attended the
immigrants arose not from the law or from public policy or from
administration, but from those personal circumstances and accidents which
cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to be
different from another's.

But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to
privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing
population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend,
and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never
consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.

They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth,
their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and
neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the
future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the
immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the
native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more
voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. They now learn that
a one-way privilege is to be established by act of Parliament; a law which
cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their
grievances is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the
agent-provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.

In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke
on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature
which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament
are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and
alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people,
writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they
had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed
themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had
expressed, and that they would risk penalties or reprisals if they were
known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is
growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are
affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly
imagine. I am going to allow just one of those hundreds of people to speak
for me ...

Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was
sold to a Negro. Now only one white ( a woman old-age pensioner ) lives
there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war.
So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house.
She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put
something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing
fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a
place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.

The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7am by two
Negroes who wanted to use her 'phone to contact their employer. When she
refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was
abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her
door. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she
always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying rates, she
has less than £2 per week. She went to apply for a rate reduction and was
seen by a young girl, who on hearing she had a seven-roomed house, suggested
she should let part of it. When she said the only people she could get were
Negroes, the girl said, "Racial prejudice won't get you anywhere in this
country". So she went home.

The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her
out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house - at a price
which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in
weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows
are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes
to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning
piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know.
"Racialist", they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this
woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong ? I begin to
wonder.

The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or
otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word "integration".
To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical
purposes indistinguishable from its other members. Now, at all times, where
there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is
difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the
Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years
or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose
every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction. But to imagine that
such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants
and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.

We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of
circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of
integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population -
that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers
and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which
normally bear upon any small minority did not operate.

Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against
integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of
racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual
domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the
population. The cloud no bigger than a man's hand, that can so rapidly
overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown
signs of spreading quickly. The words I am about to use, verbatim as they
appeared in the local press on 17 February, are not mine, but those of a
Labour Member of Parliament who is a minister in the present government ...

The Sikh community's campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in
Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the
public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions
of their employment. To claim special communal rights ( or should one say
rites ? ) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This
communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to
be strongly condemned.

All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive
that, and the courage to say it.

For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in
the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is
the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to
consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow
citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which
the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am
filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber
foaming with much blood".

That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on
the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the
history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our
own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical
terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the
century.

Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there
will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All
I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.



No comment, but please note.

This great speach was made before the threat that the Muslims pose to
our society.


Terrorist scum is not the sole domain of Muslims, in fact that is a
slander against Muslims, most Muslims, as with society as a whole are
peace loving brothers and sisters, we are quite happy to live and take
each other as we come.

Sadly it's a minority, although large minority that are desperate to
spoil it for the whole world, it's a cancer and retribution should be
swift and final. I fear it is already too late, the world is doomed.

We are now in a world where being white is a crime in terms of PC
bullshit, where we can have a black police officers federation, but
not a white police officers federation in the UK, and examples of
political correctness gone crazy are to be found everywhere.

Yes, we could do with more people like Enoch in politics.

Mind you in Blair and Bush we have gone much further than an other
politician dared.

Democracy sucks unless you are a sane, normal person. Sadly the nuts
are taking over, otherwise why would people hunt foxes with hounds,
factory farm animals etc.l

Like they say, those that abuse animals will inevitably go on to abuse
society. The fact it is legal is of no relevance.

RIP Enoch.



The worst of it is the treasonous press. TV, Papers, Radio. The vast
majority should have been put in the tower long ago. Constantly
slagging and, undermining those fighting for justice, and worst of all
Britain.


+------------------------+
| NO PLONKING ZONE |
+------------------------+
| | |
| | | |
..| |.. .| |..
...\| |/.... \| |/..











**********************************************




'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.

Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities
Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities
I am in the top 0.217% richest people in the world.
There are 5,986,950,449 people poorer than me

If you're really interested I am the 13,049,551
richest person in the world.

And I'm keeping the bloody lot.

So sue me.

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

Newsgroup ettiquette

1) Tell everyone the Trolls don't bother you.
2) Say you've killfiled them, yet continue to respond.
3) Tell other people off who repsond despite doing so yourself.
4) Continually talk about Trolls while maintaining
they're having no effect.
5) Publicly post killfile rules so the Trolls know
how to avoid them.
6) Make lame legal threats and other barrel scraping
manoeuvres when your abuse reports are ignored.
7) Eat vast quantities of pies.
8) Forget to brush your teeth for several decades.
9) Help a demon.local poster with their email while
secretly reading it.
10) Pretend you're a hard ******* when in fact you're
as bent as a roundabout.
11) Become the laughing stock of Usenet like Mabbet
12) Die of old age
13) Keep paying Dr Chartham his fees and hope one day you
will have a penis the girls can see.

---------------------------------------

"If you would'nt talk to them in a bar, don't *uckin' vote for them"

"Australia was not *discovered* it was invaded"
The Big Yin.

Need a fake diploma for fun? contact my collegues Malcolm Ogilvie
or Michael Saunby who both bought one and got one free, only $15 each,
have as many as you like www.fakediplomas.com

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 20:25:48 +0100, Borstal Boy
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:16:42 +0100, B Z Bee
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:52:28 +0000 (UTC), "Ray"
wrote:


Rivers of Blood





Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech is known of by many, but
few have read the full text of what he said.

I certainly never.



Anyone who has discussed immigration and race relations in the UK will,
at some time, have heard of Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech.

Especially for UK posters

Thanks, and past on elsewhere.

Given at the Annual General Meeting of the West Midlands Area
Conservative Party, Powell's reference to Virgil's prediction of war, during
which the Tiber would foam with blood, it has become universally known as
the "Rivers of Blood" speech.

Powell's speech was to say the least "contentious", and generated
considerable debate at the time.


Which was a real shame. We need more real men in politics to call a
spade, a spade so to speak. I fear it is too late anyway, the gene
pool is far too diluted now to recover.

Many saw Powell as a true visionary, voicing the concerns which were
held at the time. Others were shocked by his language. Edward Heath, the
Leader of the Opposition, sacked Powell from his Shadow Cabinet, condemning
his speech as "racialist", and Powell never held a seniour political
position again.

Powell recived over a hundred thousand letters in support of his
stance against immigration after his infamous speech, and London dock
workers marched through the streets in support of his views.

Many others were equally vocal against his apocolyptic visions, and
the result of his speech, which lead to an increase in inter-race tensions
in the UK.

The importance of Powell's speech, whether one supports or rejects his
views, is undeniable. It was probably the one speech which brought the
debate on immigration, anti-immigration, and racial integration to the fore.
It brought views held behind closed doors into the open, and revealed the
simmering tensions in the UK on the matter.

Britain has moved on since 1968, but immigration is still high on the
political agenda, with refuges, both economic and political, displaced by
conflict and intolerance hoping to make Britain their home.

The debate on immigration is as intense, and as complex, as ever; on
one hand the government has opened Britain's doors to short-term immigration
for those it believes can fulfill job vacancies in the UK, while with the
other, closing the doors to those who seek asylum without meeting the
government's criteria for entry.

There are more immigrants, and those born of immigrant families, in
the UK now than there was in 1960, and there is a greater tolerance now than
it appeared when Powell made his speech, however, racially motivated crime
has not been erradicated, and there are still many who hold
anti-immigration, and anti-immigrant views.

Powell's "Rivers of Blood", speech is by far the most widely
acknowledged as being pivotal to the debate in the late 1960's, it is
refered to by both sides of the debate, and it is still quoted by the
National Front today.

Despite the widespread knowledge of his speech, which is what has
defined the persona of Powell since he made it, very few people have heard
the speech in full, and many were not even born when he uttered his words.
Powell is judged not on what he said, but on the sound-bite echoes that the
speech has left behind.

The entirety of Powell's speech is given here, without comment, other
than to say that I do not agree with what he says, and that I do consider
his views to be racist.

The language used by Powell may be abhorant to many readers now, and
it gives an insight into how immigrants were viewed by many at the time. It
is a speech which has been recorded in the history books of race relatuions,
and it is a speech reflecting sentiments which are still held by some
Britons today.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Rivers of Blood
Enoch Powell - 20th of April, 1968.
The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against
preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are
deeply rooted in human nature. One is that by the very order of things such
evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred; at each stage in their
onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or
imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison
with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing; whence the
besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate
present at the expense of the future.

Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for
causing troubles and even for desiring troubles. "If only", they love to
think, "If only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen".
Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the
thing, the name and the object, are identical.

At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now,
avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most
necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it
deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.

A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a
middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised
industries. After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said, "If
I had the money to go, I wouldn't stay in this country". I made some
deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn't last for
ever; but he took no notice, and continued, "I have three children, all of
them have been through grammar school and two of them are married now, with
family. I shan't be satisfied 'till I have seen them all settled overseas.
In this country, in 15 or 20 years' time, the black man will have the whip
hand over the white man".

I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a
horrible thing ? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by
repeating such a conversation ?

The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a
decent, ordinary, fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town
says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth
living in for his children. I simply do not have the right to shrug my
shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and
hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking - not throughout Great
Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total
transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English
history.

In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be, in this country,
three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That
is not my figure; that is the official figure given to Parliament by the
spokesman of the Registrar General's Office. There is no comparable official
figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven
million, approximately one tenth of the whole population, and approaching
that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from
Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and
parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant
and immigrant-descended population.

As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant
descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same
route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase. Already, by 1985 the
native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact which creates the
extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is hardest
for politicians to take; action where the difficulties lie in the present
but the evils to be prevented or minimised lie several Parliaments ahead.

The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by
such a prospect is to ask, "How can its dimensions he reduced ?". Granted it
may not be wholly preventable. Can it be limited, bearing this in mind, that
numbers are of the essence; the significance and consequences of an alien
element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different
according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent. The answers
to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational; by
stopping, or virtually stopping, further in-flow, and by promoting the
maximum out-flow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the
Conservative Party.

It almost passes belief that at this moment 20 or 30 additional
immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every
week - and that means 15 or 20 additional families a decade or two hence.
Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad,
literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual in-flow of some
50,000 dependents, who are for the most part the material of the future
growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation
busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we
actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a
family with spouses and fiances whom they have never seen.

Let no one suppose that the flow of dependents will automatically tail
off. On the contrary, even at the present admission rate of only 5,000 a
year by voucher, there is sufficient for a further 25,000 dependents per
annum ad infinitum, without taking into account the huge reservoir of
existing relations in this country - and I am making no allowance at all for
fraudulent entry. In these circumstances, nothing will suffice but that the
total in-flow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible
proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative measures
be taken without delay.

I stress the words "for settlement". This has nothing to do with the
entry of Commonwealth citizens, any more than of aliens, into this country,
for the purposes of study or of improving their qualifications, like ( for
instance ) the Commonwealth doctors who, to the advantage of their own
countries, have enabled our hospital service to be expanded faster than
would otherwise have been possible. These are not, and never have been,
immigrants.

I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate
of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be
substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the
population would still leave the basic character of the national danger
unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the
total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten
years or so.

Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the
Conservative Party's policy; the encouragement of re-emigration. Nobody can
make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous assistance, would
choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other
countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent.
Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted. I can only say
that, even at present, immigrants in my own constituency from time to time
come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such a
policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity of
the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter the
prospects.

The third element of the Conservative Party's policy is that all who
are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that
there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public
authority. As Mr Heath has put it we will have no "first-class citizens" and
"second-class citizens". This does not mean that the immigrant and his
descendent should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the
citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his
own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another, or that he should be
subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one
lawful manner rather than another.

There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is
entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it
"against discrimination", whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney
and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930's
tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or
archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes
pulled right up over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically
wrong. The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of
resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom
they have come and are still coming. This is why to enact legislation of the
kind before Parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match onto
gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and
support it is that they know not what they do.

Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth
immigrant in Britain and the American Negro. The Negro population of the
United States, which was already in existence before the United States
became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the
franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they
have only gradually and still incompletely come. The Commonwealth immigrant
came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knew no discrimination
between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the
possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free treatment
under the National Health Service. Whatever drawbacks attended the
immigrants arose not from the law or from public policy or from
administration, but from those personal circumstances and accidents which
cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to be
different from another's.

But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to
privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing
population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend,
and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never
consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.

They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth,
their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and
neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the
future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the
immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the
native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more
voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. They now learn that
a one-way privilege is to be established by act of Parliament; a law which
cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their
grievances is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the
agent-provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.

In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke
on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature
which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament
are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and
alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people,
writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they
had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed
themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had
expressed, and that they would risk penalties or reprisals if they were
known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is
growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are
affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly
imagine. I am going to allow just one of those hundreds of people to speak
for me ...

Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was
sold to a Negro. Now only one white ( a woman old-age pensioner ) lives
there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war.
So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house.
She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put
something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing
fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a
place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.

The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7am by two
Negroes who wanted to use her 'phone to contact their employer. When she
refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was
abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her
door. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she
always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying rates, she
has less than £2 per week. She went to apply for a rate reduction and was
seen by a young girl, who on hearing she had a seven-roomed house, suggested
she should let part of it. When she said the only people she could get were
Negroes, the girl said, "Racial prejudice won't get you anywhere in this
country". So she went home.

The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her
out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house - at a price
which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in
weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows
are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes
to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning
piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know.
"Racialist", they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this
woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong ? I begin to
wonder.

The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or
otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word "integration".
To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical
purposes indistinguishable from its other members. Now, at all times, where
there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is
difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the
Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years
or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose
every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction. But to imagine that
such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants
and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.

We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of
circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of
integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population -
that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers
and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which
normally bear upon any small minority did not operate.

Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against
integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of
racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual
domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the
population. The cloud no bigger than a man's hand, that can so rapidly
overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown
signs of spreading quickly. The words I am about to use, verbatim as they
appeared in the local press on 17 February, are not mine, but those of a
Labour Member of Parliament who is a minister in the present government ...

The Sikh community's campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in
Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the
public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions
of their employment. To claim special communal rights ( or should one say
rites ? ) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This
communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to
be strongly condemned.

All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive
that, and the courage to say it.

For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in
the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is
the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to
consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow
citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which
the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am
filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber
foaming with much blood".

That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on
the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the
history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our
own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical
terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the
century.

Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there
will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All
I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.



No comment, but please note.

This great speach was made before the threat that the Muslims pose to
our society.


Terrorist scum is not the sole domain of Muslims, in fact that is a
slander against Muslims, most Muslims, as with society as a whole are
peace loving brothers and sisters, we are quite happy to live and take
each other as we come.

Sadly it's a minority, although large minority that are desperate to
spoil it for the whole world, it's a cancer and retribution should be
swift and final. I fear it is already too late, the world is doomed.

We are now in a world where being white is a crime in terms of PC
bullshit, where we can have a black police officers federation, but
not a white police officers federation in the UK, and examples of
political correctness gone crazy are to be found everywhere.

Yes, we could do with more people like Enoch in politics.

Mind you in Blair and Bush we have gone much further than an other
politician dared.

Democracy sucks unless you are a sane, normal person. Sadly the nuts
are taking over, otherwise why would people hunt foxes with hounds,
factory farm animals etc.l

Like they say, those that abuse animals will inevitably go on to abuse
society. The fact it is legal is of no relevance.

RIP Enoch.



The worst of it is the treasonous press. TV, Papers, Radio. The vast
majority should have been put in the tower long ago. Constantly
slagging and, undermining those fighting for justice, and worst of all
Britain.


I agree with this post in it's entirety.