Upholder of free market economics and the first British politician to advocate monetarism. Renowned parliamentarian, leading anti-immigration campaigner and pre-eminent Eurosceptic.
Statesman, Visionary, Prophet , Intellectual, Patriot and Martyr.

By Imnokuffar-Saturday the 16th of June is the 100th birthday of the Rt Honorable Enoch Powell MBE and the 44th anniversary of perhaps the most significant speech made in British politics since the Second World War: Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech.

I speak of a man whose vision was such that he forecasted the inevitable consequences not just of immigration for which he was and is much slandered, but of the European project.

Let us now, not in a dispassionate way, look at the current situation in the light of what he wrote 44 years ago.

Enoch has been slandered as a racist, xenophobe, extreme right wing and a bigot, the people who use these descriptors are much lauded as anti-racists and of impeccable conscience, they but are the Judas goats leading us to slaughter. And this slaughter paradoxically, will include them.

Powell was the Tories’ defence critic at the time of this speech, after having done military service in India in the bloody preview to Pakistan’s separation that left half a million dead.

He was acknowledged as a brilliant orator, with a distinguished academic career as a linguist and professor of Greek, with a prospect of becoming party leader.

He was fluent in two Indian languages and had a deep love of India, so much so that he often expressed the view that he would like to spend the rest of his life there.

But this inconvenient fact is whitewashed as it does not chime in with the current view propagated by the left, some on the right and the liberals that he was a racist.

After all, why let facts get in the way when you can desecrate his memory and let lies be his memorial in the popular conscience – a conscience manufactured by the media and some of the current crop of politicians who are not fit to lick his boots.

It is true that Enoch was not of the common people – his education, intellect and background made him stand apart. But these same qualities also made him an excellent observer of the human condition and he understood the concerns of the common man and lucidly expressed them.

Witness, be witness to this from his speech and reflect on how many politicians would express the legitimate concerns of their constituents in such a way with such honesty and integrity this was decades ago.

“A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries.

After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said: "If I had the money to go, I wouldn't stay in this country." I made some deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn't last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: "I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family.

I shan't be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas. In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man."

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

The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament that his country will not be worth living in for his children.

I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking - not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.

In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure.

That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General's Office.”
Note; just one sentence that stand to a testament to his honesty and his concern for this nation and its indigenous people, no matter their class or station and its traditions, history and culture.

“I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else.”

Enoch knew he was committing political suicide by his words and actions but hoped that something would arouse within the British people and alas it did not as the tentacles of political correctness and multiculturalism had invaded the psyche and institutions of the British people and further afield.

The immediate sacking of him by Heath who was literally and figuratively out of touch with ordinary mortals and so much so that when sailing his Yacht and questioned about the 3 day week, the Miners strike and the impending economic collapse of Britain he famously replied “Crisis, what crisis ?”.

He had the self imposed right to shrug his shoulders – something he was famous for and think about something else just like the present pack of hyenas.
But let us look at one factual aspect of what he said.

“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.” And here “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”

He was almost bang on; extrapolating from this data there are now 7 million immigrants in Britain – that we know of and the figure is rising by 250,000 per annum.

But Mr Cameron says he will reduce this number to tens of thousands whilst cutting the border agency.
What Enoch hinted at but could not know is the extraordinary effect this would have on the entire nation, its politics, racial composition, religion, economy and culture.

For the purposes of this article I will concentrate on just one aspect of this change – that concerning Muslims who whilst representing two million plus of these immigrants are the cause of much legitimate concern and here I also mention the aspects of European immigration into the UK.

Outright lies are told about the so-called benefits of immigration by the mainstream media (MSM), Politicians of all stripes and the BBC in particular,who despite everything insist that immigration is beneficial and who use words like “vibrant”, “colourful”, “enriched”, “Multicultural” and other positive words to describe what for a growing number of people is “bewildering”, “foreign”, “threatening” , treasonous” and “anti-British”.

Here are some examples of the latter point of view and why people feel this way.

• Around a third of Bangladeshis and Pakistanis are both not in paid work and say they do not want paid work, a much higher proportion than any other ethnic group
Source Labour Force Survey, Office for National Statistics.

• David Coleman Oxford University academic says that far from benefiting the economy, immigrants cost an extra £8.8 Billion in various categories, not including the ones outlined below.

This does not include the costs of the recent insurrection (riots) that according to our old friend “The Guardian” will cost an estimated £100 million.

It is also a fact that immigrants are grossly over-represented in the criminal justice system – however, obviously this can be put down to “discrimination” and is just another excuse used by the left to excuse the inherent criminality of some immigrants.

Nor does it include the cost in housing, benefits, schooling, healthcare that is unquantifiable according to the government.
Or the cost and inconvenience of having to go through scanners at airports and the overall cost of the security measures needed to keep us safe from home grown and other terrorists.

Then of course you have various social attitudes that are promoted by the cult of Islam in particular.

60 per cent of students in Islamic societies felt killing for religion could be justified.

59 per cent of Muslim students thought that women should wear the veil.

50 per cent would not support a friend’s decision to leave Islam (with the obvious suggestion that they would prefer this person to be dead if s/he did)

26 per cent of female Muslim students felt men and women were treated equally.

25 per cent said they had little or not much respect for homosexuals.

24 per cent did not think that men and women were equal in the eyes of Allah.

Another factor provoking resentment are the inflows of immigrants from the EU.

When Labour was in power it opened the floodgates to members of the EU from the A8 countries of Eastern Europe these include Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, Estonia, and Slovenia.

Labour predicted that only 13000 per year people would register under the Worker Registration Scheme that began in 2004 and gave these workers legal rights to work in the UK and also access to benefits.

Poland was the biggest beneficiary of this largesse with 1.2 million registrations. The total number of successful applications was 1.92 million with just 0.7 per cent refused. Even the figure of 1.92 million is wrong because it does not count self employed people who were not required to register and those who did not register.

Just by looking at these verifiable facts one can see that once again Enoch was right when saying:
“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. (Nationality and Immigration Act 1948).”

“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.”

Enoch said this in 1968 and the situation is now becoming ever more critical due to the economic and political crisis now engulfing Europe and the world.

The left use Enoch as a bogyman figure, they say he was a racist and that is a deliberate and calculated lie. They use this lie to tar all who have legitimate concerns over immigration and its consequences as racists, bigots, xenophobes and worse.
Part of the reason he made this speech was the implementation and further enforcing/amending the Racial Discrimination Act 1965 that was eventually superseded by the Race Relations Act 1968 and subsequently amended.

He could see the inevitable consequences of this.
“The third element of the Conservative Party's policy is that all who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority.

As Mr. Heath has put it we will have no "first-class citizens" and "second-class citizens." This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendent should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.

There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it "against discrimination", whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right up over their heads.

They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong.
The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming.

This is why to enact legislation of the kind before parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match on to gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is that they know not what they do.”

The fact of the matter is that there is, in our country (or what is left of it) an elevated class who are virtually immune from the common law who have special rights – rights not accorded to the indigenous population because they are white.

Here, again I refer to the Prophet and let him speak for himself and for those of us who will listen and understand.
“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 willfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word "integration." To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members.

Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction.

But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.

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

Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population.

The cloud no bigger than a man's hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly.

The words I am about to use, verbatim as they appeared in the local press on 17 February, are not mine, but those of a Labour Member of Parliament who is a minister in the present government:
'The Sikh communities' campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted.

Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society.

This communalism is a canker; whether practiced 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.”

Rest in Peace Enoch.

You were and are not a synonym for racism you were and are a beacon; an honest and dedicated person whose opinions and views will resound to the end of time or as long as we exist as a race and even that is now under question.

Here I leave it you; it is up to you to decide who is responsible for these “preventable evils” as described by Enoch and to do something about it.
And only you in concert who read and understand this with others who are of a like mind can act as an agent of change.

This does not mean attacking people for their colour or religious beliefs but using legitimate methods under the law to point out when they transgress against it in actuality or when it is not in the spirit of it.