4 5 mins 14 yrs

Did anyone else watch "Rivers of Blood", the BBC2 documentary on Enoch Powell’s famous speech, on Saturday night? I did, and I must say that I was pleasantly surprised. Although I didn’t agree with all of its conclusions, it was far from being the hatchet-job that I was expecting, and it certainly seemed strongly sympathetic towards Powell’s critique of multiculturalism, even if it did, rather bewilderingly, imply that his speech was responsible for bringing state-sponsored multiculturalism about. It was also a pretty well put-together programme, with plenty of interesting talking-heads, balancing out the predictable ("he was a wicked racist!") contributions of a couple of race hustlers, and the execrable Roy "Tub of Lard" Hattersley. Plus, the Socialist Worker and the New Statesman both hated it, which can only count in its favour! As a regular critic of the BBC, I must say that on this occasion they’ve actually done rather well. Now, if only they could get it right the other 99% of the time…

If you didn’t catch it, then it’s been uploaded to Youtube, and the first segment can be seen here. It’s all interesting, but I was particularly intrigued by some comments from Lord Lester, the left-wing barrister, and former advisor to Roy Jenkins, who as Home Secretary in the mid-1960s first articulated the leftist doctrine of multiculturalism. Speaking at the very end of the film, he said:

The model we had was, everyone would share the broad values of being British; what we did not expect, was that there would be those who would unwisely suggest that, for example, Sharia law should be applied in this country, or that the punishment of stoning for adultery might be looked at…It never occurred to us that there would be those kinds of unwise challenges to the broad values of a liberal democratic society.

It really is astonishing that the liberals who launched the multiculturalist agenda that has dominated (and disrupted) society for over forty years never even considered the possibility that not everyone was going to accept the "broad values of a liberal democratic society", however they might be interpreted. They never thought it possible, that encouraging people to continue living their lives as though they were still in some backwater village in Pakistan, would also have the effect of encouraging them to continue to adhere to the moral, social, and political codes prevalent in those backwater villages. Their naivety was simply astounding!
Of course, while Lord Lester, and, apparently, Roy Jenkins by the end of his life, may have realised that something is not quite right, there are still a Hell of a lot of liberals who have not achieved this realisation. They still believe, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, that the increasing size and influence of the Islamic population in Britain is nothing to fear, and that, indeed, it is those of us who oppose Islamification who are the real threat to this country. I have had plenty of liberals tell me that even should Muslims eventually become a majority in Britain, it will be no problem, because they will have accepted all our values. Well, they haven’t done so in the last forty years, but have rather become more extreme with each passing generation. The fact is, these liberals who decry any attack on Islam as part of some "racist" conspiracy may well find, that in thirty or forty years’ time, they, like Lord Lester today, will be complaining that "it never occurred to us" that British-born Muslims would actually start executing apostates, or establishing separate Sharia jurisdictions in cities such as Birmingham or Oldham. But by then, of course, it will be too late for them to do anything about it.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

4 thoughts on ““It never occurred to us”

  1. Reactionary,

    I honestly don’t think anyone of that time could have foreseen the tremendous changes that would take place in British society in the decades to follow. In Powell’s day the Muslim was a relatively minor player.

    I believe that subsequent developments surprised all those of the time—as they’ve surprised all indigenous peeps today.

  2. I found the Enoch Powell documentary contemptible.

    In my opinion there has not been a significant change of course by the Ruling Class with the BBC’s “Get Whitey” season, rather a realisation that if the indigenous inhabitants of the UK are to be cured of their instinctive desire to preserve their Ethnic Genetic Interest then a modified Multiculti Medicine will be required.

    The Powell program was reminiscent of a US TV show where there are a massively disproportionate number of non-whites in positions of authority and Mr White Guy is portrayed as ineffective/stupid bigoted etc. I would hazard a guess that the Ruling Class are simply releasing some chaff by giving lip service to downside of multiculturalism whilst further undermining the indigenous population. As one instance I cite the appearance of the Multiculti Extremist Parek in this program and his passing comment on Powell.

    I would suggest that the Powell program is viewed in conjunction with the previous program on a Working Men’s Club in the North of England, to form an idea of how the Ruling Class may proceed from here. Indeed, as the same Multiculti Extremists are in power now as before, what could change in practice? Which BBC or other broadcasters programs address the hugely disproportionate crime rates between Blacks and Whites or Hindus and Muslims for example?

    I would hazard a guess that the Ruling Class are of the view that “Multiculturalism has not been implemented correctly yet” and that we will get the same Multiculti Medicine administered in different packaging.

    A rather more informative BBC Radio 4 program on Enoch Powell is Rivers of Blood, The Real Source which is currently available.

    In 1977 Enoch Powell made a speech The Path To National Suicide forecasting our current fate which is well worth reading in full. It begins:

    … Throughout the last twenty years, locally at first, then nationally, one political subject has been different from all the rest in the persistence with which it has endured and the profound and absorbing preoccupation which it has increasingly held for the public. This is all the more remarkable because of the sedulous determination with which this subject has been kept, as far as possible, out of parliamentary debate, and the use which has been made of every device from legal penalty to trade union proscription to prevent the open discussion and ventilation of it. No social or political penalty, no threat of private ostracism or public violence, has been spared against those who have nevertheless continued to describe what hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens daily saw and experienced and to voice the fears for the future by which those fellow citizens were haunted. The efforts that were made during the 1930s to silence, ridicule, or denounce those who warned of the coming war with the fascist dictatorships and who called for the peril to be recognized and met before too late, provide but a pale and imperfect precedent.

    In all this suppression more than one powerful motive can be seen at work. On the one hand there is the primitive but widespread superstition that if danger is not mentioned, it will go away, or even that it is created by being identified and can therefore be destroyed again by being left in silence. Akin to this is the natural resentment of ordinary people, but especially of politicians, at being forced to face an appalling prospect with no readily procurable happy ending. The custom of killing messengers who bring bad news is not confined to the kings and tyrants of antiquity or of fiction. On the other hand there are at work the dark motives of those who desire the catastrophic outcome which they foresee. All round the world in various forms the same formula for rending societies apart is being prepared and applied, by ignorance or design, and there are those who are determined to see to it that Britain shall no longer be able to escape. I marvel sometimes that people should be so innocently blind to this nihilism. …

  3. Bert R.

    I’m not so sure that speech is genuine Enoch Powell.
    It looks severely messed around with at best, (or even invented) and I can find no source for it, apart from a Nationalist website that also gives no source.
    Also much of the spelling is how Americans spell.
    eg, color instead of colour etc.
    He may have well given a speech in Manchester on Jan’ of that year, but the above one does’nt sound like him.

  4. Bernard wrote …. It looks severely messed around … In what way exactly? I would hazard a guess that the speech was posted on the Guardian from a paid subscriber to the American journal here , which would explain the spelling. Perhaps his biographer, Simon Heffer, could give a definitive answer but unfortunately I have not located an email for him.

Comments are closed.