Listen to his words and then tell me the difference between the Conservative Party then - and now.
And another video, this time on immigration:
"....politicians of all parties will say when Enoch Powell is right - we won't say that in public but we know it in private - Enoch Powell is right and it will no doubt develop as he says, but its better for us to do nothing now and let it happen, perhaps after our time, than to seize the many poisonous nettles which we would have to seize, if we were at this stage to attempt to avert the outcome; so let it go on until a third of central London, a third of Birmingham and Wolverhampton are coloured, until the civil war comes - let it go on, we won't be blamed, we'll either have gone or we'll slip out from under, somehow."
For those too young to have witnessed this man; for those who can't be bothered to learn their history; this man was vilified by the then 'political class' - and still is. When the likes of Blair, Brown, Cameron, MilibandE and Clegg are too but 'figures of history', it is those that follow who will have to deal with the aftermath of their 'beliefs'.
The only disagreement that I have with Powell was with his belief in 'parliamentary democracy' because it amounts to a 'democratised dictatorship' imposed by the leaders of our political parties - if this great man had only believed in direct democracy we would surely not be in the 'state' we are!
7 comments:
Small wonder the Tories and the liberal elite [one and the same] did a number on Enoch.
He was just too good and spoke the truth - which was by far the greater sin in the eyes of the chatterati and Red Tories.
Europe was in, the civil rights movement, its ethos and philosphy was de rigeur and Powell's brilliantly pellucid but unpopular rhetoric 'was out'.
Damn them all, for they have damned us.
Ethnic melting pot, for the PC brigade a harmonious vision of babel, a rose bespectacled lunatic ideal which now rings laughably hollow. Up and down the land, the army of social engineers go about their work virtually unchallenged because no one oversees or tallies their work.
Of course this work is paid for by the taxpayer, the funds anonymously funnelled through central government into the metropolitan and city councils, doing the work of the EU quietly but see how rapidly is this come about [in the last 10 years]. Observe, how many urban areas from East and West London to Glasgow resemble a frontier town in Kashmir or the Punjab.
Because of this massive but haphazard inundation 'policy'. We now live in a madhouse, a demographic concoction of such a poisonous fermentation, exacerbated by PC and multikulti, ie, allowing communities, in fact encouraging, great swathes of northern town and cities to be overrun with a people and a creed which is inimical, incompatible and hates every facet of the western tradition.
Still,. they wave them in, enticing them with benefits, accomodation and unearned citizenship: rolling out the red carpet to, terrorist and illiterate farmer alike.
The PC 'cauldron' and its gangrenous soup is just about ready to boil over.
As Powell predicted: there will be civil war in Britain.
Make no mistake, it is just a matter of time.
wfw "The only disagreement that I have with Powell was with his belief in 'parliamentary democracy' because it amounts to a 'democratised dictatorship' imposed by the leaders of our political parties - if this great man had only believed in direct democracy we would surely not be in the 'state' we are!
Fully agree, and it baffled me also why EP continued to support the party political system. For a man so logical and with such foresight I'm amazed he did not seem to see the inherent flaws in that system. (But many of us, including me, also failed to see where the system was leading!)
Direct democracy is the only answer, and though not perfect, is infinitely superior to the antiquated, cumbersome, bureaucratic machine which creaks away at Westmisnter to no purpose.
Time long overdue for a thorough political revolution - but who will lead it?
Excellent reminder WfW…
Difference between the CONservative Party then and now…
Absolutely NONE.
Powell left in 1974 I believe.
@Graham Wood…
"...the antiquated, cumbersome, bureaucratic machine which creaks away at Westminster to no purpose."
Oh there's a purpose Graham, and it ain't got nuffink to do with representing the interests of those that put them there.
It's all about sinecures and treachery.
Parliamentary democracy made more sense 40 or 50 years ago when there was some difference between the parties.
Enoch Powell had a very incise mind and cut cut through the surface froth of discussions. However, his analysis and conclusions weren't comfortable and seemed austere.
I saw him once on Question Time where the subject of bad behaviour at Wimbledon came up. Various panelists were getting worked up over what was to be done. EP's point was that this was a private club and it was up to them how they dealt with the conduct of their members and guests. Exactly correct and there's nothing more to say.
The point is that irrationally, people somehow think they have some sort of stake in Wimbledon and want to talk about it.
I suspect parliament of the 1960's was a very different place. MP's came from professional careers or landed interests that they could return to, thus the power of the whips was much reduced. Today's nasty little placemen are more or less all unemployable creeps who gain massively from being an MP but would be on the dole otherwise. Thus they are well paid puppets and both they and the MP's know it.
In 1971 Powell opposed the beginning of the system of pensions and perks which was introduced just at the time when many MPs were being feted in Brussels and seeing how well their continental colleagues did themselves.
Until then, MPs received a pretty good salary (which they voted for themselves), first class rail travel to and from their constituencies, franking for their mail and 2,000 sheets of paper per year - no pension (unless they bought it themselves), no office, no assistants and researchers, no second home allowance, no moat cleaning and no duck houses.
Parliament decided to refer remuneration to something called the "Top Salaries Review Body" which decided then that MPs terms and conditions should approximate to mid-ranking civil servants but with some extras to compensate for the uncertainty of getting re-elected.
Powell opposed this. He said that the existing arrangements were adequate for their true purpose - to ensure that unmoneyed men of ability could serve their country in parliament.
He warned that the more a parliamentary seat resembled a salaried, pensioned career, the more attractive it would be and the more the party selectors would seek to control the admission of pliable candidates to their idea of "the right sort". . This would change the sort of person entering a political career and increase the power of the party over individual MPs and of the government of the day over parliament as a whole.
This, he said, would be looked back on as a point where parliament took a wrong turning.
I think we can agree with this great man. You can see why the pygmies had to bring him down.
Anon On the civi war aspect, I suspect you are right.
gw: Good question: who will indeed lead it. Will a turkey vote for Christmas?
r_w: Thanks.
c & saot Possibly, c, although saot is also right. That Parliament because the two parties were so idealogically different meant their respective MPs believed in their respective creeds. Nowadays, because the parties have merged their creeds to the extent that whoever we vote for matters not, politicians have become PR employees, willing to preach any message as long as it keeps them 'employed'.
ES: EP was prophetic on so many aspects of what to him was history and which to us is now past experience.
Post a Comment