News Ticker

Enoch Powell: Still Unsung, But Stunningly Right

Few men have proven to be more prophetic than the late Enoch Powell (1912-1998) . Powell served in Parliament from 1950-1974 and is best known for his opposition to Britain’s liberal migration policy. After his 1968 Rivers of Blood speech, that can be reviewed at the end of this post, Conservative Party leader, the compromised pedophile Edward Heath, sacked Powell from his position as Shadow Defence Secretary (1965–1968) in the Conservative opposition.

However despite the shunning of the political elite, several polls at the time suggested that between 67% and 82% of the UK population agreed with Powell’s opinions. The System crammed aggressive non-European migration down the throats of native English in the ensuing half century.

In fact, despite overwhelming evidence of his foresight, the usual suspects feel compelled to engage in backed-handed slurs against the man to undermine the significance of his vision.

Powell’s fundamental philosophy is well expressed by his statement:

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.

So Powell, being the good custodian that he was, was on the look out for evils. He stated that mass migration was counter to the interests of the native English people and would result in disharmony.  The New Nationalist (TNN) suggests that this is what’s at the heart of nationalism. The usual suspects and Luciferians have, of course, used neuro-ligustic programming (NLP) to diminish the notion that evil lurks in the world. They call such thinkers “conspiracy theorists.”

But then when the evil manifests itself and people can finally see with their own lying eyes that Powell was right all along, the suspects attempt to diminish rather than affirm. One such example of this can be found in an opinion piece by Mathew D’Acona published in the British rag The Guardian. You have to read it to believe it, but let’s focus primarily on the shadow language and pilpuring he employs. D’Acona’s methods are so slimy, I had to take a shower after reading his piece.

First the headline: “Enoch Powell is gone, but his hateful tricks are still with us.” So being absolutely right about outcomes is problematic because his premise is “hateful.” TNN has already dealt with the word “hate,”, and a qualification for landing a job as an honest writer for The Guardian should be utilizing a dictionary and not just making up doublespeak.

D’Acona refers to “tricks.” This suggests Powell’s approach of using prophecy was problematic. In hindsight, that is no longer the case. In 1968, to many observers at the time, Powell predictions seemed dubious or at least not imminent. Even Powell himself admitted that evils were not demonstrable until after they occurred. When you listen to what Powell actually said in his speech, it was No to destroying English culture and ethos by correctly predicting that this would happen.

Incredibly, even after the prophecies of evils have shown themselves correct, D’Acona STILL calls them “dubious” and “ludicrous.” Then he shifts gears to the Powell prophecy that is still in the breach, that of “bloodshed and immolation.” One wonders if the jury is still out on that one, but to call it “unsupported” should fall on deaf ears, even for those suffering from the worst symptoms of cognitive dissonance.

D’Acona on Powell: He relied to an appalling extent upon dubious, anecdotal, ludicrous assertions (white Britons would become “strangers in their own country”) and – most disgracefully – a leap from an argument about specific legislative proposals to a totally unsupported prophecy of bloodshed and immolation.

Then, D’Acona, after acknowledging “it is idle to deny the significance of Powell’s River of Blood speech,” seeks to dispense of it. He states, “I was forcefully struck by how bad it was” and “Powell was wrong about so much.” Here the writer is trying to establish a fixed, immutable point that can never truly be disputed. That point is that he and his ilk could care less about traditional English culture and ethos. And that Powell was therefore “bad” for caring.

His next sentences to support his point are gibberish and look written by a pernicious seventh grader from the Lav Davqa Method Talmud School: “History, properly practised, requires a constant readiness to remember infamy with as much clarity as progress. To shirk this task is to reduce it to a heritage industry, a gallery of approved nostalgia.” ??? What does that even mean? Who did D’Acona fuck to land this writing position? This proves in spades that the system of intimidation only needs second rate hacks around to deliver their message.

D’Acona, thou protests too loudly. Enough of this empty suit and without further ado, here’s the prophetic and wise Enoch Powell “River of Blood” speech from 1968. Spread it widely.

11 Comments on Enoch Powell: Still Unsung, But Stunningly Right

  1. I’d add Jim Trafficant to the list of Enoch Powell-like great Americans. He was a man of steel. Unbelievably strong in the face of the most brutal character assassination and smear campaign from all the usual suspects, including the media, who only ever interviewed him to try and beat him up on air. He sacrificed everything to save an innocent American from becoming another Israeli sacrificial victim. Jim Trafficant, a real man and true hero.

    • America had a least 2, maybe 3 Enoch Powells – Huey Long and Fr Charles Coghlin come immediately to mind. The first was assassinated in 1935 when he challenged Roosevelt for President, and the second was silenced by Roosevelt in 1939 (so much for the 1st Amendment!) because his radio show was becoming a thorn in the Freemasonic puppet’s side.

      The 3rd is Ezra Pound who they branded as “insane” and imprisoned in an asylum for years. Pound was Eustace Mullins’ mentor, the man who first exposed the origins of the Federal Reserve, even before the more well-known ‘Creature from Jekyll Island’ by G. Edward Griffin. Pound is perhaps the most misunderstood and obscured historical figure of the last century, one of those ‘inconvenient’ intellectuals the authorities regarded as dangerous to their project and did their best to shut up.

      And of course, when JFK dared put American interests before the prolongation of the Cold War and Vietnam War, to name just a couple, they murdered him.

      America is a mafia fiefdom.

      Everything else you read about America is just hot air and baloney, which, unfortunately, the majority of brain-dead Americans (and non-Americans sadly), still believe. The power of Hollywood? Maybe. Explains why all those Russian Jews made a beeline for LA as soon as they landed in NY in the late 19th C.

      • Hey Shekel – You make a number of good points and the men you’ve referenced were truly great ones. The only thing I would caution you against is the anti-Freemason stuff about Roosevelt. Roosevelt’s record is bad enough without us delving into speculative nonsense about his masonic connections. And anyway I can tell you from personal experience that the Masons are about as much threat to mankind as the United Methodist Women’s Missionary Society. Also it’s worth pointing out that we’ve had a number of very good presidents who happened to be Freemasons, chief among them, George Washington… I would also add Warren G. Harding (yes, Im serious) who Ron Paul calls one of the greatest political leaders of the 20th century. In only two years Harding managed to totally undo the pinko policies of the Wilson administration and return our country to a place of prosperity and “normalcy.” BTW – this is also why Harding is perhaps the most maligned political figure of the modern era…. the lefties of his day hated him and after his death they sought to make others hate him too.

        • Point taken, however, I’m not interested in whether FDR was a Freemason as much as the influence those malign and malevolent forces exerted over him vis a vis his taking America into WWII via the Pearl Harbor fiasco/set-up/false flag (call it what you like). We know that WWII was a culling project to reshape Europe – a bigger version of the French Revolution which definitely had Freemasonic fingerprints all over it. WWII was heavily influenced by Zionists, and it is well established that Freemasonry and Zionism have deep connections.

          So I could have called FDR a Freemasonic/Zionist puppet, which may be more accurate,

          Agreed, not all Freemasons are bad – many at the lower levels have no idea what the true aim of the organization is, and what their masters at the top really do.

          I don’t want to get polemical but I don’t have any time for the left vs right dialectic that people get obsessed with. The lefties of today hate Trump, but that doesn’t make Trump great.

          All the men I mentioned above had positions that might have been described as left-of-center on certain issues, eg Huey Long’s “Share our Wealth” plan, but what made them great was their backing of the common man and the American nation, at the expense of the corporatocracy and Zio World Order, not just in words, but in action, which is why they had to be eliminated. I’m with Russ though – let’s be optimistic that more Longs will rise up and the tide will turn.

          • Well spoken, sir. Thanks for the clarification and I agree with you once more on much of what you have written – especially in regard to the negative impact Zionism has upon the world.
            I do have one question just for the sake of clarity and to promote critical thinking: If it’s true, as you say, that only high level Masons have true knowledge of what the fraternity is really up to, then you must be a high-level Mason… after all, you’ve claimed to know what the fraternity is really up to.
            Please don’t misunderstand what I’m saying here… my point is not that I believe you to be a Mason but that I believe your argument against Masonry is a poor one.
            The enemy of our people and culture is not the mythical masonic boogeyman that supposedly lurks in the shadows. The enemy of our people and culture is the Zio World Order which operates in plain sight, controlling our media, our entertainment industry, our economy, our foreign policy, our education system, etc., etc.

            • Just a slight correction – I did not say that ‘only high level Masons have true knowledge of what the fraternity is really up to’. What I did say (or intended to say) is that many lower level Masons don’t really know what the organization is about. There is a difference.

              There have been hundreds of books written about Freemasonry in the last couple hundred years, many by former Masons, some even purporting to be ex-33rd degree Masons. One obviously needs to be selective in choosing what one reads here, but the information is not lacking. So I guess lower level Masons have little excuse for NOT knowing!

              Two of the most well known authors who wrote about secret societies, John Robison in the late 18th C. with his “Proofs of a Conspiracy” and Nesta Webster in the early 20th C. with her “Secret Societies and Subversive Movements”, wrote about Freemasonry and it’s pivotal role, albeit through infiltration by the Bavarian Illuminati, in many of the upheavals in Continental Europe, most notably the French Revolution of 1789. Webster contended that the ‘Jewish peril’, or what we call Zionism today, was the real force behind Illuminism. Freemasonry provided the vehicle with its well established networks and crucial advantage of secrecy.

              Robison was attempting to warn the British against their own version of the French Revolution. Unfortunately he was more than a century too late. There already had been a revolution in England, except it happened in two stages.

              Rather than overthrow both throne and altar in one bloody murderous rampage like the French did, the English first smashed the Church in 1531 when Henry VIII declared himself the head of the English Church, then, more than a century later, Oliver Cromwell completed the English Revolution when he overthrew the monarchy, beheading Charles I in 1649. Cromwell was aided and abetted by Jewish bankers he had let back into the country for the first time since Edward I kicked them out in 1290. The ‘Royal Family’ have been allowed to remain, but they wield no power.

              So Jews were penetrating the British lodges in the mid 17th century, more than 100 years before Weishaupt formed the Illuminati.

              Anyway, I will stop here, as the subject is like unrolling a ball of wool – it goes on forever. Suffice it to say, I see Zionism, Illuminism and Freemasonry as the Unholy Trinity – the first is the black heart of the beast; the second is its warped, over-inflated ego; the third is its robust structure, network, and secrecy.

              • Hmmm…. I just guess the point I was attempting to make was that that the Zionists, in my opinion, don’t deserve to have their blame shared with anyone else.

                • Zionists and the Jew dominated bankster oligarchs have been experts in recruiting influential people and organizations over to their side, through infiltration, blackmail, bribery, compromise and indebtedness, especially compromise/blackmail and indebtedness. They got Wilson and Churchill this way, and through their debt-slavery machine a.k.a. the World Bank/IMF they have got entire countries to jump to their command. America is theirs, Europe is theirs, the Soviet Union was theirs, they kicked up a stink when Putin tried to exert some independence, and they are busy trying to take it back. They nearly had the Catholic Church around the time they engineered their Federal Reserve Coup, and failed, but they always persist, and finally got their prize in 1958. Freemasonry is no different.

                  Are all these organizations (including Freemasonry), countries and people to “blame” for falling victim? Yes and no. But that is not the important question. The pertinent question is – who do they serve? The answer to that is pretty clear.

Post a Comment

%d bloggers like this: