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.

%d bloggers like this:
Secured By miniOrange