Typical. You wait several months for news to arrive then two absolute whoppers come along in quick succession. No sooner do I step away from my PC for a few days R&R than Justin McCarthy leaves the post of Waterford manager and David Fitzgerald is appointed to replace him. That'll learn me for daring to leave the house. Still, it does reduce the possibility of making predictions that, a la Murray Walker, are instantly proven wrong. Leaving aside the Davy Fitz one, something that would have led to much ill-advised scoffing had I been in a position to record said scoffing for posterity, let's stick with the defenestration of Justin and the role of the three protagonists: Justin himself, the County Board and the players.

As with the debacle down in Cork (an event from which the keester of karma well and truly farted in Cork's face last Sunday), the only people who can have any legitimacy in the hiring and firing of the manager is the County Board. Either they publicly back the manager to the hilt or they fire him. There is no in-between. With that in mind, the County Board can be relatively pleased with the turn of events. Their public face was to back Justin and co. and to express regret at his untimely departure. It's entirely possible that privately they told him he had lost their confidence, but there's nothing duplicitous about this as long as they would have been willing to follow through on any implications of such an expression. It allows him to take a dignified way out while asserting their authority in the matter. If they privately expressed confidence in him but he decided to jump anyway then no harm done there. They can't force him to keep the job. The speed with which Fitzgerald has been appointed suggests the former is more likely than the latter i.e. they had a plan B ready in case Justin did go, but the County Board can say with a straight face that ownership of the post of manager remains firmly with them and player power be damned.

The players, on the other hand, will not be keeping a straight face about any element of this affair. When David Beckham swiftly announced his resignation as England captain after the 2006 World Cup, one pundit whose identity currently escapes me was equally swift to snort that it wasn't Beckham's title to resign, that the captaincy was the gift of the coach and was awarded on a game-to-game basis. The same is true of membership of the Waterford hurling squad. If any member of the panel has a problem with the coach then the solution is for him to walk away from the panel and let the County Board decide whether his presence is sufficiently important for them to replace the coach. The manner in which players react to failure by ganging up on the coach speaks of a group who lack enough self-awareness to see that it is themselves who might be the problem. The most obnoxious expression of that was Dan Shanahan's cold shouldering of Justin McCarthy as he came off against Clare. Now, this is not a criticism of Dan's extra-curricular work for the likes of the Waterford County Council, B&Q or John Kelly Car Sales. Honestly, it's not. Justin obviously felt they didn't interfere with his preparation for the hurling side of life and that's good enough for me that they didn't interfere. But it was Justin McCarthy who presided over the transformation of Dan Shanahan from a fringe member of the panel being shown how it was done by the likes of Eoin Kelly to as acclaimed a Hurler of the Year as there has ever been. The match against Clare was the first time that Dan had failed to score a goal in a Munster championship match he had started under Justin McCarthy. For Dan to behave as if that transformation was coincidental and that this man on the sideline was holding him back and therefore worthy of such contempt was obnoxious in the extreme. The rebellious meeting in Tramore tells us that the players were comfortable to be associated with such boorishness. It wouldn't be too much to hope that they feel a bit ashamed of themselves as the dust has settled on Justin's departure.

And what of Justin? Gerald McCarthy plámásed us all in his weekly News & Star column during his stint in the job, which meant that when he departed many bitter tears were shed. All this despite one League final and one Munster final being the sum total of his achievements in charge, and neither of them happening in his last three years in charge. Compare and contrast this with Justin McCarthy, never the most lovable of characters. His media work consisted of a series of pre-appointment columns which amounted to a pitch for the job. There were no love letters straight from the heart. Indeed he could be extraordinarily prickly, such as imposing bans on players talking to the media. This probably contributed to the manner of his departure. It's not wishy-washy to say that a manager, like any manager in any walk of life, has to keep his charges a little bit sweet. If he treats them as drones who serve a purely utilitarian function then he shouldn't be surprised when they aren't there when the chips are down. That doesn't excuse the manner in which the players behaved. As stated earlier, if any individual had a problem it was up to him to tell the manager that he wasn't available for selection rather than connive with his fellow players to remove him. But if Justin is as tetchy in private as he seems to be in public that it can't be said that they didn't have their reasons.

However grouchy his public persona might be, it's heartbreaking to see him leave in the manner that he did. When Gerald McCarthy left with the good wishes of all Déisigh ringing in his ears, it was because there was a sense that he had fought the good fight and brought the team as far as he could. No need for recriminations in those circumstances. Had Justin left at the end of last season his successor would have been burdened with the notion that the other fella was ditched because the National League and Munster championship are inadequate. Put that way, it really shows up the idea that Justin's tenure was one of failure. The Waterford team of the late 1950's and early 1960's won three Munster titles and one National League and had to rely on a last minute goal in the drawn 1959 All-Ireland to ensure their one Liam McCarthy Cup success, all in the days when the Munster winners got straight through to the All-Ireland final. It's correct to say that the dividing line between success and failure can be razor thin, but to say that Waterford team was a success while the current one is a failure is to reduce the dividing line to the width of an atom.

It has been the classic application of Enoch Powell's aphorism that all political careers, unless cut short by death, are doomed to end in failure. Had Justin McCarthy been struck by lightning even as recently as the day before the Clare match we would all be weeping for our lost leader. And it is in politics that we can find the seed of the best tribute that can be paid to Justin McCarthy. Joe Lee, when writing on the handover of power from William T Cosgrave to Eamon de Valera, said that it was precisely because it was so bitter that made it so dignified. It has been that very dignity as he faced the reality of those whom he had made great tearing him down that showed what a class act he is. David Fitzgerald will have the opportunity for us to say he won't be missed, but he will certainly be a hard act to follow.

Klar tale fra en engelsk hædersmand. Download filmen her (Rivers of Blood, 748,22 MB, via BitTorrent)

Man kan downloade filmen ved hjælp af det gratis program Azureus

Hat tip Kim Urias - læs hans fremragende indlæg her (bedre sent end aldrig)

Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), believes that the failed policy risks inflaming racism among millions of young mothers and working professionals.

In an address to mark the 40th anniversary of Enoch Powell’s infamous “rivers of blood” speech in which Powell warned of apocalyptic social consequences if the rising tide of immigration were not halted, Phillips will say that the predictions have not come true. But he will warn that mass immigration has caused a different form of “war” that is just as worrying.

Mere på Times Online

Interaktivt kort over indvandrergrupperne i UK.

Den politisk korrekte artikel skriver, at Enoch Powells forudsigelser ikke er gået i opfyldelse - dertil kan vi bare sige 'endnu'. Læg mærke til, at de omtaler Powells tale som 'infam'.

Mere Enoch Powell her.

Sunday [was] the 40th anniversary of perhaps the most significant speech made in British politics since the Second World War: Enoch Powell’s “Rivers of Blood” speech.

It is also, therefore, near to the 40th anniversary of one of the greatest lies in British politics since the Second World War: that this remarkably accurate prediction of the dangers of enforced multiculturalism has “prevented” a rational debate on immigration, since anyone who seeks to engage in it will be branded as a “racist”.

It would be a comfort if this position were merely ignorant. It isn’t. Powell is used by the Left—and that includes many people in the Conservative Party—as a cynical excuse to conceal their own failures in imposing proper immigration controls and maintaining social cohesion.

They start by saying Powell was a racist, which is also a deliberate lie. They then say that anyone who mentions immigration will now be tarred with that brush, which must therefore be a lie as well. This is convenient for those who have betrayed the people of this country by imposing an immigrant community so large upon it that it struggles to integrate—and, indeed, who have betrayed many of those immigrants too. Yet it won’t wash.

Long before Powell made his speech—which ought to be issued to every home in the land, since I rarely hear it quoted anything other than completely inaccurately—there was a code of silence about immigration. Long before we knew the term “political correctness”, it was viewed as simply impolite to raise the subject.

Powell reported in his speech what he found to be the alarmingly strong views some of his constituents in Wolverhampton had about mass immigration, the way it was affecting their lives and the strain it was putting on local public services. He said he knew there would be “a chorus of execration” that he could say such things. But he asked a more important question as an MP whose electors bring him a deeply unsettling problem: by what right, instead, would he have remained silent?

Powell had served in India in the 1940s. He fell in love with the country, its cultures and its peoples so profoundly that he wished to spend the rest of his life there. He learned to speak two Indian languages fluently. This does not stop point-scoring spud-thick politicians accusing him of racism, bigotry and other vices. A few months ago it did not stop the poseur who leads the Tory party sacking one of his parliamentary candidates for saying that Powell was right. Soon, Dave will be booting out people who say the Pope is Catholic.

Many of our immigrants have assimilated over the past 40 years. Equally, many have chosen not to. Four of them murdered 52 innocent people on London’s public transport network nearly three years ago. Others, according to the police and the security services, are busily engaged in trying to repeat the incident. So far they have been thwarted: but for how long?

This is all the legacy of those who refused to take Powell seriously; of militant Leftists who mischievously cry “racism” to avoid any sensible debate on immigration; of well-heeled politicians who saw no harm in driving millions of poor immigrants into ghettos, with a perfect disregard for their welfare and for that of the people already living in those places; and of ministers in this very Government who for years saw no reason to enforce immigration controls at all, in the interests of deliberately destroying our national identity.

Powell was the greatest Conservative thinker in political life in living memory. He foresaw what were then unimaginable tensions caused by forcibly altering the character of a country. We should remember him tomorrow with enhanced respect. For he was right.

Forty years after Powell predicted disastrous social consequences if immigration levels were not reduced, the reformed multiculturalist and chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission took to the floor at the same hotel in Birmingham to call for renewed debate and tell his audience that a managed migration policy was the answer.

Speaking to representatives from local authorities, police and equality groups at the MacDonald Burlington Hotel, Phillips said: "The problem is that though the inequality may actually be caused by a lack of public investment, it may be attributed to the presence of immigrants." The full speech text - Not A River of Blood, But A Tide of Hope - Managed Immigration, Active Integration is on the EHRC website.

Of course, the anniversary of the rivers of blood speech has received a lot of media attention, with television programmes and newspaper articles asking was Powell right? Of course not, answers Darcus Howe in the New Statesman, who also point out that Powell was originally a strong proponent of immigration - as Minister of Health, he canvassed Caribbean women to serve as nurses in British hospitals, and was signed up to the idea that West Indians should be recruited to drive British buses, and Punjabis to produce parts for the engineering industry in British factories and foundries. His change of heart came with the realisation that these were not the servile workers he expected. Instead, in common with downtrodden people all over the world in 1968, they had the temerity to expect equal rights and justice.

Paul Gilroy, Professor of Social Theory at the LSE and the author of There Ain't No Black in the Union Jack: The Cultural Politics of Race and Nation, writes of a land of tea drinking, hokey cokey and rivers of blood, and the current "chorus of racial realists, neo-patriots, clash of civilisation-ists and practitioners of joined-up thinking who thrill at being able to use expurgated Enoch as a sock puppet with which to enact their own anxieties about swamping, security, failed multiculture, social cohesion and home-grown terrorism".

Gilroy asks of Powell's apologists, translators and updaters - just when are these rivers of blood to start foaming, and whose blood was he actually talking about in his vile speech anyway? "This fondness for Powell must be finally extinguished. 20 years have elapsed since the point when, according to Powell's prediction, the black man would gain "the whip hand over the white". We need to understand what makes his fantasies of a racial war in our country such an enduring touchstone for xenophobia and hatred. Why can't his vexed memory be left alone?"

Phillips' address follows two recent myth-busting reports revealing that migrants in the UK do not commit more crime than Britons, and that, contrary to claims from Government ministers, migrants do not have biased access social rented housing either.

As Jack Dromey, Deputy Gen Sec of Britain's largest trade union, Unite, put it: "It has been a bad week for the myth-makers who demonise the migrants who come to our shores for a better life and to build Britain". But, in a letter to the Guardian, he also expresses doubt that these facts will put an end to the tabloid lies.

Forty years after Powell predicted disastrous social consequences if immigration levels were not reduced, the reformed multiculturalist and chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission took to the floor at the same hotel in Birmingham to call for renewed debate and tell his audience that a managed migration policy was the answer.

Speaking to representatives from local authorities, police and equality groups at the MacDonald Burlington Hotel, Phillips said: "The problem is that though the inequality may actually be caused by a lack of public investment, it may be attributed to the presence of immigrants." The full speech text - Not A River of Blood, But A Tide of Hope - Managed Immigration, Active Integration is on the EHRC website.

Of course, the anniversary of the rivers of blood speech has received a lot of media attention, with television programmes and newspaper articles asking was Powell right? Of course not, answers Darcus Howe in the New Statesman, who also point out that Powell was originally a strong proponent of immigration - as Minister of Health, he canvassed Caribbean women to serve as nurses in British hospitals, and was signed up to the idea that West Indians should be recruited to drive British buses, and Punjabis to produce parts for the engineering industry in British factories and foundries. His change of heart came with the realisation that these were not the servile workers he expected. Instead, in common with downtrodden people all over the world in 1968, they had the temerity to expect equal rights and justice.

Paul Gilroy, Professor of Social Theory at the LSE and the author of There Ain't No Black in the Union Jack: The Cultural Politics of Race and Nation, writes of a land of tea drinking, hokey cokey and rivers of blood, and the current "chorus of racial realists, neo-patriots, clash of civilisation-ists and practitioners of joined-up thinking who thrill at being able to use expurgated Enoch as a sock puppet with which to enact their own anxieties about swamping, security, failed multiculture, social cohesion and home-grown terrorism".

Gilroy asks of Powell's apologists, translators and updaters - just when are these rivers of blood to start foaming, and whose blood was he actually talking about in his vile speech anyway? "This fondness for Powell must be finally extinguished. 20 years have elapsed since the point when, according to Powell's prediction, the black man would gain "the whip hand over the white". We need to understand what makes his fantasies of a racial war in our country such an enduring touchstone for xenophobia and hatred. Why can't his vexed memory be left alone?"

Phillips' address follows two recent myth-busting reports revealing that migrants in the UK do not commit more crime than Britons, and that, contrary to claims from Government ministers, migrants do not have biased access social rented housing either.

As Jack Dromey, Deputy Gen Sec of Britain's largest trade union, Unite, put it: "It has been a bad week for the myth-makers who demonise the migrants who come to our shores for a better life and to build Britain". But, in a letter to the Guardian, he also expresses doubt that these facts will put an end to the tabloid lies.

Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), marked the 40th anniversary of Enoch Powell's speech in an address on the matter of racial segregation in the UK. Phillips pointed out that Powell's predictions of violence between races had not come true but that

we have seen the emergence of a kind of cold war in some parts of the country, where very separate communities exist side by side... with poor communication across racial or religious lines.

Wolverhampton has been described as less of a city and more of a collection of tribes and villages, with around 80 ethnic groups. Our local community action group organises an annual fun day, where community groups set up stalls and promote their activities. There is the the scouts (white, middle class), the Caribbean association, various Asian ladies well-being groups, an Asian dance group, a gospel choir and others. At the last two fun days St Luke's church was the only multi-cultural group. I don't expect it to be different this year.

they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth." (Revelation 5:9-10)

There is little or nothing the government can do. This multicultural government wants social cohesion without God. This will not happen because faith and cultural identity are so closely entwined in many ethnic groups. In Malaysia it was said "to be Malay is to be Muslim". In Blakenhall, to be Sikh is to be Punjabi. The Church of England is hardly an exception to this rule. I am regularly embarrassed by how white and middle class the members of the clergy are and this is reflected in our churches. There are signs of change at the top and at the fringes. The most famous bishops in the country are arguably Michael Nazir-Ali and John Sentamu.

Churches in multi-cultural settings need to work hard so that they don't become homogenous but instead reflect the reality of Revelation 5. As Christ redeems people by his death for their sin he makes them members of kingdom so his reign is seen on the earth.

Tim Keller said churches need to work hard on making the leadership of churches multi-cultural. Our church wardens are Jamaican and God has been pleased to answer our prayers for ministry trainees who are not white and middle class. One is coming from Ghana and the other is an Asian South African. It will be much harder work for the leadership to understand each other due to a lack of shared cultural assumptions, but the hard work will be worth it for Christ's sake and glory. Perhaps, then, the government will take notice.

Almost two-thirds of people in Britain fear race relations are so poor tensions are likely to spill over into violence, a BBC poll has suggested.

Of the 1,000 people asked, 60% said the UK had too many immigrants and half wanted foreigners encouraged to leave.

But the proportion of people describing themselves as "racially prejudiced" was down to 20%, compared with 24% in 2005.

Curiously the BBC study was commissioned to mark the 40th anniversary of Enoch Powell's "rivers of blood" speech. While Powell's speech was denounced by most mainstream politicians at the time and since, the survey clearly shows that many, if not majority of people share his views on immigration.

As a Black Country boy, I feel almost happy that Powell put Wolverhampton on the map, although I wish it was in better circumstances. I remember the first time I heard the name of Powell. We were in a history lesson and had been asked to do projects on something that interested us. A classmate chose Powell, but it didn't really register with me the significance of the man.

Obviously he has aroused a huge amount of controversy, both at the time, and since. I am amazed by the general feelings of support that still float around the place. Just a quick scan through the hits that Google provides indicates to me that the thoughts of Powell still resonate with many people. So was Powell really speaking for the people? Unfortunately I think that he was. At least in the 1960s. I'm not so sure that the views are as prevalent any more. That is not to say they no longer exist, far from it, the small but vocal support for the BNP serves to prove this.

The whole affair though serves to raise an interesting question from a political point of view. Should governments act on behalf of the majority which elected them (generally), even if the issues they are acting upon are morally and ethically flawed? I ask this in light of the "Commonwealth Immigrations Act" which was brought in around the same time as Powell was making his name in politics. The population, generally, responded positivey to the act, although it was, at least according to The Spectator, "one of the most immoral pieces of legislation to have emerged from any British Parliament". Is this indicative of the government appeasing the voters against the tide of common sense? Or was it a necessary step to avoid unrestricted access to British infrastructure, something which, if remaining unchecked, could have collapsed Britain?

Finally to conclude this brief piece I think it is interesting to note how quickly reputations can be broken. Powell was a hugely intelligent, well-educated, respected man. That he has been portrayed as some idiotic racialist following the speech is, to me at least, wrong. Now I disagree with most of what he said in that speech, but I will not pretend that he was stupid. Which perhaps makes the whole affair worse.

For the moment, the jury remains out on Powell, some see him as an "enormous folk hero, a tribune of Britain's silent white majority" (Racist Nation? BBC History, March), others see him as a repugnant character, representative of very distinctly right wing approach to immigration. For me, I see him as someone who proved to be ultimately miguided, but who's head was in the right place.

Admiral Blake - Commander of the English Fleet

On 20th April 1657, the English Fleet, commanded by Admiral Blake, destroyed the Spanish Fleet in the Battle at Santa Cruz.

On 20th April 1770, Captain Cook discovered New South Wales in Australia.

On 20th April 1968 Enoch Powell made his “Rivers of Blood” speech, which attacked the government’s immigration policy.

 Britishness is about is about tolerance not intolerance. It’s about allowing people to have dual identities, for example being Welsh or Muslim and at the same time being British. Such co-existence of communities provides unhindered movement between peoples. This provides our sense of belonging to a time and place through commonly shared values.

People who terrorise us may live in Britain but they are not British simply because they don’t respect, maybe even appreciate our laws, the parliamentary and democratic political structures, traditional values of mutual tolerance, respect for equal rights. Yes some of these structures are inherently flawed and evidently prejudicial, but taking time to challenge these flaws is being British.

Britishness is about assimilation into our established customs, values and beliefs in order to give people a sense of national identity but not at the expense of their own heritage. Our Union flag symbolises the tolerance of difference by recognising our similarities. Maybe it’s time we all sat the Britishness test so we could find out exactly who we are!

By researching the movement of second career individuals into teaching I challenged the conceptual usefulness of ‘social-class mobility’ and ‘tourism’ and instead argue the term migration is more appropriate mechanism when identifying social processes. Mobility implies free movement in any direction both up and down.

Indeed the word mobility implies a form of movement that is open to one and all either in its relative or absolute term. More importantly the idea of mobility ignores the various obstacles people face on these social journeys. For any migratory movement involves crossing graduated processes, barriers and procedures of change rather than the spontaneous agency implicit surrounding the language of mobility.

Therefore the migrant is someone who consciously undertakes an arduous social journey in order to move from one occupation to another. For example a woman employed in a traditionally male occupation, or an older person seeking employment or the working-class person taking up a middle-class occupation like teaching. All these people experience corrosive patterns of prejudice, fear and discrimination, in the same way an ethnic minority experiences prejudice coming into the UK.

This perspective isn’t undermining the centuries of horrendous experiences black people have had at the hands of white people. Instead it’s arguing that the vast majority of us experience the horror of prejudice, and so we have more things in common with each other, than differences.

Until we recognise our similarities we won’t see the barriers we erect that prevent equal socio-economic opportunities, socio-cultural mixing and the ability to engage everyone in civic participation and belonging. You only have to recognise how alienated white working-class males are in the UK to see that prejudice alienates everyone. Once people's eyes are opened to the alienation caused by the prejudice then we'll collectively be able to point the finger at those people who do terrorise us without being called racist.

 On the one hand there’s the prejudice arising from fear. Post 9/11 and 7/7 any fear of colour, especially Muslim colour, can be rationalised through terror. Yet these acts of terrorism came after racial prejudice had been firmly grounded in our national psyche. So any prejudice must stem from something else and this is the key dynamic, prejudice.

As a nation we are encouraged to highlight social differences between people, be it on intellect, age, gender, sexuality, appearance, social class etc. Exploiting differences is a fundamental aspect of our social interaction which can be traced back centuries through either the lens of social-class, gender, ethnicity, age etc. Such a dynamic is exploited by powerful elites as a means of social control in order to retain their dominance and distance through barriers of social difference.

This approach prevents any notion of integration through multiculturalism from taking hold. For example in education independent schools keep a minority of children out of mainstream state education so they never have to integrate with the majority. Similarly existing discourses of multiculturalism conveniently ignores the fact the UK is comprised of four countries with distinct cultural differences. Indeed Wales is expanding its cultural difference through the growth of the Welsh language, yet we largely remain comfortable with these examples of multiculturalism mainly because we don't see the difference.

Yet on this basis the vast majority of us experience more prejudice than we realise. Indeed it's so subtle more of us experiences migratory prejudice than we realise. As a secondary school teacher I have witnessed an increasing number of adults entering teaching as a second or third career due the increased popularity of SCITT (school-centred initial teacher training) based courses. An individuals’ decision to change career is as diverse as their social, economic and cultural backgrounds. And it’s this diversity or difference which makes the migration from one job to another difficult or sometimes prohibitive. Because when you arrive having maybe crossed a social border you’re viewed by the ‘indigenous’ as an outsider, a threat and therefore an immigrant.

If only he had said "blood on the Tube" he would have probably been alright. "

By Nigel Hastilow
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 13/04/2008

Nigel Hastilow is the MP Con candidate canned for saying Enoch Powell's name.

Two great comments below, but many more. The comment thread at UK Daily Telegraph is almost solid BNP. Even the usual liberal racist rot comments about pro BNP are fewer in number and less extreme. The people are uniting. The white working class, middle class and even parts of the upper class may realize their number is up unless they vote BNP now.

Truth is the great leveler. Just as the Battle of Britain 1940 brought the British together so the Battle of Britain of the 21st century is bringing them together. That is British as in US Census Code 011 British. The meaning of British recognized by the U.S. government. That was the one that saved the British, as in Census Code 011 British, in WWI and WWII. We must all stick together or we will all be finished together.

==Comments at Daily Telegraph by Pro BNP nationalist patriots

A friend of mine asked me recently if I would have a problem with all my neighbours being foreign (actually he said "black", in the context of newspaper reports of "white flight"). I think that question is the wrong way round: if I am in the minority, surely what matters is whether the majority have a problem with me? And why should I presume that they may not? If my people have been identified as racist, why not other peoples?

For instance, speaking again of practical living and not of impending "water wars", I may not have a problem with miscegenation, but it is certainly possible that an immigrant community may. At that point, my own morality of hospitality towards strangers may be irrelevant in the face of the practical caste system into which I have been thrown - in my own country.

Liberals may be unconcerned by such a possibility since their only interaction with strangers is through trade and, perhaps, fornication. Civilised people, on the other hand, seek stronger relationships of sympathy and solidarity as the foundation of social care and support. We are entitled to err on the side of caution and seek to preserve what we have by controlling immigration.
Posted by Anon on April 13, 2008 8:29 AM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/04/13/do1306.xml

Nigel,

My compliments on the brevity of your political career. At least you have been able to retain your principles, and you can, if you wish, claim that love of kind among the English is dearer to you than personal ambition.

You may consider that you have had a close shave with moral oblivion. Now you are free to educate yourself properly on the great existential question. For the avoidance of doubt, that question is twofold:-

Should the natural rights and interests of our own people be pre-eminent over those of power and wealth? And if they should, how do we achieve that pre-eminence.

All other questions - about the EU or the economy or personal freedom - are wholly secondary.
Posted by Guessedworker on April 13, 2008 11:45

==
This is the stuff of solid British sentiment. Time to stand up and be heard.

read more | digg story

This is the time for many, a great many to come to the aid of their country and vote BNP. I know not course other cubicle cowards may take, but as for me, give me the courage to vote BNP or give me a yellow stain in the form of my LibLabCon thrall bumper sticker.

It starts with a few, as does every epoch of mortal threat to a people's survival. We are in such times. There is a great world wide effort to extinct the white race. Enoch Powell told the truth and what he said is coming to pass. It is now time for whites everywhere to stop running and start marching. We must speak up or forever become extinct.

One way migration does not end in a mixture. It may begin with a mixture. It may have a mixture in the middle, but it ends with complete genetic replacement. This is the Wright Island Model Theorem. This is not a study, its a theorem. It is happening. Theorems can't be bargained with. You don't use your emotions to substitute for theorems. You use your emotions to do what the theorem tells you to do to survive, stop all immigration above 25,000 per year in the US or 5,000 per year in the UK. Vote BNP. Keep voting BNP. Vote the Constitution Party in the U.S.

The nationalist patriot party has surged in Italy. Just as in France, a promise was made to stop immigration. But the people must hold them to their promise. Write, fax, phone your representative to stop all immigration above 5,000 to 25,000 per year in your country. That includes illegals, student visas, temporary workers, children of immigrants, etc. There is no more time to dither. Vote, fax, march now.

read more | digg story

==Ref

David Leppard

THE head of Britain’s race relations watchdog says lack of control over immigration has led to a racial “cold war” among rival ethnic communities.

Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), believes that the failed policy risks inflaming racism among millions of young mothers and working professionals.

In an address to mark the 40th anniversary of Enoch Powell’s infamous “rivers of blood” speech in which Powell warned of apocalyptic social consequences if the rising tide of immigration were not halted, Phillips will say that the predictions have not come true. But he will warn that mass immigration has caused a different form of “war” that is just as worrying.

Actually they have come true, if you read what he said.

“In essence, Powell so discredited any talk of planning or control that it gave rise to a migration policy in which government knew too little about what was going on. Ironically, Powellism and the weakening of control it engendered may have led Britain to admitting more immigrants than fewer.”

Blame it on Powell. That's like blaming Hitler on Churchill. If only he hadn't gotten him angry.

Enoch Powell was England's greatest Cassandra, even more than Winston. And the consequences are far worse. We are facing total extinction by immigration according to the Wright Island Model Theorem. Wright and Powell, two warnings we keep ignoring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enoch_Powell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_Blood_speech

http://www.enochpowell.com/default.asp

Wiki External Links

• Rivers of Blood Speech
• BBC Radio 4 Document – 'The Woman Who Never Was?'
• Fiona Barton, 'Widow in Enoch Powell's Rivers of Blood speech really did exist', The Daily Mail, 2 February 2007
• Radio Interview on Immigration Powell interviewed shortly after his controversial "Rivers of Blood" speech. (Audio clip, 3:31 mins, Requires RealPlayer to listen)
• www.EnochPowell.com
• Press reaction from the Birmingham Post
• Rivers of Blood, The Real Source BBC Radio 4

==

http://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/06/30/population-genetics-island-model-one-way-migration/

“We investigated various cases of the island model with stochastic migration. If the population is infinite, the immigrants have a fixed gene frequency and the alleles are neutral, the gene frequency on the island converges to that of the immigrants.”

Genetics. 1979 January; 91(1): 163–176.

Copyright notice

The Island Model with Stochastic Migration

Thomas Nagylaki

Department of Biophysics and Theoretical Biology, The University of Chicago, 920 East 58th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=12139

As pointed out in a previous post:

The theorem doesn’t say you get a mixture of old and new. The theorem says you get complete replacement of the old by the new. The old goes extinct. This is pure genetic replacement. It doesn’t matter if there is an intermediate mixture or not. Over time, the initial stock is replaced completely. Promises of a mixture are false.

   

 It will soon be 40 years since Enoch Powell delivered his now infamous ‘Rivers of Blood Speech’. His polemic argued for the repatriation of black people as integration he argued was doomed to failure on the grounds of visible difference – skin colour.

Integration, assimilation or multiculturalism, are different models which are used to describe the political processes being used to eliminate difference. But difference persists, indeed post 9/11 the gulf between colour and whiteness is arguably wider than ever. But what are issues about race really about? Ostensibly it’s about racial difference; however the human genome project has largely eliminated such differences.

There is no black gene, in the way there is no ‘criminal’ gene, there’s just us, people. You have to look at it like this there are billions of human beings living on earth at this very moment. We all share the ability to learn a language, reproduce, and grow and development in the same way. Similarly we all age the same and are anatomically and physiologically identical in form and function as well as being susceptible to the same diseases. We all laugh, cry, love, feel pain hunger and desire no matter what our race. Therefore the mapping of human genes has told us we are all more alike than we are different indeed any difference is largely superficial.

Nevertheless, any difference no matter how superficial it is can be exaggerated to the point it becomes the most visible dynamic. Skin colour is superficial, it’s a coating, a cover, a layer of and not the person yet it’s become the key difference between people. Paradoxically legions of white people go to great lengths and expense every year to darken their skin. Moreover once home from holiday they even ‘top-up’ their tan so they can continue displaying their new coating of colour. Therefore it would seem that colour per se isn’t the basis of prejudice so what is? Part 2;   Part 3;   Part 4

Tomorrow is the 40th anniversary of Enoch Powell's earth-shaking public demolition, of the "rentacrowd"-fascist-anti-liberal-fabian-nasty-precapitalist-barbarian "consensus". He was referring, in his speech to the Wolverhampton Conservative Assiciation, in particular to the ways in which a civilisation ought to handle the influx of people to itself - not in itself a bad thing, and he never said it was. Quite the contrary, if you read it below. 

It's just that the buggers who want to destroy us because our nation has shown them to be hideous archaic destroyers themselves, got uppity that the truth would be out. The fascist murdering pederast traitorist pig  "Ted" Heath, who ought to be disinterred and publicly burnt, and was possibly an even worse Prime Minister than Gordon Brown, thought that Powell was letting the side down by exposing the agenda of the ruiners.

Here's the speech. he never said "Rivers of Blood", as a phrase. Powell's great handicap in the emerging society whose policies he was criticising, was to assume that all readers, everywhere, would understand his classical allusions, and would automatically know that if his enemies said he said "Rivers of Blood", then they would be discounted as liars and turds:

Enoch Powell’s speech to the Annual General Meeting of the West Midlands Area Conservative Political Centre, Birmingham, England, April 20, 1968.

[VDARE.COM NOTE: Everyone refers to this as the “Rivers of Blood” speech. As you can see below, he didn’t quite say that. Simon Heffer’s excellent biography of Powell was not called Rivers of Blood, it was called Like The Roman.]

POWELL:-

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. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future. Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: “if only”, they love to think, “if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen”. Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.

At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it, deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.

A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalized 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 have been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan't be satisfied till I have seen them settled overseas. In this country in fifteen or twenty 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 this 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 fifteen or twenty years, on present trends, there will be in this country 3 1/2 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 5-7 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 different sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.

As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase. Already by 1985 the native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact above all which creates the extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is hardest for politicians to take, action where the difficulties lie in the present but the evils to be prevented or minimized lie several parliaments ahead.

The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by such a prospect is to ask: “How can its dimensions be reduced?” Granted it be not wholly preventable, can it be limited, bearing in mind that numbers are of the essence: the significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent.

The answers to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational: by stopping or virtually stopping, further inflow, and by promoting the maximum outflow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the Conservative Party.

It almost passes belief that at this moment twenty or thirty additional immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every week—and that means fifteen or twenty additional families of a decade or two hence. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population.

It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.

So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancées whom they have never seen. Let no one suppose that the flow of dependants will automatically tail off. On the contrary, even at the present admission rate of only 5,000 a year by voucher, there is sufficient for a further 325,000 dependants per annum ad infinitum, without taking into account the huge reservoir of existing relations in this country—and I am making no allowance at all for fraudulent entry.

In these circumstances nothing will suffice but that the total inflow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative measures be taken without delay. I stress the words “for settlement”. This has nothing to do with the entry of Commonwealth citizens, any more than of aliens, into this country, for the purposes of study or of improving their qualifications, like (for instance) the Commonwealth doctors who, to the advantage of their own countries, have enabled our hospital service to be expanded faster than would otherwise have been possible. These are not, and never have been, immigrants.

I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the population would still leave the basic character of the national danger unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten years or so. Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the Conservative Party's policy: the encouragement of re-emigration.

Nobody can make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous grants and assistance, would choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent. Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted. I can only say that, even at present, immigrants in my own constituency from time to time come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such a policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity of the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter the prospects for the future.

It can be no part of any policy that existing family should be kept divided; but there are two directions in which families can be reunited, and if our former and present immigration laws have brought about the division of families, albeit voluntary or semi-voluntarily, we ought to be prepared to arrange for them to be reunited in their countries of origin.

In short, suspension of immigration and encouragement of re-emigration hang together, logically and humanly, as two aspects of the same approach.

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 descendants 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 inquisition as to his reasons and motives 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 over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong. The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and 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 the gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is they know not what they do.

Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth immigrant in Britain and the American Negro. The Negro population of the United states, which was already in existence before the United States became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they have only gradually and still incompletely come. The Commonwealth immigrant came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knows no discrimination between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free treatment under the National Health Service. Whatever drawbacks attended the immigrants—and they were drawbacks which did not, and do not, make admission into Britain by hook or by crook appear less than desirable—arose not from the law or from public policy or from administration but from those personal circumstances and accidents which cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to be different for another's.

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. 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.

On top of this, 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.

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 either 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. She did give her name and address, which I have detached from the letter which I am about to read. She was writing from Northumberland about something which is happening at this moment in my own constituency:

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 streets became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.

The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7 a.m. 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 her rates, she had 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 in a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letterbox. 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 wilfully 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 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 to boot.

We are on the verge of 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 practised 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 organize 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.

I know the BBC is nothing more than a conduit for the government's ideological sewage but I was still alarmed at the way someone in the BBC is stirring-up racial differences in Britain by highlighting that madman, Enoch Powell's, Rivers of Blood speech as it did today.

Why does the BBC have to keep on digging-up this stuff from the sewers of the British psyche? Is it the BBC's intention to revive Powell as some sort of martyred national hero in the eyes of a generation that has little or no memory of the racial strife and persecution this country went through in the 'sixties and more particularly under that very-British fascist, Margaret Thatcher?

How many black people have died and suffered at the hands of British white supremacists already? Is it the BBC's hope that they should be joined by many more in a Britain torn apart with economic and social turmoil?

As one who migrated to these islands nearly 50 years ago, I must say it in public: thanks to the BBC I have been made to feel like a Jew in Hitler's Germany.

Ol' Macky's Back in Town

Oh yes, there are certainly Nazis inside the BBC as there are in this abomination of a Nu Labor government and the Tories who are deliberately seeking to stir-up racial and nationalist turmoil with the intention of creating unrest and lawlessness so that they have an excuse to declare martial law and replace parliament altogether with a dictatorship.

I have said it many times before: Britain today is in a similar state to the last days of the German Weimar Republic when the Nazis were already taking over. The government has already scape-goated British Muslims as its surrogate Jews (a different slant on the traditional anti-semitism if you will). Already, anti-war campaigners are being persecuted by Britain's men-in-black. Thatcher destroyed the Trade Unions and turned Britain plc into one, vast concentration-camp.

Those who blame it all on "Europe" clearly have no idea of the domestic origins of the British police state. And while chattering on about 'national sovereignty' they forget that not only is the idea of a nation-state a feudal, capitalist concept but that any sovereignty the people had --and in imperialist Britain they never did have any-- has been superseded by a fascist state masquerading as a democracy.

And now, the BBC quite calculatedly revives the spectre of racism. It's clear to this new Jew why it is they're doing it ..

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.510346&w=425&h=350&fv=%26rel%3D0%26border%3D0%26] from www.youtube.com posted with vodpod

When Powell delivered his speech, Europe was awash with revolutionary zeal. Thousands of young Europeans rose in revolt

Forty years ago, the Conservative MP Enoch Powell delivered a speech in Birmingham aimed at mobilising "the British working man" against those of us who had arrived on these shores through postwar migration.

He spoke of a constituent so concerned by the rising numbers of black immigrants that he was determined to see that his three children settled abroad. Another constituent, an old lady who had lived in her street all her life, had been terrorised by black "piccaninnies". (This account turned out to be inaccurate.)

Powell let fly with a barely disguised attack on Britain's nascent black and Asian communities. Like the Roman, he saw "the Tiber foaming with much blood" as black and white turned on one another. And then came the final solution: mass repatriation of immigrants back to the countries from which we had come.

This year, around the anniversary of his speech, Channel 4 broadcast a documentary series that posed the question: "Was Powell right?" The series rather crudely identified moods and moments in the inner cities which, according to the producers, proved that his predictions were right.

But the fact is that no rivers of blood have flowed in the past 40 years. Racial attacks? Yes! Citizens, black and white, engaged in mass violence against each other? No. The producers suggested that the inner-city riots of 1981 had been a kind of vindication for Powell, but did not acknowledge that while these clashes had been mainly between black youngsters and the police, young white people had joined in - on the side of the black protesters.

Powell's intervention proved to be an unmitigated disaster. He was kicked off the Conservative front bench by the leader, Edward Heath, and his political career in effect ended. Apart from a small section of the white working class that demonstrated in his support, there was little else. His direct descendants in British politics are the members of the puny BNP, and it is to him they owe their existence.

When Powell delivered his speech, Europe was awash with revolutionary zeal. Thousands of young Europeans rose in revolt. Paris, Berlin, Rome and London seethed with discontent. Hands were stretched across the Atlantic to embrace the rising black revolt in the United States. South Africa, Rhodesia, Guinea-Bissau, Mozam bique, Namibia wilted under the presence of mass insurrection. All over the world campuses were transformed into revolutionary centres.

In the UK our immigrant communities were stirring, and it is upon this force in particular that Powell trained his firepower. Initially he had been a pioneer of mass immigration. As minister of health, he canvassed Caribbean women to serve as nurses in British hospitals. He had signed up to the idea that West Indians should be recruited to drive British buses, and Punjabis to produce parts for the engineering industry in British factories and foundries.

He changed his mind only because we were not the servile workers he expected. To raise the question "Was he right?" smacks of political illiteracy and historical bankruptcy. And today any member of parliament who speaks in Powellite language would find him or herself charged with incitement to commit terrorism.

So much has rolled with time.

New Statesman, 17 April 2008

The late Enoch Powell, renowned and respected British Conservative politican, described perfectly the general trend of politicians to spout absolute drivel for much of the time. What is more, his astute observation that many politicians not only speak nonsense, but that they also are fully aware of this, is more appropriate today on the left side of the American political scene than at any time in modern history.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have felt 'safe' in this world of self-perpetuating story-telling, precisely because they both have employed the same strategy and they have enjoyed, for the most part, gentle coverage in the media. They, too, have no doubt felt 'ashamed to stop', and yet, stop is exactly what the Clinton machine did - or, more accurately, came to a grinding halt - when the whole Bullets Over Bosnia Walter Mitty escapade was revealed to be a tale of dishonesty.

Nonsense is the only way to describe Clinton's fairytale.

Obama has certainly revelled in a smooth ride from most of the media thus far. Poppycock was one of the words that sprung to mind when he claimed not to have been 'in the congregation' during Jeremiah Wright's bigotted rantings. Shortly after that fraudulant claim, Obama had to flip-flop and confess he had in fact been aware of many of the racist and inflammatory comments that Wright had uttered over the years.

Obama persisted in the nonsense realm, however, by not 'throwing the pastor under the bus', as the media might say. Instead, he reserved a seat for this extremist at the front of the bus, while Obama's grandmother was tossed beneath the wheels.

Obama still feels 'safe.' After all, he is competing against the Clintons.

Fuck! I just watched the program and am speachless (comments later).

Black guy, a second generation Somali immigrant is quoting Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of Blood'

and attacking "migrants" from... Europe (and mostly from Poland).

Another black guy from Brixton complains that he can't see the white British working class anymore. And what he misses most are the conversation with the white builders... I mean is he joking, or brought up somewhere out of South London in 80's and 90's...

From what I understand after the WW2 Britain has absorbed a number of waves of immigration of non-European origin. With years passing British people got used to the coloured faces and accepted them. However, the newcomers are now more racist and hostile to immigration than Enoch Powell himself.

I am talking about New Zealand's Foreign Affairs Minister, Winston Peters, arguably one of countries finest political orators and controversial characters. In order to form a coalition government after the tight 2005 election, Winston was offered the ministerial posts as a treat for getting tied up with Labour for a term. He has been well behaved, sat when told, shook hands, and never pulled on his leash. It appears he has been well trained since his tail-wagging-the-dog days in the late 1990's coalition with the National Party.

Many cynically thought that offering Winston the Foreign Affairs job was a ploy by Labour to keep him out of the country and out of the way. You could see the benefit of keeping him out parliament if you wanted to rule without effective opposition.

People were also concerned with sending someone like Peters overseas as our representative. Peters' NZ First Party has a history of using race politics to attract votes. People were concerned that a politician with a history of giving Asians a hard time would be representing the country at APEC and shaking hands in China. I remember my disgust at receiving a pamphlet a few years back with grotesque statistics on Asian migration. If you can distort facts well enough you can argue anything. And racist policies appeal to some people. And a desperate party knows that. Especially in election year.

So with NZ First languishing below the 5 percent threshold (which might i add should be scrapped, it came as little surprise that the party resorted to its old tricks. And considering Mr Peter's position, it is also i little surprise that lapdog Peter Brown did his bidding. In comments that Enoch Powell would have been proud of, Brown ripped into Labour and National for letting too many Asians into the country. Although Peters' has backed his deputy, it is perhaps suspicious that it were Brown and not Peters making the comment. It appears to me that whilst New Zealand is setting about becoming the first western nation to sign a free trade agreement with China, it is best not to have a foreign Affairs Minister declare that New Zealand has too many Chinese.

Was Winston aware of Brown's intended tirade? I would say so. I would think he probably orchestrated the comments. As the party suffers below the threshold, these are the sort of comments that will save the party. As Winston was not in the position to make the comments, why not let Brown boost his profile and boost the parties support amongst its aging voter base.

Will it work? A Herald online poll asks readers whether they think Brown's comments are racist. Currently it sits at around 50% -50%. I think Peters will win Tauranga anyway (I think Bob the builder is bowing out of politics so not running against him this time). As for the parties support, I think the small parties may suffer again like in 2005, as the two large parties get the lions share of the media coverage. They will receive votes from those that want to keep the large parties in check, but as the party has promised to negotiate first with the party who received the most votes, right-leaning NZ First supporters may opt to vote for National instead to keep Labour from remaining in power. No doubt many were disappointed to see there vote effectively go to Labour last election. As it stands, I don't see them getting 5%, but Tauranga will see them back. Still early days.

Regardless of the result of the next election, much is to be learnt from having Winston as Foreign Affairs Minister. Let the party that wins the next election take note: Send the entire NZ First Party overseas!

Se det!