Ernest,

Heath was truly wicked.

That so many saw the wisdom of his words at that time, - everyone but Heath and his europhile cronies that is, - and Heath's subsequent vendetta against Powell, shows the depth of Heath's treasonous intent.

Powell even spelt out the tools that would be used against us!...Hello MCB! - hello Canterbury! - hello sharia!...

"Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise 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."

Good quote that, Ernest; and yes David, truly wicked is not too strong a term for Heath.

Simon Heffer wrote Powells' official biography 'Like the Roman' in 1998. It's a hefty paperback volume and a terrific read.

What is interesting though is that while newspaper sales are falling year on year, tell-it-as-it-is online articles such as this are getting more hits and comments than ever before.
The 'people' want to read the uncensored truth, and they are getting it here on the web, not from print-newspapers,... and they are feeling the pinch.
Also, with the web's unlimited capacity to absorb data, every person can now get their letters posted and read around the world. Beat that.
(notice how the BBC Radio/TV are trying to play 'catch-up' at every opportunity. "Too late, suckers, you've burnt your bridges"). Ha!

And here is the result of the policies imposed by the LibLabCon:

http://www.west-midlands.police.uk/wanted/index.asp

Powell's admirers should ask themselves why his political acolyte Margaret Thatcher did nothing to meaningfully restrict immigration during her 11 years as Prime Minister. On the eve of winning the 1979 general election, she consciously echoed Powell's words when she spoke of fears of being "swamped" by immigrants. And she claimed to have been opposed to Heath's action in sacking Powell from the shadow-cabinet after the speech (though she did not resign from it).

But in office between 1979 - 1990 she did nothing which made any difference. I wonder has Simon Heffer ever discussed this?

I live in Powell's old constituency in Wolverhampton and up until a couple of years or so ago I was typical of the sort of lazy left wing Guardian reading 'liberal' type who was only too happy to refer to Powell as a racist. Without ever reading his speech I might add. The 7/7 bombings and a simultaneous niggling doubt about multiculturism (on reflection bought about because of the increasing levels of immigration under NeoLabour) caused me to do some research. So began my journey of enlightenment. A journey that wouldn't have been even remotely possible without the internet. It's also one that has made me realise that Powell was absolutely correct. My city is very definitely not a better place for mass immigration.

Bernard's right as well, the cat is out of the bag.

re Peter's comment, whatever Mrs thatcher did is irrelevant to whatever Mr Powell sais - her actions do not validate or invalidate his views, it was for her as to whatever she chose to do as PM

Peter,

Despite Thatcher's much vaunted popularity, she was an intellectual pygmy when compared to Powell.

However, she was the PM and the Leader of her party, which Powell was not, and she had a lot to contend with from the 'enemies within' the party.

It isn't always possible to lead from the front without having to placate, or at least protect oneself from the 'backstabbers'...and the Tories were noted, at that time for their Brutus clique.

Not that I am making excuses for her, but her lack of a action on the matter is at least understandable, - when taken in context.

Ernest

Too thin. When Thatcher won her second term in 1983 with a landslide majority, she had no need to worry about "backstabbers" in the Tory party.

She was (is) undoubtedly a Powellite on immigration as well as economics. On economics, she scored nine out of ten. But she flunked it on immigration.

And let's not forget that she signed the Single European Act, the biggest single loss of British sovereignty (to date).

It's interesting that Powell's speech came just days after the assasination of MLK and city after city in the States when up in flames. As he says himself at the end of the talk,

"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."

And yet The US and UK have turned out so differently.

However, quite a prescient speech!

Reading in my copy of MT's "Path to Power" she speaks of the speech on pp 146-48. It says that Heath fired Powell the day after the speech (from the Shadow Cab.) and that many Shadow Ministers were set to resigh if Enoch didn't go.

It seems they were working on how to amend the Race Relations Bill coming up for a Second Reading, and this red meat speech had them all tarred as racists.

MT said she basicly agreed with the speech, but that Powell had some quotations that sounded racist, even though she was convinced he was not.

Charles

Good point about MLK. But Powell was mainly thinking about India and the blood-letting between hindu and moslem in 1947.

Peter,

I have never said I was a fan of hers, but there is no denying that we have not had anyone to hold a candle to her since her time...

Charles,

That Race relations amendment was, and is, just a red herring by 'the Party Worthies' watching their backs, and was only heard of much later - when biographies were being written! after all, the Tories were the party who initiated much of the initial legislation that allowed waves of immigration from the Carribean, and later from the Indian sub-continent.

If there had been any viable talks to make an amendment, Powell would have known about it, as he was member of the shadow cabinet at the time. He was far too canny to have made a speech that would have jeopordised it.

To try and lay the blame on Powell is just another instance of the bully boys kicking a man when he was down, something politicians do quite regularly...

nations without controlled borders are on the path of seld destruction. it is an affliction both or nations are suffering from, and both our nations are being betrayed by our political classes out of stupidity, ignorance and fear of the same label that Powell was hit with.

EY, I see what you mean about the "plausible deniability" of the Tories when it comes to Powell's ouster.
It seems that MT does a little CYA in her biography on reading more closely, "I wasn't in the room" or "Ted didn't ask me" ect.

I think that Peter is spot on when saying that MT had the mandate in 1983, my only question is wondering if she could have carried the back bench with immigration control.

Also the naming of the Race Relations Act of '68. Who could be against race relations one wonders? Just like with naming a bill "The Patriot Act" he who defines the bill gains the momentum.

Back to Powell. He could have done himself a favor by not using the word "pickaninnies".

"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."

It seems Enoch WAS right!

Charles and Troll- Lads take a look see at Enoch's view of the USA before you go and hang his photo on your walls. His view of the USA would give Daytripper pause.

Mahons,

Surely you don't believe that because he had a negative view of the US, he is therefore wrong about everything else? - That is assuming that he was wrong in the first place...:-)

Ernest - I haven't offered an opinion on whether he was right or wrong, just that Troll and Charles would be appalled at his views on that topic. As for Enoch himself, I'll let him rest in peace, it can't have been easy having that name as a child, no wonder he grew up so grumpy.

Mahons,

"It was in Algiers that the seed of Powell's dislike of the United States was planted. After talking with some senior American officials, he became convinced that one of America's main war aims was to destroy the British Empire. Writing home on February 16, 1943, Powell said: "I see growing on the horizon the greater peril than Germany or Japan ever were...our terrible enemy, America...".

I think that he was perhaps not the first to form a negative opinion of the US after 'talking with some senior American officials', particularly in 1943, when it was fairly fashionable to be anti the UK...and some of the US's post war actions, such as at the time of Suez, could well have strengthened his original impression.

Enoch is a good old fashioned biblical name, and was not as rare as you might imagine. Was he 'grumpy'? - he certainly took life seriously, but then they were serious times...

Charles

The 2001 census showed that ethnic minorities made up 4.6 million, or 8% of the UK population. However, they comprise around 40% of the population in London and Birmingham.

Last year there were almost 600,000 (legal) immigrants to the UK, almost 1% of the population. Asians outnumbered eastern europeans.

Mahons -

I'm sure Troll and Charles can take it. When discussing historical matters, either we start from truth or we're wasting our time. Enoch Powell was prescient and right in that the destruction of the British Empire was a war aim of the United States.

With a million Wehrmacht troops just across the Channel and the Kriegsmarine trying to starve us into submission, FDR approved the Lend-Lease package that sent hardware our way and kept us in the war.

However thankful we were and are, it was on ruinous terms for Britain. He used Britain's position to screw this country royally, knowing we had no choice. It was a major factor in post-war austerity and the loss of Empire.

The British Empire was going to end, and it was going to end very soon, regardless of the wishes of the USA. Because there was just no way a relatively small country like England/Britain was going to retain functional control of the immense populations of India/Pakistan, to say nothing of the other far flung possessions.

Your choice was to give them up relatively gracefully, as you did, or to lose them at gunpoint via a series of armed and Communist inspired guerilla movements.

Its completely stupid to think that retention of the British Empire was in any way possible in the era of Gandhi and other independence seekers, or that it was in any way desirable for the British people to keep those billion plus people in the fold at the point of bayonets and flamethrowers.

Besides, the issue of mass immigration is quite separate and apart from the Empire issue. You could have kept the Empire and still had the mass immigration problem, or you could have given up the Empire while holding to an immigration policy that was in the interests of the British people.

Don't blame Gandhi or poor FDR for the fact that you let the floodgates open for sixty years. It ain't their fault.

Good point Phantom. Pete Moore is talking bollocks if he thinks the empire could or should have been retained after WW2.

I read somewhere that the handoff of world hegemony from British to American hands ranks as the most bloodless of Empire transfers in history.

Phantom, Peter -

Interesting points, none of which address any point I made. I didn't make any claims for how long the Empire would have lasted without FDR's usurious terms, apart from remark that it would have lasted longer without them. Because of those terms we didn't have the sea or land forces to garrison them for long, and the Far East Empire had gone by 1943 because of Japanese invasion anyway.

Where I blamed Gandhi for anything God only knows.

My point was that the destruction of the British Empire was an American war aim. There can't be any dispute over this, we know it was.

Pete Moore, IIRC, it was Imperial Preferences, ie trade tariffs, that the US hated the most. With the British Empire composing 3/5 of the planet, it put American trade at a decided disadvantage.

Because of those terms we didn't have the sea or land forces to garrison them for long

So Britain would have stayed longer in India (left 1947) and Palestine (left 1948) if it hadn't been for the wicked yankees.

LOL!

As Basil Fawlty said "Who won the bloody war anyway!"

Mahons & Pete I will gladly admit that I have not read the mans writings or even that familiar with who he is. I just took from the drift of this post that he was someone that got painted with the brush of racism because he spoke out against immigration. That's where my comment rose from.

We see so many people in both our countries that when they sugest the regulation of our borders you are immeadiatly labeled a racist.

Charles -

Let's see. Britain in 1945 was skint with little prospect for immediate prosperity thanks to FDR. We then went and shot ourselves in the foot by electing the most damaging government in British history, which instituted socialist policies that not even Margaret Thatcher could wholly negate and from which we still suffer (e.g. collectivised health rationing).

Der Fatherland was rebuilt by the USA, paid for by the American taxpayer, defended for 65 years by the USA and controls our de facto government in Brussels, which makes almost all law in Britain now.

Yes, who did win it?

Pete, As Germany and Japan are the 2nd and 3rd economies in the world, it has been said that the best way to get rich is to fight against America, not with her!

That being said, I think Ernest could tell us of the winter of 1946 in Britian, where American food and coal helped keep the place going.

Mama/Troll -

Yep, that was clear so no worries. You are correct also. Enoch Powell was a deeply honourable man who was wrongly and unfairly labelled a racist. The Left did so for obvious reasons, because Powell was a conservative. His Conservative Party also did so, because by 1968 it had wholly accepted the anti-British Left Wing post-war settlement and ... well, Powell was a conservative.

The merest research into Powell's life would reveal his true nature. Instead, for 40 years, his name has been invoked by the Left like in the same way someone would pretend to a child that a monster is hiding in the cupboard. Do as we say, or the spectre of Enoch Powell will stalk Britain again, and some such garbage.

Instead of retro-pieces about Powell and his speech which we now have (today is the 40th anniversary of his infamous non-rivers of blood speech) we could do with something on how the Left has been able to get away with four decades of lies and smears about a great patriot.

Also I would contend that the back of the British Empire was broken in the Great War and destroyed by the Second. As it was Britiaan that declared war on Germany Sept 1, 1939, I would say it was lucky you only lost empire.

Der Fatherland was rebuilt by the USA, paid for by the American taxpayer, defended for 65 years by the USA and controls our de facto government in Brussels

Pete

Your paranoia is worse than I thought.

Pete

You see that same phenominom in the US in regards to Joe McCarthy. McCarthy is the boogie man to the left and his name invoked against any consevative the minute you question someones position and actions in undermining the policies designed to keep this country safe.

The Truth of the matter is EVERYONE that McCarthy brought charges against as being a communist was one, and the final proof came from the soviets themselves when all the documents were released.

But facts don't matter to the liberal left. 9 times out 10 when they accuse someone of something it is in reality an admission of the tactics they themselves are guilty of.

Troll

McCarthy was an alcoholic chancer who is not worthy to lick Powell's boots. He smeared and lied and wrecked the lives of hundreds.

Phantom,

"The British Empire was going to end, and it was going to end very soon, regardless of the wishes of the USA"

We were discussing Enoch's dislike of the USA, not the viability of the Empire.

However, we all knew that it would end, it had really outlived it's time. It was sad to see it go, in the way that it did. We in the UK, never quite realised the dislike of so many of the countries in the Commonwealth for the UK, we thought of it as 'a family of nations', and the idea of communist guerillas waging war against us was quite a shock.

As someone else mentioned we were lucky to get away so relatively lightly.

To return to the main point, Enoch had reason to see a certain antipathy towards the UK, at that time, and perhaps it was not too far fetched, as events turned out. It had little to do with concepts of Empire, other than a jealousy of trade tariffs etc. which the US gleefully replaced with their own tariffs when the opportunity arose. The Global economy was barely more than a concept in those days, and it was every man for himself, where trade was concerned.

Talk of a 'special relationship' were always largely exagerrated, and was more use to politicians than to the general public.

Peter, as ever, has his rather narrow and dare I say, rather bigoted view of the UK and it's place in recent history, and he does love to fabricate non-arguments, and fictitious concepts in support of his pov. I couldn't see where PM said that the Empire should have been retained. - did I miss something?...

Peter name one person that McCarthy was wrong about.

Charles,

I must compliment you on your excellent understanding of the events under discussion, and I am lost in admirtaion for the fact that you have actually read so much about Enoch Powell, who after all, was a relatively obscure figure on the international scene.

In 1946, while unaware of just where our food was coming from, - we knew much of it came from the USA, as well as from Australia, New Zealand and Canada, - not that there was that much to go around, but we were as they say,'gratefull for all contributions'.

I am not too sure about coal supplies though, after all we did have some very productive mines of our own, that is, when the miners were not on strike. It is not widely known that the Welsh miners actually went on strike during the war, - real little patriots they were..

Can you believe that we had food rationing for a further nine years after the war ended? and would probably have been even longer if Attlee had not lost in 1951...and that was longer than in Germany, - and we were the winners??

Regarding Britain declaring war on Germany in Sept 1939, I don't think they too much choice in the matter, as we were subject to all manner of Treaties at that time.

Yes I suppose in some ways we were lucky, but it is a highly debatable argument, when you see the long term outcome of what is euphemistically called 'winning', and the losers have had the benefit of all that wonderful protection 'care of Uncle Sam', and still refuse to contribute anything in kind or cash when any heavy lifting is required by NATO.

I supose it could be said that America rebuilt Germany and Japan - as you say now among the largest economies in the world. Could it be that the 'Master Plan' really did work, after all? :-)

I can remember exactly what I was doing when war was declared, some things you just never forget.. now if I can only remember where I left my car keys?.....

Troll,

Philip Jessup

Troll

FDR

But of course you think he was a commie too.

Pete

FDR gave Britain the best terms that he could. He had to contend with a very substantial isolationist movement in the US, who felt a US that was still weak from the depression, should stay out of yet another insane European war.

Ernest

Not to be Clintonian, but I would disagree with Mr. Powell's assertion that ending the British Empire was a war aim of the US. I think that the aim of the war was to destroy Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan. That was it..

It wasn't a war aim to destroy the Soviet Empire, nor was it one to destroy the British Empire. FDR I think saw the British and French empires as unfortunate relics...but I don't think that he did a thing to hasten their demise, not as part of any war strategy anyhow.

--
Agree that Charles' comments and his grasp of the issues are impressive.

Charles, say again where exactly in Texas you live?

"Charles,

I must compliment you on your excellent understanding of the events under discussion, and I am lost in admirtaion for the fact that you have actually read so much about Enoch Powell..."

Why thank you Ernest. That means alot to me since you actually lived through those times. I must credit my knowledge of the finer points of British politics to Lady Thatcher's books as well as anything Churchill.

Cheers as well to you Phantom. I live in Dallas, the home of the new George W. Bush library. As Mahons would say, it will contain the Bible and at least one other book!

I will be in Houston this coming Saturday, ever so briefly...changing planes on the way to San Diego, where I'll attend an industry conference for five days.

---

I understand the Mr. Powell spoke twelve languages, including various African and European tongues, plus Urdu and Hebrew.

McCarthy was a sad drunk and blowhard who did more to discredit the worthy aim of anti-communism by his excesses than he did against communism.

The British Empire was destined to collapse on its own, it simply couldn't and shouldn't be sustained. And based on their own sense of decency it was bound to happen. Pete's paranoia is of course baloney, entertaining baloney, but baloney none the less.

Noel once again you have no clue as to what you speak.

Regarding Philip Jessup

McCarthy repeatedly hammered IPR, mostly with regard to Ambassador Philip Jessup, formerly one of its officials. Many Amerasia types, McCarthy noted, were also active in IPR: Field, Bisson, Owen Lattimore and others, and these worked closely with their official friends to tilt American China policy in favor of the Reds. Both Vincent and Service, for example, had links to IPR, as did Alger Hiss, John Paton Davies, and other diplomatic worthies. Jessup bridged the gap, such as it was, all by himself, having served for many years with IPR, then emerging in 1949 as principal editor of the State Department "white paper" on China that washed our hands of Chiang. McCarthy’s statements on IPR, like all the others, were bitterly contested. In Senate floor debate, Sen. Clinton Anderson (D.-N.M.) indignantly demanded: "Does the senator mean to convey the impression that the Institute of Pacific Relations, in 1935 and 1936, was under Communist control?" When Jessup appeared before the Tydings panel, its majority members fell over themselves to proclaim his sterling virtues, and those of IPR. (His IPR connections, they found, "do not in any way reflect unfavorably upon him when the true character of the organization is revealed.") Effusions of this type are writ large in the conventional history of the era. Once more, however, when the smoke had cleared, the points McCarthy made—or tried to—were borne out by the record, and in this case we didn’t have to wait decades for the verdict. In 1952, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee conducted an exhaustive inquiry into the IPR, the kind of investigation the Tydings committee should have undertaken but didn’t. This showed, beyond all doubt, that the IPR was precisely what Sen. Anderson suggested it was not—a vehicle for pro-Communist leverage on American policy in China. The Senate investigation of IPR might plausibly be looked on as the gold standard of congressional hearings, exemplary in thoroughness and depth. One reason for this unusual status is that the committee was able to corral some 20,000 documents from the files of IPR, including numerous letters, memoranda, minutes and reports that reflect a reality quite different from the Institute’s facade. With these in hand, the committee could cross-check many statements, grill witnesses in detail, and doggedly follow up discrepancies, of which there was no shortage. The result was a picture of the IPR, and its influence on Far Eastern policy, starkly different from that produced by Tydings. Readers interested in this subject could do no better than to get a copy of The IPR Report produced by the committee—some 226 pages of closely packed, sensational, and highly specific information. Even better, for those who want to take the time, are the 5,000-plus pages of hearings and exhibits, though it is doubtful many people would want to wade through all of these, even if they could conveniently obtain them. Here I can but suggest the tremendous quantity of data that the committee put together, and the main conclusions it arrived at. Small Pro-Red Clique In Charge Among other things, the hearings revealed the intimate workings of IPR, and showed that it had been effectively run by a small inner circle of officials—chiefly such enduring mainstays as Edward Carter, Owen Lattimore, Frederick Field, and a few others. These were in constant communication, discussing lines of policy, materials to appear in newspapers, magazines and books, or the agenda for some impending conference. Connected to this inner cadre was a far-flung network of writers, researchers, speakers and policy experts, including a substantial number who moved back and forth among the IPR, the press corps, the academy, and the government. Also revealed by the investigation was the truly colossal number of Communists and pro-Communists associated with IPR, though its officials professed not to know this. These witnesses preferred to focus attention on the prestigious non-Communist names that appeared on their letterhead as trustees, but there wasn’t much evidence that this otherwise busy and important group of people had much to do with shaping program. The policymaking stuff, and the personnel who made it, were much more along the lines of Amerasia. To take a specific case in point, revealing the high degree of interlock that prevailed in all these matters, the committee examined a list of possible attendees at an IPR conference of 1942, as recommended by Philip Jessup. Of this projected list of 30-plus invitees, almost a third were individuals who had been identified under oath as members of the Communist apparatus (and many of whom have also appeared in our discussion). Committee counsel Robert Morris summarized the situation as follows: "In reply to [a] question about the 10 people who have been identified as part of the Communist organization on that . . . list recommended by Mr. Jessup, I will point out that we have had testimony that Benjamin Kizer was a member of the Communist Party, testimony that Lauchlin Currie was associated with an espionage ring and gave vital military secrets to the Russian espionage system, the military secret being, in one case, the fact that the United States had broken the Soviet code. . . . "John Carter Vincent has been identified as a member; Harry Dexter White as a member of an espionage ring; Owen Lattimore as a member of the Communist organization; Len DeCaux as a member of the Communist Party; Alger Hiss as a member of the Communist Party; Joseph Barnes as a member of the Communist Party; Frederick V. Field as a member of the Communist Party; and Frank Coe as a member of the Communist Party." ‘Specialized Political Flypaper’ for Reds In its final report, the committee provided a further summary of the amazing degree of Communist penetration at IPR, in unusually colorful language for an official publication: "The IPR itself was like a specialized political flypaper in its attractive power for Communists. . . . British Communists like Michael Greenberg, Elsie Fairfax-Cholmeley or Anthony Jenkinson; Chinese Communists like Chi Chao-ting, Chen Han-seng, Chu Tong, Y.Y. Hsu; German Communists like Hans Moeller (Asiaticus) or Guenther Stein; Japanese Communists (and espionage agents) like Saionji and Ozaki; United States Communists like James S. Allen, Frederick V. Field, William M. Mandel, Harriet Moore, Lawrence Rosinger, and Alger Hiss. "Indeed, the difficulty with the IPR from the Communist point of view was that it was too stuffed with Communists, too compromised by its Communist connections. Elizabeth Bentley testified that her superior in the Soviet espionage apparatus, Jacob Golos, warned her away from the IPR because ‘it was as red as a rose, and you shouldn’t touch it with a 10-foot pole.’ " The mention in this of espionage agents Saionji and Ozaki refers to the Tokyo spy ring of the famous Richard Sorge, exposed to the American public by Maj. Gen. Charles A. Willoughby, who served with Gen. MacArthur in Japan. It might be added that, according to Willoughby’s report (and Sorge himself), Guenther Stein was also a member of this ring, as was the well-known Communist writer Agnes Smedley (also connected to Amerasia). That these four members of the Sorge ring were all associated with IPR didn’t seem to faze its leaders in the slightest. Nor did it, for the matter, seem to faze many in the Acheson-Vincent-Service State Department. On the contrary, stalwarts of IPR were frequently called on to serve in official posts, take part in policy confabs, and otherwise be dealt in on matters of importance. In the cases of such as Vincent and Service and Jessup, the IPR and State Department points of view were so totally fused as to be indistinguishable. It was mostly a matter of what hat one happened to be wearing at the moment. As a result, the committee found, IPR was most effective in pushing American policy in its desired direction. Some of the report’s conclusions in this regard include: "The IPR has been considered by the American Communist Party and by Soviet officials as an instrument of Communist policy, propaganda and military intelligence. The IPR disseminated and sought to popularize false information including information originating from Soviet and Communist sources. . . . Members of the small core of officials and staff members who controlled IPR were either Communist or pro-Communist. . . . Over a period of years, John Carter Vincent was the principal fulcrum of IPR pressure and influence in the State Department. . .

No Mahons

Pro communist sympathyzers then and now hounded and pushed the man to his death and in EVERY CASE he was proven correct and mostly by released soviet documents years later. It is just a further example of the left providing revisionist history and propaganda to advance their bolshavic agenda.

Mahons -

What have I said here that's baloney?