Forty Years On: Sleepwalking Toward the Tiber’s Edge

Anyone who reads the British newspapers on a regular basis will have noticed an alarming repetition. The same few stories, with minor adjustments, seem to appear over and over again: youth violence, mass immigration, Islamic extremism, terrorists planning attacks, compensation and human rights for criminals, an apparent over-sensitivity to religious minorities and an apparent lack of sensitivity to those of the majority religion and ethnicities. Rather than telling the reader something new, news serves only to clarify what he already suspects. Peruse readers’ comments and, unsurprisingly, more and more do you find expressions of genuine frustration and anger.

But these voices, which speak for so many, are not heard in parliament, nor does the public seem to make any demands on politicians. A march against war in a foreign country can amass thousands, and protests against China’s treatment of Tibet are frequent, but to defend one’s heritage or culture against erosion by political design, or to voice opposition to such a scale of immigration that one’s way of life is changed or threatened, is seen as potentially dangerous – the first step toward full-blown fascism. History repeats itself, yes; but history does not repeat itself as we might expect. Today, we are obsessively fighting the last war. Everyone’s enemy is a “racist” and a “fascist.” These terms are invoked by the far-Left, Jack Straw, David Cameron, and even the B.N.P., to describe their opponents. Yet at the same time we see an extreme ideology spilling out from politics and becoming increasing absorbed by the judiciary, police, schools, local councils, etc., all against the common sense of the public. And we also see a rapidly expanding Islamic militancy, occasionally becoming linked to public figures such as Ken Livingstone, and, consequently, accepted by the public.

Free speech – which has been so horribly eroded in Britain – was meant to guard against extremism and the persecution of both individuals and larger groups because of the establishment of some dubious ideology. Today, it would appear, that prosecutions for hate speech are based not on what is said but who is speaking. Protests in support of al-Qaeda are deemed free speech, as is downloading terrorist material and discussing the validity and possibility of carrying out terrorist attacks. Similarly, as think tanks such as the Centre for Social Cohesion and CIVITAS have said, Britain’s governmental and judicial establishments have failed to tackle honor crime, with police, councils, and teachers afraid of being branded racist if they make any attempt.

Yet such is the extreme nature of the willingness to prosecute anyone who might be suspected of racism against a non-White British person, that a Down’s Syndrome boy with the mental age of a 5 year old was recently charged by the police with “racism and assault” after he pushed a girl in a playground scuffle. The charge hung over he and his family for 7 months, before they received an apology from the courts. Again, after the English Democrats party put up posters with the slogan “save London from Labour's tartan taxes” the police received complaints that this was racist, and are currently investigating the matter. These incidences are far from unique, but merely 2 reported in the week prior to my writing this article.

The effect is stifling. The accusation or even the mere faint suspicion of racism has silenced debate and even the voicing of discontent about mass immigration, discrimination against Whites in employment by the government or government-sponsored institutions, or the rise of Islamic extremism. When, in 2001, Lady Thatcher said she, “had not heard enough condemnation from Muslim priests,” of the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington D.C., her Conservative Party publicly rebuked her. When Margaret Hodge suggested that British people had valid concerns over housing, considering the level of immigration, her fellow Labour M.P.s accused her of “using the language of the B.N.P.” When Lady Warsi (a Conservative M.P. and a moderate Muslim) suggested that people had legitimate concerns over immigration she was accused of supporting the B.N.P., and, again, when Prime Minister Gordon Brown dared to utter the words “British jobs for British workers,” members of his Labour Party were “appalled” and accused him airing a policy of the B.N.P.

With problems so glaring to the ordinary man and so thoroughly repressed by the main political parties, Enoch Powell – M.P., philosopher, poet, man of the people, and visionary – is being rehabilitated, and not just here on The Brussels Journal. Simon Heffer in The Telegraph has said recently that, “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.” Looking at the visible characters of today’s Conservative Party one could be forgiven for thinking that Powell was the only Conservative intellectual of our time. The Conservative Party seems to have no real vision for the future, and no real appreciation for the past. But, in such an oppressive atmosphere of “political correctness,” and, indeed, political fear, no intellectual development can occur within popular party politics. As such, we are unlikely to see any solutions to growing problems originating with political parties themselves. It is true, of course, that the B.N.P. is the one party that unceasingly opposes political correctness, “Islamification,” etc., but it has yet to transform itself into an intellectual party, and remains one for which the issue of race is central.

Today we are faced with a “multiculturalism” that has eroded British culture and the constant drumbeat of racial “equality” that treats people not as human beings but mere racial blocks. As Rageh Omaar has said in an op-ed piece on Powell’s so-called “Rivers of Blood” speech for The Daily Mail, “Instead of multi-culturalism, we are getting tribalisation,” – a point I made some time ago here. When this is applied to voting and politics it is especially alarming, yet Equalities Minister Harriet Harman, has recently proposed that all-Black shortlists of parliamentary candidates be drawn up, to increase the number of Black and Asian M.P.s – a proposal rejected as “colonial” by those it was designed to promote. Likewise, the Conservative Party now has its own Muslim Forum and the current mayor, Ken Livingstone, is supported by Muslims 4 Ken, while his main rival, Boris Johnson, has also been careful to let his Muslim heritage be known. Again, we have seen the B.N.P. attacked in the last few weeks by Operation Black Vote (which aims to promote, within government, the supposed needs of Blacks and Asians), but on what grounds? Racial exclusivity?

We have reached a point, then, at which racially or culturally distinct ghettos – the unfortunate results of long-term multiculturalism – are mirrored at both lower and higher levels of government and party politics. Moreover, if some young Muslims are surfing the net, and finding inspiration in al-Qaeda and websites peddling Islamic radicalism, so too do we see a similar phenomenon at government level, with, for example, Livingstone now having gained the support of suicide bombing apologist Dr Azzam Tamimi – which he has not rejected. It is remarkable to think that not only Muslims, but Muslim extremists, are now playing an important, if not decisive, role in British politics. Yet, it is not difficult to imagine that Britain fifty years from now will have a political reality not entirely unlike that of Lebanon’s today. We must hope that it does not take the same sort of upheaval – such as Powell predicted for a multicultural Britain – to get there, but such a hope seems to be fading. Two thirds of the residents of Britain now believe immigration will lead to violence.

The last words are Powell’s:

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.”

 
 
More on this topic:

Rivers of Blood and the Mentality of 68, 16 April 2008

It Is Worse than Enoch Powell Predicted, 16 April 2008

Rivers of Blood Forty Years On
, 17 April 2008

Britons Say Enoch Powell Was Right, 19 April 2008



On fighting the old Nazis..

Well, to add just a little info about my grandparents' activities in the Dutch Resistance (my parents were a bit too young to go out and kill Nazis, smothering these agressive German socialists with their diapers ;-)

My grandparents:
- hid jews and other people who needed hiding from the nazis
- hid and dispersed weapons to fight the nazis
- were fully active members of the resistance, which wasn't just some pacifist kind of movement for civil disobedience. They fought against tyranny.
 
Sag.

A question for kappert

If non-violence is a more powerful weapon than violence, why do would-be dictators never use it as their weapon of first choice, when attempting to impose their ideology on their intended victims?

@ kappert

No, YOU "miss the point". Non-violent resistance ALONE would never have been enough to rid Europe of the nazi tyranny.

@atlanticist911

You miss the point. I honour the resistance and I am supporting any resistance as long as they are non-violent. I suppose, Sagunto's parents did not go on the street to kill nazis, but they surely did a more intelligent thing.

crazy notions

RS said: " This, I regret to say, is racist nonsense. What best defines the principles upon which U.S. citizenry is based are its political culture (enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution) and its natural law and English common-law traditions, underpinned by a founding religious tradition of dissenting Protestantism and individual freedom."

You are the one writing racist nonsense. What's happening now is that the whites are being submerged, displaced, and will eventually be replaced by third-world immigrants, and you support that policy. Your theory is that there is no population replacement so long as third-world immigrants embrace European values. This is obvious nonsense. Even if third-world immigrants did embrace our values, which they do not, it would still be a massive population replacement, and one which is taking place without the consent of the replaced people. It is natural to consider that a new generation replacing its parents' generation does not constitute a real replacement because the parents and children are similar people who identify with one another. Individuals are replaced, but overall, the people remains the same. It is another matter when white people are being replaced by other races. People like you who approve of the policy of racial replacement are obviously the real racists if the word has any meaning. You support a violent aggression against your own country.

It is preposterous that you would evoke "English common-law traditions" when you explain your crazy theory about how any third-worlder can become an American if he accepts American political traditions. Nothing could be more removed from any old tradition anywhere in the world.

" Anyone who accepts and is at home in these traditions and norms is promising material for productive U.S. citizenship. "

You are the one trampling American traditions, when you say that.

" While Americans are horrified by the "no go" areas that have arisen in France"

I think it is more or less the same in American cities and districts where Blacks are a majority. That is why the whites move out. In fact, I have read that in the days after the Katrina hurricane in New Orleans, white rescuers were shot at by black residents.

" most Americans have no problem whatever with Moslem immigrants who accept the traditions I outlined above."

Of course they have a problem with Moslem immigrants. Most Americans don't want any Moslem immigrants admitted to the US. In fact, they don't want any immigration from the third world. Besides, Moslem immigrants accepting American traditions would no longer be Moslems.

Vincep1974 said : " The basis for our nationhood is our ideals established at the Founding.
The basis for the United Kingdom are its people who by definition were white."

No English king ever forbade immigration from the third world, and no "founding father" ever said that the USA should accept immigrants from the third-world. The basis for the American nationhood is the common ancestry and territory. I think immigration from the third-world started about the same time in the USA and in Great Britain.

" Therefore it's not appropiate to use one nation's experience as a model for the other in your context."

Every nation works the same way: common ancestry + common territory.

More krap from kap'

With the benefit of hindsight, kappert rebukes Sagunto's grandparents generation for not standing up more vigorously to the nazi persecution of Dutch jews.Is this the same kappert who fails to see the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, and the same kappert who  told me that he believes we should all be prepared to  face persecution and death, rather than visit violent retribution on our enemies?

@Sagunto

Honours to your parents.
Yet there is the question why these poplar resistance movements of common citizens achieved so little. There were much more persons as collaborators than courageous resistance. That dilemma continues ...

@kappert: figures, facts, interpretation and actual experience..

Yes @kappert,
You're absolutely right. I know all of those terrible facts, and maybe a little more beyond the weblink you gave. One can only deeply regret the vast number of Jews who were deported from the Netherlands. Many factors contributed to this devastating toll, among them the fact that Holland was completely occupied (other than France for instance) densely populated and geographically cut off from major escape routes and above all, administered in such a way (even with, as you might know, continuous Jewish participation of the infamous "Jewish Council of Amsterdam"), that the Nazis found circumstances suited to the full to round up such large numbers of Jews, once they had decided to do so with brutal force. Not prominent among those factors though, was some sort of widespread Dutch anti-semitism, that some slight of hand comments might suggest. I already pointed out that the general strike in feb 1941 (not the exclusive domain of the CP) was the first major proof of solidarity with the Jews and open resistance of the population against the Nazis.
 
That solidarity and courage, even under brutal occupation, is still something to be proud of. Another example that springs to mind is that of the Dutch Roman Catholic bishops who strongly spoke out against the Nazi persecutions of the Jews in the Netherlands. Of course the Catholic Church was never silent, but in Holland they were much more vocal than in Belgium for instance. Again, something to be proud of as a clear and defiant sign of solidarity, but when you look at the intensified Nazi-terror that followed, one can in retrospect only be glad, that the Vatican took important strategic lessons from this bitter experience.
 
The luxury of hindsight doesn't change the fact that the solidarity displayed under occupation was heartening. It certainly doesn't change the pride I take from my grandparents' courage to put their lives in danger in order to save Jews and other potential victims from Nazi persecution in their own home. They played their part as members of the Dutch resistance and I take pride in the lessons that can be learned from their effort.
Perhaps they might be useful in the foreseeable future. One never knows ;-)
 
Kind regards from Amsterdam,
Sag. 

@Sagunto

Ajax and Jews, maybe you shouldn't be so proud: The harsh repressions and discriminations against Jews, roughly 1,5% of the Dutch population, resulted in increased resistance against the occupiers since 1941. After the deportation of 425 Amsterdam Jews to the Mauthausen KZ, hundreds of thousands followed the call of the illegal Communist Party to have a solidarity strike. Nevertheless, the policy of the occupiers along with widespread collaboration of Dutch people allowed the capture of almost all 140.000 Jews living in the Netherlands. Around 107.000 were deported to extermination camps, only 5000 survived. The holocaust in the Netherlands was 'better succeeded' as in other Western European countries. See http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/wk2

@Atlaundricist711: That does it!!!

So this is it then.

I'm gonna rituallylisticly burn all my Man from Atlantis tapes, right NOW! Oh no wait,
it's already past bedtime. Well, first thing in the morning then! Or else during my lunchbreak, or perhaps better on my way back home, after work, that is after dinner, when I've finished my couch-nap and the tube doesn't feature any reruns of
the A-team or Buffy the Vampire Slayer and more of that decadent European trash ;-)
Anyhew, prepare for drastic measures, 'cause that pic you just showed, mocking JC,
is beyond heresy..

*..There's only so much my Dutch pride can take..*

Sag.

@ Sagunto

My apologies, Sagunto.
 
btw: J.C. was a truly GREAT player, but I bet you didn't know that he moonlighted as a famous British comic and balladeer, using the alias, Ken Dodd.
 
http://www.45-rpm.org.uk/dirk/SEG8297.jpg
 
;-)

@Atlantilist: Goon get y'r Gunner or you're a goner..

[quote: man from Atlantis]
"..A Gooner, eh?.."

What?!! Blasphemy!
Dennis, get y'r Gun ;-)

Nope Atlantitis, I'm just a life-long fan of Ajax, from Amsterdam of course, were Dennis "the flying Dutchman" grew up as a player and learned the trade from JC, a.k.a. Johan Cruijff, alias J.C. "el Salvador", almost as famous as the other JC.
 
By the way:
Ajax-fans today still carry flags of Israel with them and call themselves "Jews" as a reminder of the solidarity of the people of Amsterdam who - while under Nazi occupation - launched a massive general strike in feb. 1941 that soon spread to other parts of the country, to protest the persecution of the Jews of Amsterdam. The Germans were baffled. They had never come across a strike against anti-Semitism and persecution of the Jews.
Guess I won't be playing in Sahahaharian's league ;-)
 
Sag.

@ Sagunto

A Gooner, eh?
 
I suppose it could have been worse.You might have really pissed off our friend, saharian, had you been a supporter of a team from the Black country, or even worse, a supporter of that famous London-based zionist entity, tottenham hotspur.

Henceforth, perhaps we should all start calling you SaGOONERto.
;-)
 

re: 'vivid discussion' and 'preparing'

@ Armor
 
I thought we had a deal.

@Atlanticist: LOL

:-)
[quote]
"..Saharian: A soccer supporter whose favourite player is, the gifted Frenchman, Louis Saha.."
 
That would explain a lot, heheh.
I'm more of a revisionistic Bergkampist myself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCEXkik6Iuk
 
Kind regards from Amsterdam,
Sag.

@ atheling & (fellow) traveller(s) 2

I got to wondering what a Saharian is, and what it might look like, and came up with the following definition.
 
Saharian: A soccer supporter whose favourite player is, the gifted Frenchman, Louis Saha.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Saha
 
;-)

preparing

huu ... now they are picking up their guns ...

@Saharian

American here....

Don't know any Jews.

LOVE being an American and it means EVERYTHING to me.

Have no idea if I am decended from the Founders or not...don't care.

Individual freedom will NEVER go out of fashion.

As far as America's future decline...I have no chrystal ball but I do have a BIG gun...bring it on!
 
I would love for bloodshed to be in your future...

Thomas Jefferson

Note the words "WHATEVER RELIGION OR NATION THEY MIGHT BE"? I see no disclaimer stating that he meant only WHITE people.

So you think he would have too worried about losing black votes? I'm sorry to disillusion you, but Jefferson was rabidly racist, sexist and homophobic by your liberal standards.

As for "dilution" and "meaningless" US citizenship, speak for yourself, asshole. YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR AMERICA OR AMERICANS, SO PISS OFF.

Quoting the New Testament is all very well, but you don't seem to have addressed his point.

@tea in the Sahara..

Agitprop-alarm:
"..All the while, the US is the centre of global terrorism, negrophilia, soul-less consumerism, anti-white racism, and pornography.."
 
Sounds just like y'r everyday jihadist agitprop to me. Sahara eh..? Why not make like a camel and flee..
 
Sag.

vivid discussion

I am reluctant to introduce an item about 'Independence of Alaska' or 'Independence of Lakota'. Don't get a heart attack.

Sorry this started

Please note that both of my posts were cordial and on point.  In no way do I endorse the kind of hatred and nonsense espoused by this Shaharian character.  The whole episode proves why I rarely post here anymore.  I have no idea why such a good website has such a terrible track record in its discussion section.

@ atheling & (fellow) traveller(s)

It is clear to me that, for some people here, the word "manchild" is  a term of endearment. In fact, it's almost enough to prompt me to ask Armor to give kappert an amnesty.

@ Saharian

You not only hit a nerve with Atheling, you also hit one with me. Your language is unacceptable in a civilized discussion.
Atheling has never resorted to the kind of garbage you pronounce and I for one will never read your BS again.
Atheling, take heart and don't give up, those idiots shouldn't upset you. There are other people on this blog who like your writings.

@ atheling & 1974

I was not suggesting that citizenship in this country be limited to white people.  The principles establishing this republic are clearly more universal than the nation-state experience of Europe.  Still, it does not follow that the Founders advocated a multicultural polity.  Federalist No.2 (John Jay) comments on the good fortune that Providence had given them one people united by one language sharing one religion.  Even with such homogeneity, the worthy anti-Federalists questioned whether free republican government could be maintained over such a vast land area with such diverse climates and topographies, and they foresaw many of the bureaucratic problems we experiecne today.  Certainly the further one moves from that initial model, the larger and more tyrannical government must become.  We can become as diverse and multiracial as you like, but our government will be that less responsive and representative and unaccountable and more despotic.  As for Islam, it is simply naive to think that a large presence of Muslims in ANY territory will not lead to conflict and moves to sharia, whether it be a Christian country or a Hindu one or Tao or secular.  Islam is simply something else altogether.

@Saharian

You are an ignoramus when it comes to America. But don't feel bad. You're certainly not the only one here who suffers from that delusion.

Here are some quotes from Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers:

"Shall we refuse the unhappy fugitives from distress that hospitality which the savages of the wilderness extended to our fathers arriving in this land? Shall oppressed humanity find no asylum on this globe? The Constitution, indeed, has wisely provided that for admission to certain offices of important trust a residence shall be required sufficient to develop character and design. But might not the general character and capabilities of a citizen be safely communicated to every one manifesting a bona fide purpose of embarking his life and fortunes permanently with us?" --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:338

"It [has] been the wise policy of these states to extend the protection of their laws to all those who should settle among them of whatever nation or religion they might be and to admit them to a participation of the benefits of civil and religious freedom, and... the benevolence of this practice as well as its salutary effects [has] rendered it worthy of being continued in future times." --Thomas Jefferson: Proclamation, 1781. Papers 4:505

"America is now, I think, the only country of tranquility and should be the asylum of all those who wish to avoid the scenes which have crushed our friends in [other lands]." --Thomas Jefferson to Mrs. Church, 1793. FE 6:289

Note the words "WHATEVER RELIGION OR NATION THEY MIGHT BE"? I see no disclaimer stating that he meant only WHITE people.

As for "dilution" and "meaningless" US citizenship, speak for yourself, asshole. YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR AMERICA OR AMERICANS, SO PISS OFF.

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

@saharian

Saharian writes:

"The US was founded to be a nation for the descendants and progeny of the Founders, i.e. whites. The basis of the US is white people. The US was never meant to be a non-white country, open to immigrants from all corners of the globe. Non-white immigration and the Multi-Cult are relatively recent phenomena in the US."

This, I regret to say, is racist nonsense. What best defines the principles upon which U.S. citizenry is based are its political culture (enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution) and its natural law and English common-law traditions, underpinned by a founding religious tradition of dissenting Protestantism and individual freedom. Anyone who accepts and is at home in these traditions and norms is promising material for productive U.S. citizenship.

I wish that discussions of European immigration in this blog were equally defined by political and cultural principles rather than skin color or national origin. While Americans are horrified by the "no go" areas that have arisen in France, the U.K., and elsewhere, most Americans have no problem whatever with Moslem immigrants who accept the traditions I outlined above.

No comparasion between UK vs US re "Race"

Your analysis is flawed for the simple fact that the US has NEVER had a tradition or culture of being an ethnically homogenized nation.  The basis for our nationhood is our ideals established at the Founding.
 
The basis for the United Kingdom are its people who by definition were white.
 
Therefore it's not appropiate to use one nation's experience as a model for the other in your context.
 
 

BNP

You write that the BNP has yet to mature into an intellectual party because the issue of race remains central to its platform.  But the BNP's view of race is only noteworthy if one accepts the revolutionary transformation in social thinking over the last forty years that has led to all the other problems you outline.  Prior to WWII, the BNP's view of race was accepted as a matter of course by the vast majority of European intellectuals.  Every pre-War politician, whether of the Right or Left, would be considered an unacceptable racist in today social sphere.

This reminds me of American right-liberals who decry every aspect of the 1960s revolution - from abortion to radical egalitarianism to the erosion of the family and feminism and so on - but bracket the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a wonderful thing.  The connection that these "progressive" views about race and the corresponding social theories are related is never made.  Somehow we are to believe that all aspects of the social revolution were deliterious except for the promotion of a multiracial society.  One saw this recently in the comments made following Wlm. Buckely's death, where neoconservative after neoconservative fell over themselves to point out that Buckely's Goldwateresque views on race had "matured;" that he was, at least in the end, a good liberal who would have been appalled if his Connecticut country club denied admissions based on race or religion.  But having these liberal views on such issues may very well correspond directly with all the other social issues behind the 1960s revolution.  There is this stock rejection of leftist thinking with the caveat: the hippies were right about American racism - but nothing else.  Sorry, once one accepts that race is an illegitimate topic, whether in immigration or social policy, full-blown liberalism must follow.  The BNP may just be ahead of the curve in its critique of modern rationalism.