2. oktober 2017

Lillelund om Enoch Powells statsmandstale “… karrieremæssigt er det ikke sundt at være fremsynet.”

Når man får børn, tvinges man til at tage stilling. Det er ikke sjovt at blive kaldt for alarmist eller racist, men det er dog langt værre at spille hasard med levevilkårene for kommende slægtsled. Merkel, Juncker, Löfven og Pape har ingen børn. Det forklarer ikke alt, men måske lidt. Niels Lillelund i Jyllands-Posten – Statsmandskab

“Den vigtigste funktion ved statsmandskab er at forebygge det onde, der kan forhindres. …’

Enoch Powells ord stammer fra den berømte Rivers of blood-tale, hvori han advarede mod konsekvenserne af masseindvandring og sluttede med at citere Virgils Æneide; her optræder et syn, Tiberen skummer af blod. Det er en interessant tale at genlæse i dag, næsten 50 år efter, for det er ikke for meget sagt, at den er fremsynet, og ligeså logisk er det naturligvis, at den betød enden på Powells politiske karriere. Han var såkaldt skygge-forsvarsminister, men efter den tale var han det ikke længere. …

Enoch Powells tale var en fremsynet tale. Det var en statsmands tale. Men karrieremæssigt er det ikke sundt at være fremsynet. Hvis man for bare ti år siden havde forudsagt, at Frankrig ville være i undtagelsestilstand i to år, at soldater måtte indkaldes for at bevogte jødiske institutioner i København, at skyderier ville være dagligdag i København, eller at migranter skulle spadsere i hundredvis på danske motorveje, ja, så havde man været alarmist. Mindst. For 30 år siden var der også folk, der forudsagde udviklingen, og de var racister, nazister, der sku’ hakkes til medister, og det blev de da også, åndelig talt, og dog går de fleste af dem stadig iblandt os og kan konstatere, at de fik ret i deres forudsigelser, hvad de naturligvis ikke har meget glæde af. Faktisk slet ikke. For pudsigt nok anses de ikke af offentligheden som køligt fremsynede mennesker, som kunne se udviklingen og derfor advarede i tide, nej, datidens fremsynede anses stadig for ekstreme, nu er de alarmister, som spiller på frygten, hvor den sande statsmand er én, der siger, at det nok skal gå, idet han tager befolkningens bekymringer alvorligt.”

(Enoch Powell holder ‘Rivers of Blood’-talen, Birmingham, 20. april 1968)

Oploadet Kl. 03:05 af Kim Møller — Direkte link19 kommentarer


3. februar 2017

Enoch Powell in memoriam (1912-98): Et brev fra Enoch Powell til Peter Neerup Buhl, 6. marts 1995

Jo mere man lærer om heltene, jo mere fremstår de som almindelige mennesker på godt og ondt. For undertegnede er Winston Churchill den helt store, men jeg er også fascineret af konservative Enoch Powell. Han blev professor som blot 25-årig, fik en flot miltærkarriere under 2. Verdenskrig, og sad fra 1950 til 1987 i parlamentet. I dag er han bedst kendt som manden bag ‘River of Blood’-talen fra 1968, der var tæt på at blive et sofistikeret politisk selvmord.

(Enoch Powell holder Rivers of Blood-talen, Birmingham, 20. april 1968; Mere: Uriasposten, Wikipedia)

For nogle uger siden lagde Peter Neerup Buhl et affotograferet brev online, som han modtog fra selveste Enoch Powell tilbage i 1995. Jeg viste interesse, og han besluttede sig spontant at give mig det i gave. Brevet kommer i glas og ramme på kontoret, og supplerer fint Winston Churchill-busten jeg købte i London tilbage i 2001.

(Enoch Powell, 6. marts 1995)

Enoch Powell, Rivers of Blood (1968)

“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.’ … ‘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.

“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.

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.”



6. april 2008

Enoch Powell: “Like the Roman, I seem to see ‘the River Tiber foaming with much blood’.”

Den 20. i denne måned er det præcist 40 år siden konservative Enoch Powell under ydmyge omstændigheder begik politisk selvmord, med en retorisk genistreg af en tale, hvori han undsagde multikulturen på en måde der ikke lod sig misforstå. Historien gav Powell ret, men ingen æresopretning, og han døde politisk isoleret i 1998.

I sidste måned sendte BBC en ny-produceret dokumentar om Powell, der undtagelsesvis er fair overfor hans budskab.

Filmen har sin titel efter talen der blev kendt som Rivers of Blood, og glimrer på flere måder. Der er eksempelvis styr på begreberne (i modsætning til Cepos’ nylige undersøgelse om ‘multikultur’, 180 grader 30/3-08). Multikulturel er ikke det samme som multietnisk, men defineres som værende “statesponsored diversity” og et “community of communities”. Det var dét Powell advarede imod, og det samme over-nationale institutioner idag mere eller mindre direkte forsøger at presse ind i et velfungerende demokrati som det danske.

Det hele varer 59 minutter – den første halvdel koncentrerende om talen, den sidste halvdel om reaktionerne, tidsånden, samt perspektiveringer i forhold til senere begivenheder – herunder Rushdie-sagen (1989), urolighederne i 2001 og London-bomberne (2005). Blandt de mange interviewede, er de fleste negative (eks. Kenan Malik), men der er også plads til fornuftige kommentarer fra Roger Scruton.

De fleste politiker-kommentarer er kritiske, men virkeligheden har afklaret skyldsspørgsmålet. Som Roy Jenkins udtrykte det kort før sin død i en en samtale med Lord Lester, der refererer: “… we just didn’t realise, that in the struggle for race-equality, we would have also to struggle for a secular society, and for the universal values of human rights.

Filmen kan ses på Youtube (seks filer) eller downloades via The Piratebay (750 mb; Bittorent, eks. via Azureus).

Da talen desværre ikke blev båndet i fuld længde, må man nøjes med de korte klip der trods alt eksisterer. Da ordene dengang faldt som en lægtehammer på champagneglas, og stadig rammer lige ned i hjertet af problematikken, har jeg klippet små fire minutter sammen.

Rivers of Blood er lang, men svær at skære i, og jeg vil anbefale man læser den i sin helhed. Herunder dog det væsentligste – citaterne i ovenstående video er fremhævet med mørkeblå.

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.

[…]

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’.

[…]

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…

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… 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… 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.

[…]

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… 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 action 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…

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.

Tre korte klip fra dokumentaren.

Powell om repatriering (1968).

“Too often today, people are ready to tell us – This is not possible – That is not possible. I say, whatever the true interest of our country calls for, is allways possible.”

Powell om racisme-beskyldninger (ca. 1970).

Martin Frost, BBC: Would You admit in any sense being a racialist?

Enoch Powell: First of all I must define it. Because if, by being a racialist, You mean the consciousness of differences between men and nation, some of which coincide with differences of race, then we are all racialists, I would have thought. But if by racialist, You mean a man who despises a human being, because he belongs to another race, or a man who believe that one race is inherently superior to another in civilization or capabillity of civilization, then my answer is infactially no.

Powell on sin politiske fremtid (1973).

Journalist, ATV News: … a voice in the wilderness then?

Enoch Powell: Wilderness are good places I notice, for voices, they tend to get to reverberation which is often lost in the more crowded places.

Screencaps fra Rivers of Blood.

Enmandshæren Enoch Powell.

Anti-racisterne (igår som idag).

Begravelsen & det nye England (lyserød skjorte).

Rushdie-sagen.

Riots.

Diverse.

Om Powell.

  • 27/8-05 Jyllandsposten – Henrik Gade Jensen: Meningsparasitterne lammer den offentlige debat.
  • 8/2-07 Berlingske Tidende – Jørgen Møller: Beretningen om Enoch Powell.
  • 6/11-07 Daily Telegraph – Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech.
  • 27/2-08 The Spectator – The real tributaries of Enoch’s ‘rivers of blood’.
  • 8/3-08 BBC – The White Season: Rivers of Blood (trailer).
  • 8/3-08 BBC – The White Season: A 1976 speech by Enoch Powell on the subject of repatriation..
  • 8/3-08 BBC – The White Season: A Question of Numbers (1977-udsendelse).
  • 10/3-08 New Statesman – Echoes of Enoch Powell (anmeldelse af dokumentaren).
  • 10/3-08 Uriasposten – Kursen må sættes ud fra, “hvad der er en overlevelsesmæssig nødv…”.
  • 20/3-08 Snaphanen – BBC: Enoch Powell – “Rivers of Blood” .
  • Om England.

  • 7/11-07 Daily Telegraph – When will Tories admit that Enoch was right?.
  • 7/2-08 BBC News – Sharia law in UK is ‘unavoidable’ (Archbishop of Canterbury).
  • 28/3-08 Daily Mail – More than one in five babies in the UK is born to a migrant mother.
  • 29/3-05 The Sun – Get off my bus, I need to pray.
  • 31/3-08 Daily Mail – Andrew Green: Devastating demolition of the case for mass immigration.
  • 1/4-08 Parliament – Government claims of economic benefits of immigration unfounded (pressemeddelse, Lords report).
  • (BBCs Rivers of Blood & Geert Wilders Fitna)

    

    7. januar 2013

    Historiker korrigerer kontrafaktisk bestseller: “Powell was an ardent anti-Nazi from the earliest days…”

    C.J. Sansoms forrige bog blev sendt som radio-spil på BBC. Fra Daily Mail – Enoch Powell widow ‘furious’ over ‘ludicrous’ slur that portray her husband as a Nazi sympathiser.

    “The widow of Enoch Powell has criticised as ‘absolutely ludicrous’ a novel that portrays her husband as a pro-Nazi sympathiser. Pamela Powell said his depiction in the bestselling book Dominion was an ‘unacceptable distortion’ of the late Tory MP. The book is a historical ‘what if’ which explores what might have happened had Britain sued for peace after Dunkirk in 1940.

    The work is set in 1952 and Britain is portrayed as a puppet state under the control of the Nazis in Berlin. Author C. J. Sansom included real-life figures in his fictitious pro-Nazi government, including Powell as Secretary of State for India. But his widow said Powell, who died in 1998, had ‘totally opposed’ Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler.

    ‘The idea that he would be in any pro-Nazi government is absolutely ludicrous,’ she said.

    […]

    Historian Andrew Roberts said: ‘Powell was an ardent anti-Nazi from the earliest days even when other Tories were pro-appeasement. I suspect the author is trying to make some sort of modern-day equivalence between Enoch Powell’s views on immigration and fascism and that is so intellectually debased as to be moronic.’”

    (Enoch Powell taler for konservative partifæller på et hotel i Birmingham, 20. april 1968)

    “In this country in 15 or 20 years’ time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.” (Enoch Powell, 1968)

    “‘British whites’ are the minority in London for the first time as census shows number of UK immigrants has jumped by 3million in 10 years” (Daily Mail, 2012)

    Oploadet Kl. 16:06 af Kim Møller — Direkte link8 kommentarer
    

    1. maj 2019

    Freddy Hagen om fænomenet Paludan: “… at gøre grin med ham, gør ikke hans position mindre stærk”

    Kristeligt Dagblad kalder læserbrevskribenten for ‘historiker’, men der er ikke megen objektiv analyse over Sven Thorgaards indlæg. Hitler har med Rasmus Paludan fået et ‘åndeligt barn’, ‘Pesten, racisme i renkultur’ er kommet til Danmark, ansporet af Dansk Folkepartis udlændingepolitik og den ‘tro tjenerinde Inger Støjberg’.

    Vil man forstå fænomenet Paludan, bliver man nødt til at tænke lidt dybere, og her hjælper en times sekterisk afstandtagen i Rushys Roulette ikke på forståelsen. Morten Uhrskov har opsamlet en række reaktioner, men jeg vil nu fremhæve venstreorienterede Freddy Hagens analyse, selvom han forveksler en satirisk demo-flyer med Stram Kurs’ officielle valgprogram.

    “Rasmus er ikke en megalomanisk tosse. Han er ekstremist, ja. Men ikke ubegavet. Slet ikke. Det var Glistrup, som bekendt, heller ikke. Og at gøre grin med ham, gør ikke hans position mindre stærk.

    Langt de fleste af dem, der nu forsvarer hans politik, ved følgende:

    1) hans selvkarakteristik som fører er taget fra islamistisk propaganda og selvforståelse. Det er en parodi, og en mimen. Læg dertil en snert af sandhed, og forvirringen er total, især hvis man ikke noterer satiren og den mimen, han anvender.

    2) hans berømte, og ekstremt radikale tale om at der vil flyde blod i gaderne, som han, i en happening fremførte for nogle år siden, og som i dag benyttes af hans modstandere til at vise, hvor langt ude han rent faktisk er, er en art kopi af Enoch Powells River of Speech. Hvis modstanderne ikke engang gider at undersøge det, så vil hans medløbere kunne grine af dem, grundet deres uvidenhed. Og det gør de naturligvis også.

    3) hans valgprogram, der er punktopført, er en parodi på krav til ikke-troende fra islamistiske lande, og det ved hans følgere godt. De forstår hans erklæringer som et spejlbillede af disse ekstreme krav. De fleste vil nok mene, at det er selve pointen, og knap så meget, at hans parti rent faktisk vil forsøge at gennemføre præcis disse punkter.

    Når hans modstandere samt politiske kommentatorer aldrig nævner disse referencer, og derfor helt overser eller fortier den satire, og den mimen, han benytter sig af, så vil der nødvendigvis opstå den antagelse, at alle, der er uenige med hans holdninger, og som tager afstand fra ham, helt har misforstået hans projekt. De vil derfor aldrig kunne nå ind til en reelt kritik af Stram Kurs, og de vil med sikkerhed aldrig kunne forstå dem, der ikke kan tage deres fine analyser seriøst.”

    Oploadet Kl. 11:21 af Kim Møller — Direkte link22 kommentarer
    

    11. marts 2019

    Ideologisk magtesløshed: 45 mistænkt radikaliserede er ‘forsvundet fra asylcentre og udrejsecentre’

    Vi kan ikke ‘nægte danske statsborgere at komme tilbage til Danmark’, forklarede justitsministeren Søren Pape Poulsen for få uger siden, da Islamisk Stat-jihadister i lyset af den aktuelle situation i Syrien, gerne ville tilbage til Danmark. Vi kan ikke ’sætte folk i fængsel, som ikke har begået ulovligheder’, og der er ‘grænser for, hvad vi må i en retsstat’, kommenterer liberale Joachim B. Olsen nedenstående historie, og opsummerer utilsigtet nødvendigheden af en kulturel homogen nationalstat.

    I praksis kan Danmark gør hvad vi finder nødvendigt, men uden politisk vilje er der naturligvis ingen vej. Enoch Powell sagde det så smukt til en partikongres i 1968: “Whatever the true interest of our country calls for is always possible.” En solohistorie fra Radio24syv.dk – 45 personer mistænkt for radikalisering er forsvundet.

    “Næsten halvdelen af alle radikaliseringsmistænkte personer i asylsystemet er efterlyst af politiet, viser nye tal. Socialdemokratiet kalder justitsministeren og udlændingeministeren i samråd.

    I alt er 45 personer, der er mistænkt for at være radikaliseret, forsvundet fra asylcentre og udrejsecentre. De pågældende er efterlyst af politiet.

    Det viser nye tal fra Rigspolitiet, som Radio24syv har fået aktindsigt i.

    … Radio24syv har tidligere beskrevet to sager om radikaliseringsmistænkte, der er forsvundet fra udrejsecenter Sjælsmark. Den ene havde skrevet IS og tegnet en detaljeret udgave af en AK-47 riffel på en væg på udrejsecentret, før han forsvandt.

    (Enoch Powell, Conservative Party conference, 1968)

    

    27. maj 2018

    Daily Mail om ‘The Hipster Fascists’: “… using modern branding… to ‘normalise’ extremist views”

    Hvis man vil læse en klassisk MSM-vinkling på den identitære bevægelse, så er bare at læse Daily Mails seneste baggrundsartikel. Engelske Generation Identity får prædikatet ‘The Hipster Fascists’, og de er angiveligt meget meget farlige. De kommer fra gode familier, er velklædte og ikke-voldelige. De normaliserer således ekstreme holdninger, modstand mod masseindvandring, at kæmpe politisk for et engelsk England.

    For journalisten gør det dem til ‘far-right’, og en direkte arvefølger til nationalsocialistiske National Action. Der henvises til en ITV-dokumentar, hvor Hope Not Hate-lederen Nick Lowles (trotskist, AFA-relaterede Red Action) rabler det bedste han har lært, og således kan det hele gå i selvsving. Det nævnes at ledende GI-medlemmer er fans af Enoch Powell og Winston Churchill, og som enhver venstredrejet journalist ved, så er oldschool-konservative nazister i habitter, og deres moderne tilhængere blot nazister der endnu ikke er afsløret.

    Medierne leder efter noget inkriminerende, de kan basere deres narrativ på. De finder absolut intet, og problematiserer så jakkesættet og den manglende grimhed. De er farlige, fordi de er ikke-voldelige. Blandt artiklens mange absurde vinkler, må jeg fremhæve afsnittet, hvor journalisten fortæller, at en yngre GI-aktivist blev jagtet af maskerede ‘men’ – “… proof that extremism, even when it is clothed in middle-class normality, almost always breeds more extremism”. Ikke-voldelige demokrater skaber ekstremisme… så at sige.

    Fra Daily Mail – The Hipster Fascists: Well-dressed, highly educated and from respectable families. Why this new British far-Right group is the most sinister and dangerous yet.

    “The 23-year-old university graduate is an ardent admirer of Enoch Powell, he revealed during an impromptu interview with the Mail outside his flat yesterday… It is no surprise to learn that Dupre is a fan of the late politician. The former junior city banker is the leader of a new far-Right movement in Britain called Generation Identity (GI UK).

    Unlike the traditional image of the far-Right, epitomised by shaven-headed thugs from groups such as the English Defence League and National Action, Tom Dupre is well-spoken, educated, polite and personable. It makes him more plausible and, ultimately perhaps, more dangerous than the easily-dismissed stereotypes from this end of the political spectrum which we have become accustomed to.

    He was smartly dressed in a business suit during our encounter with him, but slick publicity photos of him and his fellow ‘patriots’, as they like to call themselves, show them in skinny jeans, trendy trainers and sunglasses with some sporting upswept hair and beards.

    The Sunday Times has described them as the ‘Hipster Fascists’. They’ve been accused of using modern branding and sophisticated coded language to ‘normalise’ extremist views.

    But Dupre insists Generation Identity is neither fascist nor racist, despite the fact that it is campaigning to preserve ‘our ethnocultural identity’ against what it describes as the ‘great replacement’ of white people in Britain’s cities with black and minority ethnic people.

    … the demographic make-up of GI UK could not be more different from the English Defence League or the banned National Action. The tactics of this group are very different, too. There have, for example, been no provocative marches, no clenched fists and no violence.

    (Generation Identity, London, 2017)

    You may well not know this, but last December, GI UK staged a tasteless publicity stunt to embarrass Mr Khan. Someone playing the part of the Mayor, accompanied by two people in niqabs, went to Westminster Abbey and St Paul’s Cathedral to ask people to sign a petition to ‘ban Christmas’. Thankfully, the stunt received little publicity.

    Generation Identity’s first British conference was held last month — in Tom Dupre’s home town. The gathering at The Stag Theatre in Sevenoaks, Kent, ended with the police being called when anti-fascist protesters, in black balaclavas, descended on the venue. Witnesses described how a young GI member was chased across the car park by masked men — proof that extremism, even when it is clothed in middle-class normality, almost always breeds more extremism.

    The conference was news-worthy for another reason. Two senior GI figures from Europe — one of them was Austrian Martin Sellner — were detained and deported as they tried to enter the country to attend the event. This is evidence, if any were needed, that the authorities are not taking the potential threat posed by GI UK lightly. …

    Sellner, a student of law and philosophy, who makes a living as a graphic designer, is the leading GI figure on the Continent. Often seen wearing Ray-Ban sunglasses, he has strong links with his counterparts in Britain. …

    Diamond’s childhood home is in a millionaires’ row of mock Tudor houses and gated walled mansions. Diamond’s father is an accountant with the NHS and his mother is a music teacher. A sports car was parked on the drive earlier this week. Neighbours of the family say their son went to university.

    On Twitter, where he has 2,500 followers, Diamond describes himself as an ‘identitarian’ and quotes Winston Churchill: ‘There is a forgotten, nay almost forbidden word, which means more to me than any other. That word is England.’

    Back in Sevenoaks, Tom Dupre, described by one who used to know him as ‘a lovely lad from a very liberal family’, declined to say what his friends, parents and extended family think of his views.

    critics claim that behind the slick branding and expertly produced promotional videos of Generation Identity lies an ugly message of white supremacy and ‘racial separatism’.

    These young men might look the picture of respectability with their snazzy suits, fashionable labels and super-cool haircuts. Their rhetoric, however, tells a different story.

    One of Tom Dupre’s big questions during a recent address to a GI convention was: ‘Are we a threat?’ Compared to the bomber jackets and beer bellies of the English Defence League, the answer, quite possibly, is very much, yes.”

    

    26. april 2018

    ‘Rivers of Blood’ (1968-2018): “Talen brændemærkede ham fuldkommen. Han forlod snart partiet.”

    BBC4-programmet om Enoch Powells ‘Rivers of Blood’-tale er spild af tid, og jeg kan kun anbefale den 10 år gamle BBC-dokumentar om talen. I fredags var det 50 år siden statsmanden Enoch Powell rystede inferiøre levebrødspolitikere. Martin Krasnik opridser den engelske debat i Weekendavisen – Enoch tog fejl, men Enoch fik ret (ikke online).

    “I lørdags afspillede BBC for første gang talen i sin fulde længde, hvilket var for meget for en lang række vrede briter: ‘Afskyr BBCs promovering af denne udsendelse,’ lød det for eksempel på Twitter fra en af de eksperter, der selv havde bidraget med kritisk analyse af talen i udsendelsen. Sociale medier flød over med advarsler mod at tænde radioen. Tidligere undervisningsminister for Labour, Andrew Adonis, krævede ligefrem programmet taget helt af og advarede om kritiske spørgsmål til BBC, hvis man alligevel valgte at spille talen; ‘et incitament til racehad’, sagde han og anklagede BBC for at ‘varetage (Powells) racisme’. Det hjalp ikke, at programmets vært forklarede, at det jo var en skuespiller, der læste talen op, og at den blev brudt op i bidder, så kritikere kunne forklare konteksten og fortælle, hvordan talen skulle forstås. …

    Talen var klart formuleret og appellerede i elegante skift mellem appel til fornuft og følelse, skiftevis tør statistik med meget præcise (og korrekte) fremskrivninger af befolkningstilvæksten for indvandrerne, og voldsomme udladninger: ‘En lille sky formørker hele himlen’. ‘Vi må være vanvittige’ at ‘bygge vores eget ligbål’.

    … Allerede søndag blev Powell fyret af premierminister Edward Heath, der var klar i mælet: Powell havde legitimeret racehad, racisme og splittet befolkningen. Margaret Thatcher forsøgte at få Heath til at se tiden lidt an, men forgæves. Labours Tony Benn talte om koncentrationslejre, og hele det politiske spektrum vendte ham ryggen. Talen brændemærkede ham fuldkommen. Han forlod snart partiet.

    Han afviste at være racist – han havde intet imod folk på grund af deres hudfarve, sagde han – men kaldte sig ‘racialist’ med opmærksomhed på dybt nedarvede og vanskeligt foranderlige kulturforskelle: ‘Det er ikke umuligt, men svært for en ikke-hvid person at blive britisk.’

    Kritikken er haglet ned over BBC for at bringe talen, selv om ni ud af ti eksperter i programmet kritiserede den og forklarede, hvor ødelæggende den var, og selv om værten sluttede med at konkludere, at den helt klart både var ‘racialistisk’ og ‘racistisk’.”

    (Enoch Powell, brev til danske Peter Neerup Buhl, 6. marts 1995)

    Oploadet Kl. 20:51 af Kim Møller — Direkte link15 kommentarer
    

    20. oktober 2017

    Forfatter: “… vores politikere er ved at føre vores land ud i et eller andet fuldstændigt uoverskueligt”

    Der er intet i vejen med analysen, men sidst jeg så Kaspar Colling Nielsen på tv, havde han alt for travlt med at positionere sig selv. I et længere interview i Berlingske, forklarer han til journalist Thorkil Jacobsen, at vi vil se mere vold og segregation, hvad bekymrer ham, da det uværgeligt vil føre til deportation af muslimer. Problemet er ikke den fortløbende islamisering af vort fædreland, men den farlige modstand mod samme. Løsningen er mindre snak om burkaer, og en tro på at vi kan leve sammen, fordi det er ‘vores skæbne’.

    Enoch Powell, svarede på spørgsmålet, længe inden Kaspar Colling Nielsen underkastede sig centrum/venstres dialektik: “Too often today, people are ready to tell us – This is not possible – That is not possible. I say, whatever the true interest of our country calls for, is allways possible.”

    Fra B.dk – ‘Vores politikere er ved at føre vores land ud i et eller andet fuldstændigt uoverskueligt’ (af Thorkil Jacobsen).

    “Vi skal tale om hans nye roman, ‘Det europæiske forår’, som udkommer i næste uge. Den foregår i en nær fremtid, hvor ghettoer som Mjølnerparken er gemt væk bag pigtrådsmure, og hvide danskere frygter for de sten, som efterkommere af indvandrere kaster over murene. …

    ‘Jeg er slet ikke sikker på, at det politiske system har forstået den her udvikling, eller i hvor høj grad, politikerne allerede er kørt bag om dansen, mens vi spilder tiden med at diskutere burkaforbud og andre åndssvage ting. Politik er blevet sådan et åndssvagt teater for idioter…,’ siger Kaspar Colling Nielsen. …

    ‘Vi diskuterer jo meget flygtningesituationen i de her år, det gør jeg også i mine bøger, og jeg er meget pessimistisk i forhold til den udvikling, vi har gang i,’ siger han. …

    Der er en politisk indignation i Kaspar Colling Nielsen, men den er ikke direkte forbundet med hverken venstre- eller højrefløjen. Den handler i højere grad om at se problemerne i øjnene og gøre noget ved dem.

    ‘Jeg ønsker, at politikerne ville opføre sig som voksne mennesker,’ siger han: ‘Jeg mener, at vores politikere er ved at føre vores land ud i et eller andet fuldstændigt uoverskueligt. Det er en tragedie, og det beskriver jeg i min bog.’ …

    ‘Vi får stadig større konfrontationer, de vil gå fra at være verbale til at være voldelige, og vi vil opleve stadigt større segregering og i sidste instans deportationer af muslimske grupper,’ siger han. ‘Hvis du ser den udvikling, vi har været igennem de seneste ti år og så prøver at tegne den udvikling fremad, ender vi dér. Jeg kan ikke forestille mig, hvilke ting der skulle ske for at ændre den udvikling.’ …

    Hvad skal vi gøre for at undgå det scenarie?

    Vi bliver nødt til at tænke, at vi skal leve sammen. Det er vores skæbne nu. Det kan godt være, man er uenig i, at vi åbnede vores grænser for 300.000 muslimer, det er helt legitimt, men vi må erkende, at det er sådan, det er, og så løse det her, ligesom vi løser alle mulige andre politiske problemer. Politikere, der scorer billige point på at sige noget andet, er bare en pinagtighed…'”

    (Kaspar Colling Nielsen: Den danske borgerkrig 2018-2024, 2013 & Det europæiske forår, 2017)

    Oploadet Kl. 14:01 af Kim Møller — Direkte link27 kommentarer
    

    10. juni 2017

    ‘Last Whites of the East End’ (BBC, 2016): “I feel that we’ve been ethnically cleansed. It’s so sad.”

    Det er sjældent en BBC-dokumentar imponerer mig, men efter at have set De sidste hvide i Øst-London (Last Whites of the East End, 2016) er paraderne nede. Udsendelsen omhandler ‘white flight’ i multikulturelle New Ham, men giver samtidig et nuanceret portræt af den trængte engelske arbejderklasse. I New Ham lever og ånder man for fodboldklubben West Ham, og drikker stadig øl på pubben, men englænderne bliver færre og færre, og mange vælger derfor at flytte/flygte til landlig idyl i Essex.

    Dokumentaren følger en række personer, og inkluderer interviews med endnu flere. Der bredte sig et ramaskrig blandt venstreorienterede, da den havde premiere sidste år, og det forstår man godt. Her er sandheden råt for usødet, og flere af de gennemgående figurer lægger ikke skjul på deres antipati for udviklingen. Filmen er ikke politisk, og det er med til at fremhæve pointerne. Det er ikke højreorienterede, der undsiger islamiseringen – det er englændere på godt og ondt.

    Enoch Powell spøger i baggrunden, og bagest i pubben kan man næsten høre Paul Weston og Tommy Robinson holder dundertaler for meningsfæller over pints. Flere steder i udsendelsen synges højlydt ‘I’m Forever Blowing Bubbles’, som mange vil genkende fra Green Street Hooligans (2005), men udsendelsen handler om kultur og identitet – ikke gadevold.

    De 58 minutter er lige i overkanten, men det er kun med til at forstærke helhedsindtrykket, og der er masser af knivskarpe vinkler. Den lukkede pub, det videoovervågede hus med Sankt George-flaget på gavlen, den grandvoksne mand der nærmest græder over Westhams stadionflytning. En ‘forfaldshistorie’, som journalister nedladende plejer at kalde det.

    Der er enkelte modsatrettede sekvenser, men ikke overdrevet, og det supplerer på sin vis fint fortællingen. Det er eksempelvis en henvisning til National Front og 80’er-racisme, samt en sekvens hvor Eileen, en kvinde på 90 år, krammer sin somaliske underbo før flytningen. Hun flytter fordi hun ikke har noget at gøre i bydelen mere, men hader ikke den enkelte indvandrer.

    Bedst i dokumentar er buschaufføren Tony, der er søn af en carribisk far og en engelsk mor. Når han kommenterende kører forbi en lokal moské, minder han til forveksling om Tommy Robinsons tv-dækkede køretur gennem Luton. Han flytter fra New Ham, fordi hans insisterer på, at hans datter skal vokse op i et engelsk England.

    En sympatisk familiefar med aner i Bangladesh siger næsten det samme, men bliver dog boende i Eastend. Først i slutningen fremgår det, at han er troende muslim og har taget initiativ til en bedegruppe i bydelen. Om ti år er det slut med engelsk kultur her, forklarer han. Ikke et opråb eller en advarsel, blot en tør konstatering. En kapitulerende afslutning lidt i stil med den i Romper Stomper (1993).

    Udsendelsen kan ses på DR.dk. For yderligere omtale se BBC. Citater fra Subsaga.

    “I feel a foreigner in my own borough. We were born here. Lived here. We are finding ourselves marginalised out of the area.” (‘Lou the Jew’)

    “People who pass opinions about immigration and how wonderful it is for us, they should come and spend a day or two in Newham. If they think that is good for England, well, I’m a Dutchman.” (ældre mand på pub)

    “Years ago, people would have a fight with their fists and that would be it, when we grew up, down the school. Not any more. Now people will bring in knives.” (Leanne, udflyttende)

    “But the past 15 years have been defined by it, as Newham welcomed unprecedented numbers of new residents from all corners of the globe. At the same time, more than half of the white British population has moved out…” (speak)

    “The biggest change, I think, is the pubs shutting. – Yeah. – They’re closing. There are so many pubs closed down. Muslims don’t drink, do they?” (ældre mand på pub)

    “I feel that we’ve been ethnically cleansed. It’s so sad. (ældre mand på pub)

    “Proper, proper East Enders. Yeah. Good people. We had shared values. … All that is totally gone now with multiculturalism. It’s hard to find somebody who speaks English in Newham.” (Ældre mænd på pub)

    “”I’ll come out of Upton Park station and I could be… I could be in…Baghdad.” (Peter Bell, bestyrer, East Ham Working Mens Club)

    “It was about ten years ago, on the buses, you could count one white person, to maybe 20 Asian people, you know? And the schools, as well, you’d go past,.. you’d see a school day out and you’d think, “There’s something missing there. And it was that there was no white children.” (Tony Cunningham, fraflyttende)

    “I think white people are given a very bad time round here. Very, very bad time round here. And I’ll never forget this girl, she was a young white girl, Whitechapel. This…they was fighting on the bus, this Asian girl was, ‘You white bitch’ this, ‘You white bitch’ that. And you know what the girl said to me that made me stick out? ‘I can’t reply to you because what people would think about me.’ And I thought to myself, it’s true that if that girl would have replied… Everyone would’ve accused… She would’ve been the racist…” (Tony Cunningham, fraflyttende)

    “Their manners are gone. You know, the Christian values are gone. Everything. The English people just seemed to disappear.” (Tony Cunningham, fraflyttende)

    “Yeah, you feel alone. Most of the Muslims, they stick together. Their children stick together. If you’re an outsider, don’t want no part in, you know, they don’t want to know you whatsoever.” (Tony Cunningham, fraflyttende)

    “It’s been nice living here though. There used to be lots more of us than what there is now.” (90-årige Eileen)

    “We’ve lost our community. We are foreigners in our own country now. When you’re on a bus, I mean, Eileen and I, we’re the only two white people on there this morning. We’ll be the only two and it’ll be chock-a-block full.” (ældre dame)

    “‘It’s more English in Essex. I think my boys will be mixing with their own. … you feel safest around your own people, you feel more comfortable around your own kind of people.” (Leanne, udflyttende datter)

    “Charlotte can’t go to these schools. … I was thinking actually about that, and I was thinking, you know, is this to do with colour or has it got to do with religion? I was sitting down and I was having a think. I worry… I worry about her, you know… I don’t want her to forget who she is or where I’m from, or her mum’s from. I don’t want her to forget these things. I think these schools around here will make her lose her identity. … Her face won’t fit around here.” (Tony Cunningham, fraflyttende)

    “I’ve taken a look on the outside of the schools round here and a lot of them are, you know, mainly Muslim children. … I don’t care if Charlotte goes to a school and there is a mix and everything is on an even keel. … I don’t think there’s choice around here. The schools, they terrify me around here, absolutely terrify me.” (Tony Cunningham, fraflyttende)

    “I have to say that the British way of life is something they are not experiencing… because of lack of British children.” (Usmani Hussein, 5. generation-Eastender, Bangladesh)

    “Instead of just migrating to Essex, why don’t you stay here, fight for it? But they just throw the toys out the pram and say, ‘Nah, this area’s been taken over by Asians and Africans.'” (Usmani Hussein, 5. generation-Eastender, Bangladesh)

    “I hate this fucking area. I really do. There’s too much crime going on around here and I’m so glad to be away from it all.” (Darren Loveday, 29-årig bokser, indisk mor)

    “I remember walking out of college and I heard, ‘White boy, drop your phone and walk off.’ No disrespect – I was probably the only white kid in that college. Well, they didn’t know I done boxing. I threw a 20-punch combination on all three of them and they all went down. They said they were going to do me for racism. I’m white. They said it’s a racist attack. … My nan and my mum are Indian and I don’t think I’m racist. But I’m not having no little fucker telling me, ‘White boy, drop your phone.’ Essex feels more like home.” (Darren Loveday, 29-årig bokser, indisk mor)

    “We’re running, mate, running, not moving!” (Tony Cunningham, fraflyttende)

    “I feel at peace when I’m in here. A lot of it connects me to the past and how people were. You can go into a church… and there’s, like, 60 or 70 people that are friendly. You will not get that any more. That church, that is the last. You go to most areas, people don’t care any more. You walk down East Ham high street and people just do not care. At least you’re in there with people that do care.” (Tony Cunningham i kirke)

    “… since 2004, the whole of Europe want a piece of England, ‘just everything all of a sudden in my area is changing, ‘from being a small community where not many cultures clashed,’ to hundreds of cultures clashing all at the same time.” (Usmaan Hussain, 5. generation-Eastender, Bangladesh)

    “I want to feel like I’m living in England and belong there, really, again, to be honest. Back to the old East London, how it used to be. Being there with your own people and fitting in again.” (Debbie, Leannes mor)

    “‘Eventually things will change, but it’ll be too late then. ‘It’ll be too late.’ I think it’s… I don’t know, perhaps I’m kidding myself. Perhaps it’s too late already. Perhaps it’s all gone now anyway.” (Peter Bell, bestyrer, East Ham Working Mens Club)

    “We’ve got the foreigners coming in here and they’re not taking over – we’re letting them. ‘It’s like no-one never stood their ground, did they?'” (Darren Loveday, 29-årig bokser, indisk mor)

    “‘In ten years’ time, maybe not even that, ‘there will be absolutely no trace of cockney culture, ‘no trace of British culture, ‘I can assure you, in ten years’ time.” (Usmaan Hussain, der afslutningsvis afsløres som troende muslim)

    Oploadet Kl. 19:52 af Kim Møller — Direkte link29 kommentarer
    Denne weblog er læst af siden 22. juni 2003.

     

    Næste side »

    

     

    Vælg selv beløb



    Blogs


    Meta
    RSS 2.0
    Comments RSS 2.0
    Valid XHTML
    WP






    MediaCreeper