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


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)

    Denne weblog er læst af siden 22. juni 2003.

     

    

     

    Vælg selv beløb



    Blogs


    Meta
    RSS 2.0
    Comments RSS 2.0
    Valid XHTML
    WP






    MediaCreeper