Enoch's moment of schadenfreude

ENOCH POWELL always challenged the accusation that he was a racist. But of course the liberal atmosphere that was making its presence felt from the late 1950's onwards to eventually become the new establishment we see today would have none of it; and so the name of Enoch Powell has become synonymous in the modern liberal vernacular with racism, and any sympathy shown towards an intellectually gifted man would at the very least draw suspicion from the liberal establishment… and outright rancour from the left.

                

                 The term racist has been used more often than not wrongly chosen, and Powell exemplifies this prejudice; because the term has been kidnapped by, particularly the broad centre-Left, within all parties and groups and organisations of a liberal bent (such as, but not exclusively – the BBC).

                

                 The Dictionay.com definition of racist is: "a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that one's  and I would think this to be a fare definition agreed to by any other dictionary published in the world. This is the definition Enoch used to prove he was no racist. He did not think himself "racially superior" to anyone. If he was a racist, for instance, he would have never have loved India as he truly did; but would have despised its people, whom he respected.

                

                 What Enoch did think his country held superiority over, were the cultures of those countries that formed part of the British Empire. He believed, having served in India, that corruption, arranged marriages, the appalling treatment of the untouchables, and the equally appalling practice of incinerating the living wives alongside their deceased husbands, was an inferior culture to the one he was brought up in…is this racism?

                

                He also drew on his experiences in India that communities set apart by their cultural heritages could never co-exist peacefully for very long; and he was proved right in India when what he called its communalism fell apart. Hindu and Muslim were not long set at each other's throats after independence. Hundreds of thousands died in the clash of cultures which led to the founding of Pakistan – but even the Muslims could not live in concord for very long, and so Bangladesh was created from Pakistan…were these entire events racist on behalf of one side or the other? Of course not.

                Why Powell opposed immigration was because he knew that such varying cultures could never peacefully co-exist for very long - what he referred to as communalism our liberals refer to as multiculturalism, and preach the gospel of diversity. Powell knew his people, and he knew what the importation of different cultures would unleash eventually, as he found in India, the kind of social unrest which would eventually unleash racist statements on one party or other in the conflict.

                

                I support Powell not because I consider him a racist. I would never do so if I believed he was. But if there is racism today it is the fault of the guilt ridden liberals who are ashamed of the British Empire Enoch was part of and they chose to redefine racism on their terms. They believe that different cultures can co-exist – which they cannot unless a border separates them.

LOOK AT THE multicultural paradise the liberal's have brought this once great nation to. They boast of diversity as if it was to be celebrated. Integration was meant to be the golden mean – the true success of multiculturalism. But diversity is the very negation of integration. It has caused white flight from many of our northern cities and control handed over in many parts of those cities to communities whose cultures are alien to the white indigenous one. Once the demographic expansion of, for instance, Muslim cultures continues, it will have its impact. Already we see Labour politicians kow-towing to Muslim constituencies in their winnable seats in the north that were once solid white working class, whose votes could be relied upon. Now we see Labour politicians attending meetings in Muslim areas whose votes they will need to stand any chance of winning in the future – so witness this.

                When these politicians are invited to attend these meetings with their wives or partners in tow; the wives and partners have to be segregated from the men into a different room - and if they willingly oblige (as they did) in order to climb the greasy pole of Labour politics; then all is lost as far as our indigenous culture is concerned.

                

                That Labour multiculturalists with an ambition for power will willingly prostrate themselves before such – to put it mildly, a misogynistic body, in order to realise their political ambition on behalf of the Labour Party; then their 'progressive' political ambition has lost all meaning, and they are acting purely out of a raw ambition for power. The so-called 'progressive' principles such as those Labour politicians who attended these meetings profess to believe in, are rendered meaningless by their mere attendance at such meetings.

CULTURAL SUPERIORITY is not racism –racial superiority is. Even many liberals think that our Western culture is superior to many others; but would never dare say so because they have tied themselves up in the racist knot. If he is looking down on his enemies, Enoch's feeling of schadenfreude would bring a smile to his face; although it will be tempered by the way the country he loved had been reduced, and its indigenous population gagged by the liberal hegemony and face imprisonment for 'racism'; or the new politically correct redefined definition of the term.

                 The Left, not the Right, are the new autocrats; they are the ones now pulling the strings under the camouflage of 'progressive politics' they are silencing tongues that disagree with their Left-liberal agenda. Such people are infused with the arrogance that persuade them that history is on their side and will balk at any alternative point of view to their own. Blind certainty sets their agenda; and therefore why is any opposition needed?

                 Sooner rather than later this whole liberal 'progressive' edifice will crumble into a bloody mess because the 'progressives' who erected the edifice, like all ideologues who become infused with certainty, will drift almost unconsciously into autocracy as the dreaded political correctness, and the hate crimes, suggests it will. The Left are becoming the new fascists in their certainties; and the very tolerance that they say is at the centre of their liberal beliefs, has already been undermined by political correctness.