‘STATE MULTICULTURALISM’

LAST WEEK THE PRIME MINISTER, gave a speech in Germany, part of which was dedicated to a critique of Multiculturalism.  For the first time in Multicultural Britain, we had a prime minister finally nerving himself to the challenge of publicly discrediting this ideology. He followed in the wake of Germany’s  Prime minister Angela Merkle who had denounced the credo as unworkable on a previous occasion.

                If  Mr Cameron  had voiced  such concerns and made them a major issue during last May’s General Election, he would be governing with a comfortable majority today, instead of horse-trading with  Liberal Democrats. But at least he has set the tone for the debate that needs to be had.

                Had Mr Cameron  spoken of such things just five years ago he would have seen his political ambitions  evaporate before his eyes, while his name would foul the sweet aroma of politically correct thinking that infuses many a dinner table of the London chattering classes.

                However, the expected backlash, which no doubt the prime minister and his advisors expected, turned out to be somewhat of a damp squib. There were no screams of racism - that intellectual pollutant that had silenced reason in the past: there were was also no outraged Labour MPs infecting the airways (as they once did in the past)  with their phoney outrage.

                No, any criticism from her majesty’s opposition was not about the content of Mr Cameron’s speech, but more to do with the purely coincidental  timing of a march on the same day by the British Defence League in Luton.

                The fact is, is that all Labour politicians, even those representing areas of second and third generation migrants, know how their voters feel on the topic of Multiculturalism. There are as many from the Indian and West Indian communities who oppose Multiculturalism, as there are among the aboriginal population.

                We have reached a point in this country’s history where we have to salvage the remains of our indigenous culture and demand from those of other cultures who wish to live among us to adapt to the host culture or return to wherever in the world their culture belongs.

                It is no longer acceptable to say (as Multiculturalism implies) just obey the law and live as you please. The host culture will adapt to you instead of you adapting to it. It is a wonder that the host culture has tolerated such a situation for so long. But then we realise the cost to anyone who opposed such a situation in the past. Such people were fascists, Nazis, members of the National Front, and latterly the BNP.  Fear has governed the evolution of multiculturalism and allowed it to take root and grow.

                If Multiculturalism was our only problem we could indeed consider ourselves fortunate. But we also have to concentrate our minds on the numbers of immigrants that have, in recent years, been allowed to intrude themselves upon us. Under Labour such vast encroachments were given  the nod by iin order to increase their votes and to indict the Tories of racism if they dared object.

                Since the 1960s, the Conservative Party has been vulnerable to charges of being racist because they produced multiculturalism’s greatest hate figure.

                Enoch Powell would today,  intellectually speaking, stand head and shoulders above any single politician from whatever party now occupies the green benches. He has become, in liberal folklore, their very own Hitler. Although there were many political admirers of his qualities at the time, the age of modern social liberalism demanded his evisceration  from British politics.

ENOCH POWELL’S CONTRIBUTION to parliamentary politics surpasses any modern contribution. He was a first rate classicist and staunch believer in the law and democracy. He was not a Nick Griffin as many liberal’s would like the modern voter to believe. It is true that his name is often called upon by the BNP to supplement their madness with the tincture of credibility; but the thoughtful Enoch would have, not so much turned on Nick Griffin, but ignored him completely.

                What made Enoch Powell public enemy number one was his famous (or infamous)  ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech given on April 22 1968. It was this speech that, in liberal Britain at the time, started what was latter to become the ideology of multiculturalism. Guilt for this country’s colonial history swept the nation and translated itself into a vitriolic hatred for what became known as Powellism by the British Left. Self loathing was the imprint that the 1960s left on the Left regarding our history.

                ‘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. 

                This passage from Powell’s  ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech has proven to be the most quoted among Powell’s liberal combatants since the 1960s. But Powell understood the sensitivities of the British people far better than did his political contemporaries or, for that matter, the modern politician. Which is why today all politicians from all parties are all too aware of the feelings of their constituents on this subject; and for the sake of their  seats are all too willing to modify their sentiments.

                If we look at the statistics on  immigration today, they are set to surpass Powell’s predictions.  Come the middle of this century, this island’s  population will have to acclimatise itself to some  70-80 million people. Powell’s figures (considered racist)  are somewhat  short of the mark. Yet by producing them he forfeited  his career at the time and had to  suffer the ignominy of having his name associated with racism .

                I believe in the coming months Enoch Powell ‘s contribution to the immigration debate will be read and heard more sympathetically than in the past. The knee-jerk reaction that accompanies any mention of his name in anything other than an unfavourable light, will lose its force and, rather belatedly, we will be able to confront those liberal demons that have been allowed to take control of the immigration agenda and mould from it the ideology of Multiculturalism.

                David Cameron has at least acknowledged the mess he, and those from within the Left of all the political parties, have made. Multiculturalism was part of the knee-jerk reaction to Enoch Powell mentioned above. It took off and its almost virus like qualities infected every political and academic institution. But rather than bringing people of other cultures together, it has drawn them tribally further apart.

                Let us hope that it is not too late and the genie can be put back. At least the lack of any meaningful backlash to Cameron’s speech by Multiculturalism’s supporters, may suggest that the tide is finally turning.