by George Mosley
IN HIS famous “Rivers of Blood” speech, Enoch Powell prophesied that in the near future the non-Whites in Britain would have the whip hand.
This prediction is usually portrayed by the left as an example of unhinged Whiteness, an hysterical response to what they deem a moderate, natural, and just process. But anyone who doubts the veracity of of Powell’s statement has only to think that London, the city of Shakespeare, is now no longer an English city: It is less that 40 per cent. White British; that the gritty White working-class city of Liverpool has an International Slavery Museum which is dedicated to the “understanding of racism and discrimination”; that London has a foreign mayor bent on tearing down all remnants of White history; and that in the last decade “visible minorites” drugged, raped, and pimped out young White British females on an industrial scale while the White “authorities” did everything but cheer them on. (In this latter case, the White traitors, it is said, did nothing even after being informed of what was going on because they were frightened of being called “racists.” But perhaps that gives them too much credit. How many of these “authorities,” conditioned to be “anti-racists” by their training and by their desire to keep their paychecks and pensions, welcomed this torture and degradation of young girls of their own race? The whip hand, indeed.
In 1977, Powell delivered a speech that has been less remarked upon but which is equally cogent in its analysis of replacement ideology. The speech was called “The Road to National Suicide,” and it lays out the racial dynamics of the central issue of our time: the dispossession of the European peoples in both their ancestral homelands and their colonial offshoots.
Here is how it works:
RESTRICTION OF SPEECH
Powell leads off with what enables this dispossession in the first place — the suppression of speech on the topic. Polling has shown that when White people are explicitly informed of their demographic position, they become alarmed. Thus from time to time we see journalists warn one another not to speak on this subject in an “inflammatory” way, to downplay its scale and significance — lest White people become alerted to our pending replacement, wake up, and take action.
Powell was aware of this situation and wrote of the “sedulous determination with which this subject has been kept, as far as possible, out of parliamentary debate, and the use which has been made of every device from legal penalty to trade union proscription to prevent the open discussion and ventilation of it. No social or political penalty, no threat of private ostracism or public violence, has been spared against those who have nevertheless continued to describe what hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens daily saw and experienced.”
So, when the silence is broken, massive anathema is heaped on the person who dares to do it, in order to show others the harsh repercussions that will overtake anyone sounding the alarm.
Powell also saw that a crucial element of our enemies’ strategy was the idea of “hate speech.” He says that in the past it had always been necessary to show that someone intended to “stir up race hate” in order to quell his speech. (And even that restriction proves that Britain’s enemies have long been writing Britain’s laws.) But he saw that more and more they were stepping over the need to prove intent; that once our rulers said that any collection of words was “hateful,” they could and would be suppressed.
Powell points to a law with the Orwellian name of the “Race Relations Act.” He says that under this act’s provisions, the bar of proof was exceedingly low to charge a person with the “crime” of “hate speech.” Powell notes that in an earlier speech he had referred to immigrants as “alien wedges.” He says that he personally spoke to the UK Attorney General (AG) about it and was told that the AG did not believe that by using that phrase Powell intended to “stir up hate.”
However, the Attorney General said he did believe that this phrase “could cause racial unrest,” and that thus it would be deemed criminal.
Powell notes that this novel interpretation of what constitutes “hate speech” is a watershed in Western societies and gives the authorities unlimited power to shut their opponents up.
THE REPLACEMENT IS INTENTIONAL
The Jew Eric Kafumann’s book, Whiteshift, is a recent attempt to explain the very phenomenon Powell was dissecting. As a Jew, Kafumann writes that this replacement can no more be halted or stopped than “King Canute can command the waves.” This is a common ploy of our slippery enemies, the suggestion that European dispossession is happening at the behest of no one, that it is akin to a natural force, like a hurricane or a tsunami — so it is futile to fight against it. To escape their guilt in the matter, they would have us believe that this replacement is outside of human agency. (If our slippery enemies are not actually human, of course, then they would be right to say that. Hmmmm…)
Powell will have none of it: “On the other hand there are at work the dark motives of those who desire the catastrophic outcome… all round the world in various forms the same formula for rending societies apart is being prepared and applied, and there are those who are determined to see to it that Britain shall no longer be able to escape. I marvel sometimes that people should be so innocently blind to this nihilism.”
“Enrichment” has become a buzzword to encompass the supposed benefits of mass immigration. It has been used so much and so repetitively that it has become an inside joke in White nationalist circles, as when aware folk will say of a White person who has been killed by an immigrant that he has been “enriched.” Powell too sees this word as a token of the fundamental dishonesty of the endeavor of replacement: “To tell the indigenous inhabitants of Brixton or Southall or Leicester or Bradford or Birmingham or Wolverhampton, to tell the pensioners ending their days in streets of nightly terror unrecognizable as their former neighborhoods, to tell the people of towns and cities where whole districts have been transformed into enclaves of foreign lands, that the man with a colored face could be an enrichment to my life and that of my neighbors is to drive them beyond the limits of endurance.”
POWER IN A MULTIRACIAL SOCIETY
It is here that Powell’s analysis of multiracialism goes into high gear. He starts out by asserting his overarching premise: “The beginning of wisdom is to grasp the law that in human societies power is never left unclaimed and unused. It does not blow about, like wastepaper on the streets, ownerless and inert. Men’s nature is not only to exert power where they have it; men cannot help themselves from exerting power where they have it, whether they want to or not.”
Then he lists the ways that a minority can exert power over a majority. He says that the number of immigrants is not as important as several other key considerations. First he says that the fact that they deem themselves, and are deemed to be, separate is to their advantage, as is their geographic concentration: “The colored population of over two million in England, a population which grows at the rate of nearly 100,000 a year while the remainder diminishes, a population which is predominantly concentrated in the central areas of the metropolis and other key urban and industrial centers of England, does possess simply by reason of segregation and differentiation a power which would not accrue to a mere random sample of two million persons similarly located but not perceived or perceiving themselves as distinct from the rest.”
But even more important than this is the “moral calculus” of the relationship between the majority and the minority: “The publicly expressed attitude of the indigenous population towards the colored population is one of apology and self-accusation, denoted, amongst other things, by the passing of ever severer laws for the protection of the minority in circumstances where protection is not intended to be available, and would in practice not be available, for members of the majority who were similarly disadvantaged.”
Here we have “White guilt,” now a permanent part, it seems, of Western societies. It is this guilt which paralyzes the majority and renders it unable to act in time to stave off the disaster — or even to recognize it as such. And in stark contrast to today’s Jew-instigated furor over so-called “White privilege,” Powell see things as being exactly the reverse: The privilege lies entirely with the “minorities”: “The plain effect is, and is understood by both minority and majority to be, to endow the members of a distinctive and growing minority with privilege, and to communicate to them the dangerous conviction that the guilty and apologetic behavior of the majority derives at least in part from fear.”
This fear is fatal. Fear is like chum in the water; our racial enemies can smell it and sense it — and its excites them to a frenzy. The cowering majority grants concession after concession but, far from palliating the frenzy, it feeds it. This speaks to the majority’s inability to do what Ian Smith said that Rhodesia did: “to say this far and no farther.”
Powell calls out this sick dynamic: “Once the position of strength and privilege, natural and psychological, which I have described is created, it is bound to be used as a means to extend that strength and privilege further.”
Of course a sane majority would simply assert its power to solve the “minority” problem, preferably by total and irrevocable separation; but with White guilt in play, the majority fractures and splits as Whites have in America.
It is at this point that the “minority” truly comes into its own as an alien wedge. “In this the situation of a minority which possesses full political rights but yet regards itself and its interests as distinct from, and possibly antagonistic to, those of the host society, is especially favorable. In the narrowly balanced politics of Britain, political support can be auctioned to the highest bidder in return for further privileges and concessions.”
The minority, in a mass democracy, essentially becomes the “swing” constituency, and by siding (as it naturally will) with whatever faction gives it the most, it forms with them a majority; and at that point it rules the roost. The weak-kneed Whites know that whatever power they have (and it is nominal now, the minority is in power) rests on its willingness to give away more and more of its power in a never ending cycle of abasement.
The minority which feels itself coming into power, and sees the fear in its enemy’s eyes, will soon parlay this to more power still through acts of terror and violence. We saw last summer that when the Blacks (weaponized by Jewish media and truckling pols) burned down the country, they were quickly showered with many millions if not billions of corporate dollars. An then an ostensibly “America First” president offered American Blacks a “platinum plan,” of even more wealth to transfered to them from taxpaying Whites, letting them know once again that crime does indeed pay very well. Indeed, in the first blush of the violence in Minneapolis, Trump loudly went on record about how much he had done for “Historically Black Colleges.” Such pusillanimity will always be met with its just reward: extinction.
Powell indicates that this is a basic law of human society: “The experience of the last decade and more, all round the world, shows that acts of violence, however apparently irrational or inappropriate their targets, precipitate a frenzied search on the part of the society attacked to discover and remedy more and more grievances, real or imaginary, among those from whom the violence is supposed to emanate or on whose behalf it is supposed to be exercised.”
“THE COLOR OF YOUR SKIN IS A UNIFORM”
And this “minority” possesses the most obvious advantage of all: racial differences in appearance, including skin color. Powell notes that this simple and unchangeable fact brings enormous benefits to the minority: “Differentiation by color, where it exists, is an enormously important factor in this context, effective in a number of ways which all operate in the same direction. It is, first, a permanent and involuntary uniform, which performs all and more of the functions of a uniform in warfare, distinguishing one side from the other, friend from foe, and making it possible to see at a glance what is happening, where to render assistance, and where to attack.”
It is this basic fact which renders all so-called “color blind ideology” useless. As long as the racial majority and minority are in competition with one another (and they always will be) it will be appearance which sorts out who’s who, and who’s on whose side; which eternally draw a sharp line between the elemental us and them.
Our ancestors, the best of them anyway, knew that once racial separation was breached the minority would gain the upper hand; no sooner would they be welcomed into society than they would attack it, turning their first victory into subsequent ones.
Powell too places great emphasis on this: “Color polarizes, and reinforces differentiation and segregation, because the individual, however much, as an individual, he may become, and wish to become, assimilated to the host population, is firmly identified, and thus eventually obliged to identify himself, with the minority to which he belongs. Color is a recruiting sergeant, and a recruiting sergeant for officer material.”
It is in this context that Powell outlines the end game of this perverse dynamic. He believes that once this process has been unleashed it becomes nearly impossible to halt it; like a snowball it rolls faster and faster and gathers more and more weight until it becomes a juggernaut. He says it happens with almost machine-like rigor: “I have been describing the forces which, with a kind of mechanical inevitability, invest the New Commonwealth immigrant and immigrant-descended population in England with the sort of power which cannot in the nature of things remain unexerted.”
Most of all, this escalating power stems from the inevitable near-exponential growth of non-White numbers.
The guilt of the majority is played on, and as part of “deference” to the minority, more immigrants are allowed in to “placate” them; and then with what Lothrop Stoddard referred to as the “social sterilization” effect of increasing immigration (depressed wages, lowered living conditions) the majority fails to reproduce itself.
Voltaire said that history is nothing but the soft sound of silk slippers descending the staircase, being passed by the clatter of hobnailed boots going up — that is, a soft, declining people confronted by a hard and rising one.
Powell closes his analysis with a dark message indeed: “What we do know is that upon any conceivable assumption, short of wholly new policy initiatives, the New Commonwealth immigrant and immigrant-descended population will continue to grow not only absolutely but proportionately until far into the next century. They will occupy more and more key areas and, it may be added, key functions in the heartlands of the Kingdom. The process is one of which both populations will continuously and increasingly be conscious. It is this fact which, added to all the rest, points to the prospect of eventual conflict upon a scale which cannot adequately be described by any lesser term than civil war.”
And there you have it: civil war. Powell thinks that this war is inevitable unless the majority takes what he calls “heroic measures,” but he sees no evidence of their ability or willingness to to do so, or even to countenance others doing so.
It used to be said “There will always be an England.” But that romantic phrase is pure fatuous nonsense without the steel-hard will and total dedication of our best men, determined to make it true.
All over Britain, all over Europe, and wherever any European-derived people live, let us bond together in our Alliance so we may take those heroic measures that must be taken. And let us begin today.
* * *