Published On: Mon, Apr 23rd, 2018

The Enoch Powell “Rivers of Blood” psychological operation

Share This
Tags

The FBEL reader will not have failed to notice that the British Establishment has, lately, been poking frantically at the embers of the half-century old Enoch Powell “Rivers of Blood” controversy. At the same time there has been the most awful stink about the British citizens, originally from the West Indies, who have been deported by a suddenly-super-efficient Government agency that somehow can’t get access to tax records, for instance, that would demonstrate that its victims have been in the UK for the most part of their lives.

As the reader might well know, the general impression that the British public has about Enoch Powell is that the speech that he is famous for was a reaction to the Windrush generation immigration of black folk from the Caribbean. There is, in his anecdote about the whiny woman who refused to do what would have been good business by letting “Negroes” stay at her bed and board (and refused to sell up for what she could recover from tenants in a matter weeks), a reference to “wide-grinning piccaninnies… [who] cannot speak English” – but these could not have been folk from the West Indies. There was also, in Powell’s speech, a reference to a Labour MP who thought that Sikhs – those keenest of servants of Empire – should not have allowances made in the work place for religious practices [a subject which resonates today vis a vis female Muslim garb – it’s a topic in general that still hasn’t run its course to a logical termination, through fear of mentioning it]. But it was the “whip hand” comment that singled out blacks and implied some kind of avenging mob who would be looking for retribution for slavery. So what can we make of the current coincidence of the re-emergent  promoting and bashing (two sides of the same coin) of Enoch Powell, and the deportation of black people who should not have been deported?

Maybe it tells us that Enoch Powell’s speech was a psychological operation intended to make the British obsessed with a threat that didn’t exist and could never have existed: the coloured man from the colonies, his refusal to integrate, and the power that he could leverage through segregation facilitated by a British Government keen to legislate a protected status upon a Balkanised people. This is basically the sum of Enoch Powell’s fears as expressed in that speech. But as it turned out, the black man never would get the whip hand over the white – as Powell should have known before he opened his gob. Did he really imagine the likes of Ted Heath and the Queen as pick and shovel wielding navigators being driven by a Jamaican overseer who could whip off a tiara or an Order of the Garter breast star at 50 paces?

Even as Powell was making his speech, he had already been proven wrong – and he admitted that, up until that time, most immigrants from the Commonwealth wanted to and had integrated into British cultural society:

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 who 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.

There was, of course, an obstacle to integration precipitated by the colour of a Commonwealth gentleman’s skin, because the British Victorian “Spartan” ruling class – the people who practically invented racialism – had taught the general British public that it, even if it lived in inner-city squalor, throwing its waste in the street and sending its children about bare-footed, wasn’t suffering from the moral decrepitude that the poverty-stricken coloured fellow in the Empire had brought upon himself.

Powell and his ilk should have had no trouble understanding that, for the most part, there could not be a culture clash because the people who were coming from across the world had been subjects of the British Crown for hundreds of years, and going to the UK was like going to the Motherland. Folk from the West Indies, of British, Indian and African origin all, were actual British subjects; the author’s great, great uncle was the Bishop of Belize, so he should know. The one† problem that has transpired from immigration from the Commonwealth has come about through the British Government’s tolerance and promotion of the extremer interpretations of Islam. If we were to apply him to this case, Powell would be right – but too late; the well has already been poisoned by the demonization of the harmless black man. Rational debate about immigration producing a protected balkanised power-seeking people has been spoiled by Powell’s “whip hand” anecdote.

And the real damage from Powell’s psyop, however, is manifesting itself now. At this time, the UK is faced with an immigrant population unimagined by Powell that is, and will be granted rights from a foreign power (the EU) to live and work in the UK, and draw from its welfare state regardless [as predicted] – and opponents of what is clearly real colonisation and occupation by an hostile organising entity are marginalised as racialists or radicals. Indeed, at this time, as a Fake Brexit and all that it entails looms, the Establishment is prodding black/white race relations squabbles off the gurney from whence it had been dying in order that neither sort of Briton appreciate the treason.

It occurs to the author that he has been referring to the “whip hand” without explaining its significance (or it has been assumed that the FBEL reader knows it); Powell recalled a conversation with a constituent who had had this to say:

In this country in 15 or 20 years’ time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.

Powell acknowledged that it would cause offense, but claimed he had a duty to recall the anecdote – because it was the expression of a decent man, and it was shared by hundreds of thousands of decent men and women in Britain. This is, of course, abject nonsense. Anyone who talks about power over another man through a whip is not decent. If Powell had been decent, his speech would not have repeated the grunting of a dimwit, but it would have detailed how he had excoriated an idiot that he had met. And this is the trouble. A few people, who were firmly under the impression that they were British subjects, coming from the Caribbean should not have caused the consternation in the population of the UK that Powell describes. One feels the fear could only have been produced by years of British Establishment prejudice-stoking. In the same way, the British were taught to hate the Hun, who in 1914, had lately been bayoneting nuns in Belgium, and turning babies out of prams onto roasting spits. Today, hundreds of thousands of indecent Britons are whipped into hatred of the Muslim primarily through false flag terror executed by Government.

It is very interesting to discover that Powell’s speech came a fortnight after the assassination of Martin Luther King – of course, itself a State Crime blamed on a patsy. King would bring the races together through non-violent activism and civil disobedience – this was contrary to the desires of the Masonic Anglo-globalists who govern the US and the UK, who require tension within the populations they control so that focus never alights upon the real source of all the trouble. Now imagine the added impact of Powell’s speech in the wake of a murder of a black American civil rights activist seemingly by a racist white man – who would even turn up in Britain to be arrested at London Heathrow!

The Wikipedia entry for the “Rivers of Blood” speech explains that although the speech was made in a political backwater, the Birmingham independent television company, ATV, sent a TV crew to the General meeting of the West Midlands Area Conservative Political Centre especially to capture it for wider consumption. The speech was also timed for maximum exposure – it would make the television news on Saturday evening, appear in the Sunday newspapers to excite passion on a day where there was nothing else to be done, and finally get picked up by other newspapers for the Monday morning.

British people were then told by the Times newspaper that Powell’s speech was evil: it was primarily the work of the father of Breitbart’s supposed Brexit saviour, Jacob Rees-Mogg [some of us knew that he was a Morlock all along].

Rees-Mogg, the elder, had written this:

His speech was disgraceful, as Mr Heath observed, because it was racialist; that is because it was calculated to inflame hatred between the races, not only of white against black, but also of black against white.

The language, the innuendoes, the constant appeals to self-pity, the anecdotes, all combine to make a deliberate appeal to racial prejudice. This is the first time that a serious British politician has appealed to racial hatred, in this direct way, in our post-war history. It occurred within a couple weeks of the murder of Martin Luther King and the burning in many American cities.

Notice the insistence of the black versus white. Apparently, Times editorial writers helped to define the parameters regarding the sort of immigration Powell had been discussing. As mentioned above, public perception of Powell’s speech was and is that it was anti-black. Evidently, the British corporate-media is where this notion would have been reinforced. And also notice the reference to Dr King, and the threatening reaction in America to what would have been portrayed as racially motivated murder. This Times piece was absolutely all about stoking tension in the UK, and it is from the very same playbook that these days brings you stories of Brexit-aggravated crime; consider this detail from the Wikipedia entry, and recognise the output of corporate-media in our contemporary circumstances (see, for instance, the “Brexit murder” as examined by FBEL):

The Times went on to record incidents of racial attacks in the immediate aftermath of Powell’s speech. One such incident, reported under the headline “Coloured family attacked”, took place on 30 April 1968 in Wolverhampton itself: it involved a slashing incident with 14 white youths chanting “Powell” and “Why don’t you go back to your own country?” at patrons of a West Indian christening party.

The Prime Minister of the day, Edward Heath (the man who oversaw the end of an independent British people), sacked Enoch Powell from his cabinet. Later, Margaret Thatcher said this of that event: “I really thought that it was better to let things cool down for the present rather than heighten the crisis”. She was right, of course; the treatment of Powell was just more fuel on the fire – a provocation to whites who thought that he had been speaking on their behalf. Moreover, this “crisis” was happening ahead of the signing into law of the Race Relations Act, 1968. Something had obviously been required to make it appear wholly necessary; Powell duly lifted the stone and brought all the (apparent) white racialists – so many of them – scurrying out of their cover.

The divide and conquer psyop around which Powell’s speech formed a kernel goes on. Raheem Kassam – the Breitbart man who, with Douglas Carswell, provided the necessary tension to tear UKIP apart for the benefit of the British Establishment, tells us in a new book that “Enoch was right”. That portion of the white British population who think that Powell was hard done by gets another dose of reinforcing “told you so”. On the other side, the BBC had an actor read Powell’s speech – it was the same guy who had played Palpatine, the scheming politician and racist leader of the Galactic Empire, in all six film episodes of Star Wars [the Disney efforts don’t count]. And of course, at the same time while all this had been going on, the British Government has been deporting black people “by accident”.

Theresa May is receiving a lot of abuse about this “terrible mistake” from the wing of politics that likes to exploit identity more than the other. Being blamed is her “hostile environment” – law that was put on the statute books in 2014 and 2016. The fact that the Labour party did not repeal previous Tory legislation from 1996 that meant employers had to check immigration papers, and in 2006 actually passed its own laws to enforce this regime of checking with big fines, is conveniently somehow glossed over. No, it is Theresa May who gets the blame for her 21st century laws whereby immigration checks have to be done further afield than in employment: landlords, banks and public servants had to start doing checks on a migrant’s status; the upshot: an illegal had more chance of being discovered. Add to the fact that the authorities under the Tory Executive evidently like to deal with Windrush generation Caribbean-origin folk as illegal immigrants, and here is a recipe by which the Tories, and, of course, the people who voted for them, get to be branded racists. It all looks too suspiciously like engineered shenanigans to divide people into political affiliations within the false left-right paradigm along racial issues. Can people still be so dumb to fall for it?

In 2014, with the EU referendum ahead, David Cameron and Theresa May were in a spot over immigration from the EU – the sort that no political party in the vassal Westminster Parliament could control (nor can). To make it appear as if the Government could do something about unlimited immigration, the Tories extended the immigration checking regime. The elephant in the room is always the EU and its impact; social justice warriors and identity politicking socialists should look no further to apportion blame than the mechanics that they themselves have constructed. There cannot be unlimited immigration into a welfare state because resources will become expended (reinforcing the fact that immigration is a component of socialism to its real end: to bleed capital from many owners into the hands of a few). If Britain was a capitalist country (more akin to the one that the first West Indians experienced when they came and bought property), then there could be no objection to immigration, and it could never be described as “mass”, because immigrants with no right by their nationality (unlike certain Commonwealth peoples) would have to purchase their means, and thereby their right to remain, or by market forces, not be able to stay.

But this is not to defend the Tories, or any one of their voters – the author has written before of the 1970s time-warp that many Jerry and Margot Leadbeaters live in, up and down the land, to harbour all sorts of fantasies about their political environment. The Tories are not capitalists – they are socialists too – although Labourites never see it themselves, and know that the Tories don’t like black people. This is the crude stuff by which the “decent” Briton is easily conquered.

 

† In the past, the author has had it proposed to him (by Eastern Europeans demonstrating a racial prejudice that never fails to emerge over the course of an interaction) that “black” culture is as harmful as the extreme interpretations of Islam. What they are referring to is the prison culture that was invented in the USA as part of demoralisation of the black American. To deal with this properly, we would have to get into a far reaching subject that incorporates CIA-sponsored modern art as a tool of social degeneration, etc, etc.

It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.
Displaying 1 Comments
Have Your Say
  1. Adrian P says:

    Very interesting analysis.