Powell’s river of blood?

Who is responsible for the fact that the United Kingdom is one step away from civil war—the natives who oppose mass immigration, or the left-liberal elite that labels its justifiably outraged citizens as thugs, hooligans, and, of course, right-wing extremists?

The large, left-liberal media report on the unrest in the United Kingdom in a fairly uniform and, one might say, predictable manner. The demonstrations are labeled as protests and riots of the “far-right.” In doing so, the main enemy is once again clearly identified.

THUGS FROM THE WORKING CLASS?

Those who protested against mass immigration, carrying banners that read “Protect Our Children,” are labeled by journalists as right-wing extremists, while Prime Minister Starmer calls them thugs and hooligans. On the other hand, those who counter-demonstrated avoided such labels, even though they tried to attack the protesters, shouting “Allahu Akbar.” According to news reports, they were anti-racists. The left-liberal media once again offered an extremely distorted, yet desirable image of reality, where there is a clear division between good and evil.
Although Britain has a long history of racial tensions, this is something entirely new. The protesters are mostly white, and they come from the working class. Until now, however, the “People of Colour” were the ones who most often took to the streets. At that time, the left-liberal media explained the conflicts through social inequalities, class factors, and the alleged structural racism that persists in British society. Sociologists on duty offered stronger efforts against prejudice, educational system reform, and improvement of the social status of the migrant population as solutions to ease tensions.

STARMER’S GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

In the case of the current demonstrations, such explanations are absent. For the political-media class, the protesters are a bunch of far-right extremists, racists, hooligans, and thugs who are only interested in hatred and violence. At best, they are manipulated unfortunates who, due to their prejudices, are an ideal target for fake news. It’s hard not to recall Hillary Clinton’s remark about Donald Trump’s voters as a “basket of deplorables.” Although this term is no longer in use, it fairly well describes how the political-media class views the citizens on the streets. Whatever the reason that brought the British to the streets, it remains incomprehensible to politicians and the media. Therefore, Starmer’s government’s only response is condemnation of the far-right, accompanied by threats of prosecution and arrests.

STRANGE COALITION

On the other side, the counter-demonstrators represent an alliance between the left and Islamists. At their gatherings, one could see an unusual number of communist posters and anti-fascist flags, along with Hamas and Hezbollah flags and chants of “Allahu Akbar.” What connects this strange coalition with the politicians in power is their shared intolerance towards the right.

Attacks on mosques and Islamist slogans can mislead the observer into thinking that this is primarily a religious conflict. However, what is happening is something more complex. On a horizontal level, it is an ethnic conflict where Islam is just one of the components, and not the most important one. Parallel to this, there is another, vertical division, between the elite and the people, since the political-media elite supports the policy of mass immigration. Thus, the issue of immigration, or the identity issue, is what connects these two lines of division.

THE UNSTATED CAUSE

Of all the major media, only the Zurich NZZ (Neue Züricher Zeitung) noticed that most media refuse to clearly indicate the essence and state the reason behind all these events in Britain. It is about mass and uncontrolled immigration. Simply put, these are protests by natives who can no longer cope with mass immigration and the consequences it brings. One of those consequences is the decline in security; the indigenous population does not want Islamist gangs patrolling the streets. They also do not want to witness the cultural transformation of their country and the destruction of their way of life. British workers are defending themselves against unlimited immigration, while the party that calls itself Labour, i.e., the workers’ party, sends the police against them.

THE BIRMINGHAM SPEECH

In any case, this problem did not arise suddenly. It has been playing a role in British society for a long time, although the media and both major parties have tried to ignore or minimize it, or to silence all critical voices. In April 1968, British Conservative politician Enoch Powell, in his famous Birmingham speech, warned of the incalculable consequences of mass immigration. This speech entered history under the title “Rivers of Blood.” Concluding his speech, Powell quoted the Roman poet Virgil and his prophecy to the Romans about the Tiber foaming with blood. “As I look to the future, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see ‘the River Tiber foaming with much blood’.” The allusion is more than clear; if uncontrolled immigration is not curbed, Britain can expect unrest, conflicts, and ultimately civil war—”rivers of blood.”

NO DEMAGOGUERY

At that time, Powell was not a marginal figure, nor an extremist. On the contrary, he was a member of Edward Heath’s Shadow Cabinet and an important figure among the Tories. Besides his political career, he had an illustrious military past, rising from an ordinary soldier to the rank of brigadier general. Politically, he supported the independence of colonies and opposed any empire, both British and European. Therefore, he was against British membership in the European Union. Today, people who hold Powell’s views on immigration are described with the vague term “populist,” or more frequently, “right-wing populist.” This likely implies that opponents of mass immigration use demagogic tricks. In Powell’s case, this label doesn’t fit. He cannot be accused of being a demagogue because he did not deceive his audience with phrases, slogans, and empty optimism. Instead, he wanted to convey what he saw. “To see and not to speak would be the great betrayal,” Powell said. He spoke out, and for that, he paid the price.

DISASTROUS JOURNEY INTO MULTICULTURALISM

Even at the time of Powell’s speech, violence against the local population and attacks by immigrants were becoming an unpleasant part of daily life. Powell understood how things would develop and saw it as his duty to prevent that development, because the most important task of a statesman is to prevent evils that can be foreseen. This is not simple, as these evils cannot be proven until they happen. For Powell, this problem was tied to human nature, which is more concerned with today’s troubles than with tomorrow’s, while politicians often consciously neglect the future to solve present problems. In this context, Powell quoted a voter from his constituency who, clearly dissatisfied with the state of the country, stated that he would gladly emigrate if he had the money. It wasn’t about unemployment, poor standards, or something similar. The man wanted to leave because he could no longer recognize his country and city, nor did he see any future for himself and his three children in an England slowly moving towards multiculturalism.

A MINORITY IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY

In his speech, Powell cited other examples of people who, lacking the money to emigrate, endure the hell of life in the multicultural paradise. Powell was fully aware that it is not insignificant whether foreigners make up 1% or 10% of the population. Therefore, he warned that in 15 to 20 years, in many parts of Britain, immigrants would become the majority, occupying entire areas and cities, while the native population would become a minority in their own country. On the other hand, as long as immigrants remain a tiny minority, they will strive to adapt to the majority. However, the moment their number increases, when they form their own communities and separate neighborhoods, the desire to adapt will disappear. At that moment, they will seek to impose their own rules in their space and force the local population to adapt to this new order. It doesn’t take much wisdom to conclude that uncontrolled immigration must inevitably lead to increased tensions and the emergence of conflicts.

DISCORD BETWEEN THE ELITE AND THE PEOPLE

However, Powell believed that it was not too late and that the worst-case scenario could be avoided if further immigration was stopped and incentives were created for emigration. In 1968, it might not have been too late to stop immigration, but it was already past the time when it could be openly discussed. Powell’s political career was destroyed. The Times wrote about the “evil speech,” and the speaker was branded a racist. The day after Powell’s address, Tory leader Edward Heath decided there was no longer a place for him in his Shadow Cabinet. Shortly thereafter, Powell was expelled from the party.

The support of nearly one hundred thousand citizens who sent letters of support did not help, nor did the fact that the party’s membership stood behind Powell. Support even came from the unions because workers, from their own experience, understood the situation Powell spoke of and shared his concerns. Dockworkers in Westminster took to the streets to express their support for Powell. After all, immigrants were coming to working-class neighborhoods. Nevertheless, neither Heath nor Margaret Thatcher, who succeeded him as party leader, wanted to hear about their former party colleague. The Conservatives won the 1970 elections, but Powell remained out of the Cabinet. It didn’t help that, according to a 1972 Daily Express poll, he was the most popular politician in the country. Already then, it became clear that there was a discord between the elite and the people.

LONDON NEIGHBORHOODS RESEMBLING PAKISTAN

For years, Powell’s words have been confirmed. He did not live to see, but predicted, the racial riots in Oldham and Burnley in 2002. He could not have known about the terrorist attacks and beheadings in England, nor about the drastic incidents like the one in Rotherham, where a few years ago, it was revealed that a gang of local Muslims had been abusing over a thousand girls and forcing them into prostitution for over thirty years, right under the authorities’ noses. Local authorities and police pretended not to know what was happening for fear of being accused of racism and Islamophobia. Powell foresaw that one day entire neighborhoods in English cities would look like Pakistan, where only women covered with veils and men in traditional Pakistani attire would be seen on the streets. In those neighborhoods, there is no longer any trace of any attempt at integration. The chant of these people when they take to the streets is “Allahu Akbar.”

BRITAIN ON THE STREETS

None of this has led to a change in course or the cessation of multiculturalism policies, but only to an increase in repression against critics. From this perspective, Powell fared relatively well in his time. Indeed, David Cameron said back in 2011 that multiculturalism in the United Kingdom had proven unsuccessful, but nothing was done about it. If it had been, Britain might not need to take to the streets today. With every criticism of multiculturalism, the establishment has tried to portray Muslims on the island as the only true victims, further strengthening Islamist tendencies. Prime Minister Starmer applied the same model, as did the extremists on the left who tried to exploit the situation to demonstrate their own moral superiority.

HOW TO SILENCE THE OPPONENT

Indeed, the British establishment, as it was more than fifty years ago, is afraid to talk about immigration. It avoids the unpleasant topic, and when things get serious, it resorts to silencing the opponent by morally discrediting them as racist. Pointing to real or imagined “far-right organizations” as organizers of the riots does not solve the problem but masks it and sweeps it under the rug. The political-media elite strives to preserve its image, and the best it can offer in place of dialogue is social media censorship. If he were alive today, Powell would be labeled a troublemaker. One thing is certain: this is not the way to calm tensions. If there are more serious conflicts in the future, the blame will primarily lie with the stubborn media-political elite, which for over fifty years has only escalated rhetoric and blocked free discussion. In his speech, Powell said that when the gods want to punish someone, they take away their reason. The left-liberal political-media elite has learned nothing from those words in over fifty years.