Showing posts with label Enoch Powell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Enoch Powell. Show all posts

Saturday, March 15, 2025

Orwell saw this coming

In his all-too-prescient novel 1984, published on 8 June 1949, British author George Orwell predicted a world in which an all-powerful nanny state would watch everyone through surveillance devices called "video screens", watching out for anti-social (and anti-government!) behaviour.

For years now, there have been CCTV cameras outside George Orwell's  home in London. Now a sign has been added warning all and sundry to be of good behaviour... or else!  


Only in No-longer-great Britain, you say? If you live in the USA or Canada... or China... look around you. All that's missing is the sign.

And speaking of English thinkers and writers who had disturbing visions of the future of their sceptered septic isle, check out "'I told you this would happen!': Enoch Powell", WWW 10/8/11.

Wednesday, September 16, 2020

VIDEO: Enoch Powell interviewed by William F. Buckley Jr.

Over nine years ago, we posted "'I told you this would happen!': Enoch Powell", referencing Mr Powell's "Birmingham Speech" -- that was what he called it -- of 20 April 1968. The speech became better known as "the Rivers of Blood speech", for the Rt. Hon. Mr Powell had the courage to say what had already become politically incorrect. Like what? Britain (he said) would rue the day when it opened the doors to 1000s of third-world immigrants who would not or could not be assimilated into British society.

He was right, of course, but for the sin of telling the truth, Enoch Powell was forever branded as a racist, and drummed out of the British Conservative Party's shadow cabinet. A little over a year later, he appeared on Firing Line, the late lamented TV programme hosted by the also-late, also-lamented Willliam F. Buckley, Jr. Here is the complete interview.

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

UPDATED: Answer to yesterday's question: Islamic terrorists!

Yesterday afternoon Walt posed the question "Who's behind Ariana Grande concert explosion?". All we knew at the time was that there had been a big bang at the Ariana Grande concert at Manchester Arena, causing an undetermined number of deaths and injuries. In fairness to jihadis everywhere, and not wishing to fan the flames of Islamophobia, I didn't say flat out that the culprit was a Muslilm terrorist. I only hinted. Still, I was right! Lifetime pct .986.


Here's the update. Following last night's Ariana Grande gig, a suicide bomber detonated an improvised explosive device filled with ball bearings, nuts, bolts and scrap metal, killing at least 22 (including children and parents) and injuring ten dozen more, some of whom are not expected to survive. Horrifying video footage showed 1000s fleeing in tears from the venue, many covered in blood. Petrified children and teens leaped over chairs and barriers as they tried to escape.

Manchester police confirmed the suicide bomber died at the venue after an improvised explosive device was detonated. US security sources [How do they get into this? Ed.] say he travelled to the arena by public transport. Another man, 23, has also been arrested. The "authorities" have declined to release any information about the two. In today's politically correct Europe, that means they are/were Islamic terrorists. Whether they were "home-grown", "radicalized", British citizens or Arab or African "refugees" doesn't matter. "Allahu akbar!", if not heard, was certainly understood.

AP reports from Beirut that the Islamic State says one of its members planted bombs in the middle of the crowds. IS says "a soldier of the caliphate planted bombs in the middle of Crusaders gatherings" then detonated them. It did not say whether the attacker was killed. The group claimed that "30 Crusaders were killed and 70 others were wounded."

The Daily Mail (UK) reports that, shortly before the incident, an unverified Twitter account posted cryptic tweets showing the ISIS black flag alongside the hashtags #IslamicState and #Manchesterarena. The account then posted a message saying, "You forget our threat? This is the just terror." The account was deleted shortly afterwards. Inspector Knacker has declined to comment on the messages, lest anyone draw the obvious conclusions.

Walt asks: Where next? Got any plans to go to a concert? Sporting event? Street festival? Open-air market? You might want to think twice. And when you do, think about what your government is doing to fight back against the Islamic terrorists...if anything!

UPDATE: British Prime Minister Theresa May said Tuesday afternoon (BST) that investigators in the UK probing Monday's attack at a pop concert believe they know the identity of the suspect, but will not release the name until further confirmation. Walt asks: Confirmation of what?!

FURTHER UPDATE
: Manchester police have now named the suicide bomber responsible for the Manchester massacre. He is Salman Abedi, 22, born in Manchester, of Arab (Libyan) ethnicity. But, said Manchester's Chief Constable, since the coroner has not formally identified the remains, nothing further can be said about him. One thing the chief copper will say, though, is that Manchester's diversity is its strength -- must have learned that line from Canada's Justin Trudeau -- and any hate crimes against any members of Manchester's diverse communities will not be tolerated. Unless the victims happen to be white Christians, he didn't add.

STILL FURTHER UPDATE: Manchester police have detained another man, aged 23 (and that's all they will say) who is helping them with their enquiries (as they say). Meanwhile, in a classic example of locking the barn door after the horse has bolted, the British government has not raised its "security threat" level from "severe" to "critical". Fancy that!

Friday, January 8, 2016

Catholic historian Hilaire Belloc foresaw Islamic jihad in 1938

On New Year's Eve, while Muslim "refugees" were assaulting and robbing women in Cologne and other European cities (see "Trump warns Germans after asylum-seekers' sex and crime spree"), Breitbart published an article by Thomas Williams, Ph.D., headed "Hilaire Belloc in 1938: Islam ‘the Most Formidable and Persistent Enemy’ of Western Civilization". It's timely reading precisely because of the events of that night.

Joseph Hilaire Pierre René Belloc (1870-1953) was known as an orator, poet, sailor, satirist, man of letters, soldier, political activist, historian and one of the most prolific writers in England during the early 20th century. He was President of the Oxford Union, and later a Member of the British Parliament from 1906 to 1910.

Dr. Belloc wrote on a vast range of subjects, from warfare to poetry to history to current affairs. He ranks among the "Big Four" of Edwardian Letters, along with the free-thinker H. G. Wells, the atheist George Bernard Shaw, and the traditional Catholic G. K. Chesterton. His Catholic faith had a strong impact on his works, and his vision into the heart of Catholic history is incisive and succinct. The year just past has proven him a great prophet, unheeded in his day and desperately needed now, as his vision of the future is played out in Europe and America.

That vision is contained in Dr. Belloc's 1938 book The Great Heresies, in which he saw almost a century ahead into the current day. He was convinced that Europe and America had forgotten about Islam to their own peril, and were unaware that the Muslim religion could rise again and pose perhaps the greatest threat of any enemy of the Western World. "It has always seemed to me possible, and even probable," he wrote in 1938, "that there would be a resurrection of Islam and that our sons or our grandsons would see the renewal of that tremendous struggle between the Christian culture and what has been for more than a thousand years its greatest opponent."

In the chapter titled "The Great and Enduring Heresy of Mohammed", he predicted the re-emergence of Islam as a global force and unparalleled foe of Christian civilization. "Less than a hundred years before the American War of Independence," he wrote, "a Mohammedan army was threatening to overrun and destroy Christian civilization." Thus there was no reason to think that Islam would not return to its former power, to become once again "the most formidable and persistent enemy which our civilization has had... as large a menace in the future as it has been in the past."

Dr. Belloc saw in his own time what is even more true nearly a century later, that European Christianity had sold out to "temporal things". He wrote, "There is no reason whatever why [Islam] should not learn its new lesson and become our equal in all those temporal things which now alone give us our superiority over it -- whereas in Faith we have fallen inferior to it."

And that's exactly what has happened. We have turned our backs on the Christian Faith that made the Western world strong. Meanwhile, the Muslims grow ever stronger, ever more fanatic, in their false and heretical religion. And, following the commands of Mohammed and the Holy Qu'ran, they are waging jihad -- holy war -- in our own lands.

They do not send whole armies against us, as they did centuries ago. Instead, they infiltrate our countries disguised as refugees and asylum-seekers, to wreak havoc, take over our cities and destroy us and our way of life. And what do we do? Welcome them with open arms! Surely it's time we heeded the warnings given to us by Hilaire Belloc, Enoch Powell, Charles de Gaulle and others who God blessed with the ability to look into the future.

Click here to read the meta-book version of The Great Heresies, courtesy of EWTN and Carnegie Mellon University. If you want to skip the Arians, Albigensians and Lutherans, click here to go straight to "The Great and Enduring Heresy of Mohammed".

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

French satirical paper latest target of Islamic terrorists

As 2014 ends, so 2015 begins, with followers of the Prophet killing infidels in countries which insist on meddling in the Middle East. The USA, of course, Canada, Australia, and now France. Today in Paris, black-hooded gunmen shot and killed at least 12 people -- the body count still hasn't been finalized -- at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical publication similar to Britain's Private Eye or "America's Finest News Source", The Onion.

Two flics (French cops) are believed to be among the dead, and at least another 10 people -- they're still counting as Walt writes -- were injured in the "carnage." A police spokesthingy said the attackers escaped in two vehicles [In Paris traffic? How?! Ed.] and are still at large.

French President François Hollande, France's hugely ineffectual and unpopular president, ordered top government officials to convene an emergency meeting. "This is a terrorist attack, there is no doubt about it," he told reporters, "and we plan to harrumph about it very loudly indeed."

M Hollande also said French police have thwarted several other planned attacks "in recent weeks." He refrained, however, from identifying the attackers as Muslims. So why does Walt fearlessly call them "Islamic extremists"? Well, what do you think?

How about if I tell you that Charlie Hebdo was firebombed in November 2011 after publishing cartoons lampooning Muslim leaders and putting an image of the Prophet Mohammed on its cover. A year later, the magazine published more Mohammed drawings amid an uproar over an anti-Muslim film. The cartoons depicted Muhammad naked and in demeaning or mildly pornographic poses. As passions raged, the French government rebuked Charlie Hebdo for political incorrectness.

Today, the last tweet on Charlie Hebdo's account mocked Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, which has taken control of large swathes of Iraq and Syria. Witnesses to the massacre said they heard the gunmen shouting "We have avenged the Prophet Mohammed!"

The "radicalized Muslims" who have perpetrated the recent attacks in the USA, Canada and Australia have given the "war" on ISIS by America and its coalition of the somewhat willing as the motivation for their terrorist acts. ISIS has published several videos in which young, Western terrorist wannabes have said they're coming to get us, in our own countries and cities. As today's outrage demonstrates, they weren't kidding.

Walt is waiting to see what the French government will actually do to counter the threat of Islamic terrorism. Following today's shooting, the office of the French prime minister announced that the country has raised its anti-terrorism alert to its highest level. So what?

Thanks to political correctness and the "enlightened" immigration policies of its liberal governments, France is full of Muslims, some of them "moderate" and some of them, errr, not so "moderate". There's no getting rid of them, and there's no living with them in peace.


What we are seeing now, in France and the rest of the West, are the first shots in sectarian warfare -- Muslims vs "infidels" -- which can only get worse. The sad thing is so few of our political leaders had the vision to see this coming. See "Charles De Gaulle warns about Muslim immigration" (WWW, 25/8/12).

De Gaulle (1959) and Enoch Powell (1968) were denounced as alarmists and even racists. Today their warnings would be called "Islamophobic". But they were right! The warning bells have been ringing for over half a century. And still the likes of Hussein Obama, Tony Bliar, and Francis the Humble don't get it. Expect more terrorism... coming to your country, your city, perhaps even your neighbourhood... soon!

Friday, March 7, 2014

Bill O'Reilly's latest "book" disappoints

Let's get a couple of things straight. I like Bill O'Reilly. I watch The O'Reilly Factor and enjoy seeing him expose the hypocrisy and barrenness of the the "secular progressive" agenda. Watching him skewer the Prez before the Superbowl was a treat.

You may take from this that I agree with Mr. O'Reilly's point of view on matters political, social and religious. You would be right. (So is he. So am I.) What I wish, however, is that he would restrict his "bloviating" -- his word -- to the airwaves, and leave the polemical writing to someone else.

Why? Because, sadly, Bill O'Reilly is no writer. For him to tout his latest opus, Keep It Pithy (Crowne Archtype, 2013), as "a literary highlight reel" is just wrong. It could be called a book by virtue of being printed on paper and bound in a hard cover, but it is not literature. I'll give him "highlight reel" though, for the "book" is really a collection of snippets from his TV scripts and transcripts. He shares with "my pal Charles Flowers" credit (or blame) for the compilation of the print equivalent of a TV "clip show".

A better compiler or editor might have attempted to impose on the collection some order or coherence. As it is, Mr. O'Reilly covers all the ground from abortion to [Ed., please insert a noun that begins with "Z"], in the zigzag fashion of a drunk wending his way home from the pub. He goes from "a little manual for dealing with the opposite sex" (pp. 102-104) to an argument against the death penalty (pp. 105-106) and onward to how to create your own "No Spin Zone" (pp. 106-109). The transition from the the first topic to the second is handled in that one-liner beloved of stand-up comics, "But, more seriously..." The ellipsis is his.

The ideas are there, all right, but they are neither original nor well-expressed. One wonders if Mr. O'Reilly's thinking is any deeper than shown by such profundities as:
- "Bottom line: Terrorist killers and those who support them are evil. Period." (p. 54)
- "The more stuff I have, the more stuff I want. And so I looked around and saw that everyone else was the same way. It was not until I had a few things that I noticed how this works. The material stuff is addicting!" (p. 57)
- "Why is there so much drug and alcohol abuse in America today? Simple: Alcohol and drugs make huge profits for legal and illegal organizations." (p. 60)
- "Here's the takeaway: If you are after success in America, substance abuse can be your downfall." (ibid.)

How's that for in-depth analysis? I've seen deeper puddles on sidewalks after a summer shower in Arcadia FL! And Keep It Pithy is full of that kind of pith. There's a fair bit of vinegar too, but the whole effect is like listening to a junior high school valedictory speech.

I am a social conservative, a religious traditionalist, and a foe of secular humanism/progressivism and political correctness in all their forms and guises. But I do spend time reading and thinking about issues such as same-sex "marriage", the campaign against public expressions of Christian Faith and the failure of Western foreign policy.

Sometimes I write about these things. So do thinkers who can write much better than I...and much, much better than Bill O'Reilly. Keep It Pithy makes me long to read the deep and well-articulated thoughts of Enoch Powell, or, closer to home, William F. Buckley Jr. If it's a compilation you're after, I recommend Freedom and Reality (a collection of Enoch Powell's speeches: Arlington House, 1969) and/or Quotations from Chairman Bill (self-explanatory: Arlington House, 1970). Both volumes occupy places of honour in my working library here at my cabin in the woods. As for Keep It Pithy, I wouldn't give it shelf space.

Sad footnote: Whatever happened to Arlington House? From 1964 to 1988 it was a publisher of jazz discographies, as well as conservative and anti-communist books. It is now defunct, but you can probably find the titles recommended on Amazon.

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

Multiculti types horrified as Charter of Québec Values bans religious headgear


What's the difference between a hijab, a niqab and a burqa? If you're a woman working in any part of Québec's public sector, the answer is: none whatever. When you go to work, leave your religious headgear at home.

So says the Charter of Québec Values, introduced today by the separatist government of La Belle Province. Also verboten -- oops, défendu -- are yarmulkes, turbans and kirpans. The special underpants that religious Sikh men wear are OK, because they are not "overt religious symbols". By the same token, Christians can wear a small cross or crucifix, but not a large one. Small earrings and finger rings are OK too.

Ever since the gist of the proposed legislation leaked out earlier this summer, those who celebrate diversity and promote multiculturalism have been whining that the Charter is an attack on religious minorities, discriminatory, and (of course) racist. Their argument was helped by remarks made last week by Premier Pauline Marois, who said multicult was responsible for "bomb-throwing" in England, and that the wearing of the hijab/niqab/burqa by Muslim women is an act of submission.

Mme Marois kept quiet over the weekend, handing le micro over to one of her predecessors, Bernard Landry. Appearing on Global TV's West Block, M Landry said flatly -- in English -- that Québec is not a multicultural society, and doesn't want to be one! Multicult, he said, was imposed on Québec, which continues to reject the idea to this day.

“You [the rest of Canada] like multiculturalism, go on,” M Landry continued. “My prediction is that within some years you will regret that attitude, but it’s your problem.” Wow! The ghosts of Charles DeGaulle and Enoch Powell could be heard applauding.

Poor Len Canayen wants to explain something to all the champions of multiculturalism and human rights industry types. The Charter of Québec Values is not about promoting Christianity and/or putting down non-Christian minority religions. The politics of the Parti Québecois is and has always been secularist.

The PQ was born out of Québec's "Quiet Revolution" of the 1960s, which slammed the door hard on the values and teachings of Holy Mother Church, which had long dominated the Québec society. The PQ is by nature leftist and "rationalist", the antithesis of the conservative Union Nationale and Libéral parties it displaced. The values which its proposed Charter enshrines are not those of true liberalism -- such as freedom of religion -- but those of secular humanism, man-centred, not God-centred.

Religious Québecois should, according to the principles of the Faith, oppose the new Charter. But the religious -- Christians or otherwise -- may, sadly, be in the minority. The proposed legislation is a clear winner in public opinion polls, being supported by those who feel, like Bernard Landry, that the waves of immigrants coming into the province must be "managed" and made to accommodate themselves to mainstream Québec society, rather than the other way around.

That is the real intent of the Charter. It has huge support from Québecois of all parties because they think that they will no longer have to look at legions of people walking down the Main attired in veils, turbans and funny hats. And that may be right, but not because the Muslims, Sikhs and Jews will conform, but because they will head west to the city where multicult is king, namely Toronto. Kathleen Wynne's Liberal government is already planning to widen the 401.

Further reading: "Multiculturalism: a failed experiment?"

"'I told you this would happen!': Enoch Powell"

"Charles De Gaulle warns about Muslim immigration"

Thursday, May 30, 2013

When the immigrants took over Britain

In recent weeks Walt has referred to [Note: not "referenced"! Ed.] dire predictions made by Charles De Gaulle, late President of France, and Enoch Powell, formerly a British Member of Parliament, to the fate of their countries should immigration by people of alien cultures not be restricted.

See "Charles De Gaulle warns about Muslim immigration" and "'I told you this would happen!': Enoch Powell". (The text of De Gaulle's speech is reproduced in the original French. If you can't read French, use Google's translator.)

Well, that's 20th century stuff. But it's not as if the phenomenon of one people and their culture being swamped by immigrants is new. One can go back to the 5th century A.D. for a cautionary tale.

Most Americans may not know this [Whaddya mean "may"? Ed.] but the original inhabitants of what is now England were not English. When Julius Caesar led his legions into "Britain" in 55 B.C., he found the land inhabited by Celts -- pronounced with a hard "C"; think "kilts". There were Scots (although they lived in what is now Eire), Picts, Welsh, Cornish and, errr, other Celtic people.

Julius Caesar didn't think a whole lot of Britain. No veni, vidi, vici  yet. It was like "I came; I saw; I went home again." (Walt, having lived in England for some years, understands completely.)  But he and his successors came back, to conquer but -- and this is important -- not to settle. Very few Romans took up residence in the Empire's northernmost province. Something about the climate, perhaps.

Britannia remained a Roman province until about 440 A.D. By that time, Rome itself was being invaded by Visi-, Ostro- and assorted other Goths, so when the (still mostly Celtic) inhabitants of Britain appealed for help against marauders from lands across the North Sea, they were told, "Sorry, but you're on your own."

And so invaders from Jutland (the Jutes) and Saxony (the Saxons) landed by the boatload. So did a tribe called the Angles (not "Angels", as Pope Gregory quipped). They were more aggressive and better at warfare than the Celts, who were driven to the north and west, where to this day they resist and resent domination by the Anglo-Saxons who came to rule "Angle-land". = England! Geddit?!

Pause for a moment and think what must have been the reaction of the Celts to the influx of immigrants from overseas. "There goes the neighbourhood!" would be a gross understatement of their reaction. John O'Farrell, a columnist for the Guardian, put it better in An Utterly Impartial History of 
Britain (Doubleday, 2007).

It must have been hard being a liberal in the fifth century. You'd try to talk in encouraging terms about all the positive aspects of multiculturalism, about the wonderful rainbow mix of ethnic traditions and customs, and then all the immigrants let you down by splitting everyone's head open with an axe, forcing you and your family to flee for your lives.

"Yes, well, you see, in their religion, murder and pillage is very much a matter of honour so I think it would be rather culturally elitist of us to attempt some sort of universal moral judgement based on our own ethical -- Oi! The bastard! He just nicked my ox!"

Funny? You'd be hard-pressed to find a 21st-century Anglo-Saxon Englishman (or Englishwoman) who's laughing. 

Friday, May 24, 2013

No rivers of blood in streets of London... yet

Back in 1960, then-British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan made a speech to the Parliament of South Africa, which was quickly dubbed "the Wind of Change Speech". The theme was that independence was going to come to the British colonies in Africa and the rest of the world sooner rather than later. It was idle to stand up against the wind which was blowing, he told the recalcitrant (white) South Africans, so we might as well embrace the changes to our society which would surely follow.

As part of his government's "adjustment" to the new world of equality and diversity, the doors of Great Britain were opened wide to immigrants of any colour from any British colony. If you held a British passport -- to which people born in the colonies were entitled, at that time -- you were welcome to come and live in the mother country. And to no-one's surprise (except possibly Mr. Macmillan's), that's exactly what they did.

One of those who was not surprised was Enoch Powell, like Mr. Macmillan a Conservative Member of Parliament. After watching boatloads and planeloads of immigrants arrive from places like Jamaica, Pakistan and Nigeria, Mr. Powell made a dire prediction in what came to be called "the Rivers of Blood Speech". The gist of it was, as the name suggests, that unrestricted immigration from countries and cultures so foreign to that of Britain could only lead to social unrest and worse.

Mr. Powell said that Britain would rue the day when it opened the doors to 1000s of third-world immigrants who would not or could not be assimilated into British society. His speech included the line, "As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see 'the River Tiber foaming with much blood.'" He did not actually use the phrase "rivers of blood", but the prediction was well enough understood.

This week Britons saw that, even taken literally, Mr. Powell was not far wrong.



The blood of a British soldier is not exactly "much", but there's certainly enough of it -- on the pavement, and on the hands, knife and meat cleaver wielded by his killers.

The two terrorists shot by police at the scene (in Woolwich, a part of London) were identified as "born in Britain, of Nigerian heritage". Like the Boston Marathon bombers, the murderers' families came to a new country, far from their impoverished homeland, and took advantage of the education and opportunities they were generously given by a guilt-ridden white Christian society.

Their response? To convert to "the religion of peace" (the PC term for Islam) and bite the hand that fed them. No, not "bite". More like "cut off", and worse. And yet politicians and "progressive thinkers" express surprise that such a thing could happen in a country which not only accepts but encourages multiculturalism and diversity. What they can't say is that they weren't warned!

Saturday, August 25, 2012

Aux Français! L'avertissement du Général Charles De Gaulle

Provoked by the "progressive thinkers" and multiculti-glorifiers of the loony left, Walt has been doing more research on the Islamization of Europe. Just over a year ago, in "'I told you this would happen': Enoch Powell", I quoted from the British political leader's famous "Rivers of Blood" speech.

Mr. Powell predicted that, if the floodgates of the UK were opened to non-European and non-Christian immigration, there would be rioting, sectarian conflict and the general degradation of British society. He was right, of course, but not the first to say what now cannot be said.

Enoch Powell gave that speech on 20 April 1968. It turns out he wasn't the first to foresee the dire consequences of unrestricted immigration from the Third World, the Muslim countries in particular. On 5 March 1959 -- over nine years earlier -- the war hero turned president of France, Charles De Gaulle, had something similar to say about the problem of increasing Muslim immigration to his country. Source: Françaisdefrance's Blog.

C'est très bien qu'il y ait des français jaunes, des français noirs, des français bruns. Ils montrent que la France est ouverte à toutes les races et qu'elle a une vocation universelle. Mais à condition qu'ils restent une petite minorité. Sinon, la France ne serait plus la France.

Nous sommes quand même avant tout un peuple européen de race blanche, de culture grecque et latine et de religion chrétienne. Qu'on ne se raconte pas d'histoire! Les musulmans, vous êtes allés les voir? Vous les avez regardés avec leurs turbans et leurs djellabas? Vous voyez bien que ce ne sont pas des français.

Ceux qui prônent l'intégration ont une cervelle de colibri, même s'ils sont très savants. Essayez d'intégrer de l'huile et du vinaigre. Agitez la bouteille. Au bout d'un moment, ils se sépareront de nouveau. Les arabes sont des arabes, les français sont des français.

Vous croyez que le corps français peut absorber dix millions de musulmans, qui demain seront vingt millions et après-demain quarante ? Si nous faisions l'intégration, si tous les arabes et les berbères d'Algérie étaient considérés comme français, comment les empêcherez-vous de venir s'installer en métropole, alors que le niveau de vie y est tellement plus élevé? Mon village ne s'appellerait plus Colombey-les-Deux-Églises, mais Colombey-les-Deux-Mosquées.

Prophetic words, but in France as in the UK, no-one took those words to heart. Now France has even more problems with Arab Muslims than does Britain. Who's next? Canada? The USA? I'll give you 6 to 5 on Canada because the Canadians are too damn polite, too damn politically correct to rise up and demand that Muslim immigration be stopped... NOW!

Footnote: If you're one of those typical Anglophones who gets upset by the French side of the Corn Flakes box [That's a Canadian joke. Ed.] send me a note and I'll work up a translation for you.

Friday, March 30, 2012

Muslim immigration top issue in French election

Last week Walt predicted that the killings by -- and subsequent "judicial execution" of -- Mohamed Merah would make the Islamization of France a major issue in that country's presidential election. This week, Marine Le Pen, leader of the Front National -- a nationalist party diametrically opposed to immigration -- asked, "How many Mohammed Merahs are arriving on boats and planes each day, filling France with immigrants? How many Mohammed Merahs are among the children of our immigrants?"

You have to give Mlle Le Pen full marks for the courage to ask such questions, in the face of daily vilification by the liberal press. But she is not the only one addressing the issue. French President Nicolas Sarkozy, fighting for re-election, has called for restrictions on legal immigration. He also wants laws to make it illegal to browse Islamist websites or visit Islamist training camps, and tougher policing and more deportations. Indeed, on the day of Merah’s first killing, Sarkozy said there were "too many foreigners" in France.

How is it, Walt wants to know, that the Europeans -- regarded here in North America as being a bunch of decadent, effete, liberal wimps -- have the guts to at least debate issues of immigration and culture, while our oh-so-PC "leaders" won't even acknowledge the Muslim elephant in the room?

Immigration has been a thorny issue ever since the invention of the wheel. The Chinese built a Great Wall to keep the hordes of foreigners out. And every country has a set of rules for dealing with new immigrants. Historically, newcomers had no help integrating into the host culture. They had to live with discrimination, adopt the culture and ways of their chosen land, and make the best of it.

Following the demise of the great colonial empires, Europe opened its doors to its black and brown ex-subjects, doing more than what was reasonable to deal with these ancient issues, in spite of the warnings of such seers as Enoch Powell. But now a new problem has arrived.

Never before has the world had to deal with a group that have a faith that tells them they must dominate all the others, that it is OK to lie to do that, and if that is not enough, it would be a good idea to blow yourself up if you have a chance of taking a few infidels with you. The old responses to a question as old as humanity simply don't work.

In the last decade or so, the French have come to realize that their country, their culture and their way of life is threatened by immigrants who refuse to adapt. It took centuries to build that country and culture and they want to keep it the way it is...or was. Who can blame them?

Meanwhile, in Canada and the USA, the do-gooders, "progressive thinkers", liberals and lamestream media keep feeding us the utter bullshit that immigration is good for our economy and for our country, that the majority of Muslims are good people who really share our values, and that the proliferation of mosques and Islamic cultural centres in our cities can be safely ignored. Anyone who disagrees must be an Islamophobe and a racist!

When will our politicians -- or even one of them -- grow a set and propose policies to protect our culture and our society from the Islamist menace.

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Ron or Rick? Walt explains his choice

A reader in New Hampshire asks if Walt is voting today. For Ron Paul or Rick Perry. The answer is "no". Lifetime pct .982. But I really should explain.

My religious and political biases are fairly obvious. For a good summary, see my profile. I also like the motto "Live Free or Die". Which presidential wannabe shares my beliefs? Certainly not the incumbent. So that leaves the Republicans.

Of the shower that have tossed their hats into the ring, only two don't make my gorge rise. They would be Rick Santorum or Ron Paul. In previous posts I've declared for Congressman Paul. [For all the good that does him. Ed.] But I've watched and listen to Mr. Santorum a lot since the Iowa surprise, and like much of what I see.

A former aide to Santorum once called him "a Catholic missionary who happens to be in the Senate". Mr. Santorum appears to be a real jump-through-the-hoops traditional Catholic, not one of these modern "cafeteria Catholics" who think they can dissent from the Church's teachings and still call themselves "Catholic". (Step forward, Newt! Step forward, Nancy!)

Mr. Santorum stands firm against abortion, "gay rights" (especially "gay marriage"), sodomy and other perversions. He goes right down the line with Holy Mother Church in favour of family values and the right to life. In It Takes a Family (2005), Santorum says that family values are the foundation on which all else must stand.

Pope Benedict XVI would agree. In his annual "State of the World" address to the Vatican diplomatic corps, the Holy Father laid heavy emphasis on the threats to the dignity of life and the family, violations of religious freedom, and the continuing economic crisis.

So... if religion and family values were the only issues to be thought about, I'd be plumping for Rick Santorum. Unfortunately for Mr. Santorum -- and for America -- there are other concerns to be dealt with, not the least of which is the economic crisis of which the Pope spoke.

As I said on Saturday, I worry that the LGBT crowd, the "progressive thinkers" and the lamestream media are going to focus solely on Mr. Santorum's "divisive" views on gender and abortion, and ignore what he has to say about economics and foreign policy -- issues on which Santorum's views seem to me fuzzy and indistinct.

As nearly as I can tell, Rick Santorum believes that more government intervention is the answer to America's economic woes. Before he got clobbered in the 2006 election, he supported Dubya's "compassionate conservatism" -- pouring more taxpayers' money down the ratholes of welfare, medicare and the general doing of good for the "disadvantaged".

The only difference between that view and, say, Obama's is that the compassionate conservatives would channel the money through faith-based organizations rather than hand it directly to the baby mamas and drug addicts. But, IMHO, redistributing wealth is not the answer.

So also on foreign policy. Mr. Santorum has no ideas, let alone policies, other than to stay the course, do what's been done for the last half-century, only do it better. He offers no plan to write finis to America's act as policeman and saviour of the world. Nor does he propose reducing the military budget and bringing US forces home from foreign sandpits where they are doing more harm than good.

The only -- repeat, only -- candidate addressing these issues is Ron Paul. People ask if there's any difference between Mr. Paul and Mr. Santorum and the "other conservatives". There is pawlenty. (Sorry!) To me, the critical thing -- the one thing that would make me vote for Ron Paul and not Rick Santorum -- is Mr. Paul's libertarianism.

Ron Paul believes in less government, not more. He believes America should disentangle itself from the snares of the Middle East and the rest of the Third World. I may be overstating the case a bit, but I read Mr. Paul as saying the government should just get out of the way and leave people alone. I couldn't agree more!

Finally, a word about electability. The lamestream media would have us believe that only the Mormon candidate has a chance of beating the Muslim (?) candidate. It may be that Ron Paul and Rick Santorum cannot attract the votes of the "moderate majority". But that doesn't mean they should shut up and go home.

And it doesn't mean they're wrong. Remember Barry Goldwater. If you're British, remember Enoch Powell. Both Goldwater and Powell painted word pictures of what would happen if the "moderate" and "mainstream" views of their opponents prevailed. Both Goldwater and Powell were vilified as mean-spirited, right-wing nutbars, and soundly defeated. And both turned out to be right!

Footnote: Contrary to the Reuters report of the Holy Father's speech, Pope Benedict did not refer specifically to "gay marriage", although his condemnation of this perversion was certainly implicit in his remarks on the crisis in family life. Click here to read Vatican Radio's summary of the Pope's address.

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Gangsta "culture" goes mainstream

That's Ezra Levant's take on the riots in Britain. Mr. Levant is a columnist for Canada's QMI agency, and has been following the controversy over remarks made by London historian David Starkey. Perhaps he saw Walt's comments yesterday. Or perhaps great minds think alike. [Perhaps Mr. Levant is a little better known than Walt. Ed.]

Whatever... Mr. Levant has also read, or read someone's remarks on Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood Speech". Here is part of the column in which Levant puts the trouble down to white and South Asian kids emulating the black gangsta "culture" they see glorified in the media.

Perhaps Starkey could have been more careful; he said white had become black — and then immediately became more precise, meaning they had accepted a particular segment of black culture, namely gangsta rap. But his meaning was perfectly clear — to anyone who has listened to rap music, with its glorification of violence and material excess, and who has seen the glamourization of that lifestyle move from ghettos into the cultural mainstream.

What grown men wear hoodies in public? Or their underwear up high and their pants down low? Those aren’t crimes, of course — maybe fashion crimes. But far more serious is the set of values that has been swallowed along with the cultural touchstones of fashion and diction. [My emphasis. Walt.]

Gangsta culture calls women “hos” and “bitches,” a crude misogyny with an undercurrent of a threat of violence. It glamourizes fighting, shooting and even dying in gangland warfare. It holds that the point of wealth is to squander it on bling and champagne.


Levant's point is that being free to talk about the problems caused by this ignorant, violent, culture of the undersclass -- without being demonized as a racist -- is part of the solution. His column is worth reading in its entirety. Click here to do so.

Monday, August 15, 2011

Dispelling the PC bullshit about Britain's rioting underclass

We are now being inundated by wave after wave of gliberal analysis of the causes of the riots that swept the UK last week. The problem is that British society is "broken". The "social contract" has been breached. And guess who's responsible? Certainly not those rampaging through the streets! Heavens no! They're victims, dontcha know...

That's bullshit, as most of us know but few of us have the courage to say. As I wrote earlier this morning, the truth is that the rioters are underclass scum -- black gangstas and chavs behaving like black gangstas because it's "cool". In an earlier post I called them hoodlums and hooligans, for that's what they are.

I'm pleasantly surprised to find the lamestream and resolutely politically correct Globe and Mail agreeing with me. [Or you could say you find yourself in agreement with the Glob! Ed.] Here's the lead paragraph from their editorial, "No excuses for British hooligans":

There is an emerging analysis that while on the one hand there is “no excuse” for the wave of rioting, looting and wanton violence that swept London and other British cities last week, on the other hand there really is an excuse: social exclusion and systemic discrimination. Accordingly, the hoodlums are really victims, their violence and mayhem only a plaintive cry for help. They are not depraved but deprived. It is a ludicrous suggestion, one that flies in the face of two decades worth of massive expenditures in poverty-stricken areas designed to improve the opportunities, particularly, of inner city youth.

Putting it another way, British taxpayers have spent billions of pounds doing what the liberals tell us is "the progressive thing", "the right thing", namely doling out money to the "disadvantaged" and hoping they'll stay in their place, not cause any more trouble...and vote for the government of the day. So how's that working out? Film at seven!

There is a lesson in that for governments on the western side of the Atlantic. Even now, we keep hearing cries from the guilt-ridden (because they're white) dogooders that we should spend even more money "helping the disadvantaged". Build them special schools, we're told. Bring your peanut butter and mac & cheese to the food bank. Give them better housing and don't worry about collecting the rent.

I'm reminded of the song "Gee, Officer Krupke", from West Side Story....
Dear kindly social workers
They say go earn some dough
Like be a soda jerker
Which means like be a schmo
It's not I'm anti-social
I'm only anti-work!
Gloryosky, that's why I'm a jerk...

Jerks, hoodlums, hooligans... that's what they are. And it's not the rest of us who made them that way! The rest of us work to provide ourselves with the necessities of life. And if there's money left over for a TV, we go and buy it; we don't break into the Source!

How about we shut up about "social exclusion" and "systemic discrimination". Instead, let's try applying a little old-fashioned discipline, to make these poor "disadvantaged" youths shape up or face real consequences.

"Whites behaving like blacks"

Quick, what's the most politically incorrect thing you could say about last week's riots in the UK? Looking at the video clips, you could say that you saw blacks behaving like blacks -- burning, looting, trashing everything in sight. And you could say that you also saw whites behaving like blacks.

So said London historian David Starkey, during a debate on the origins and causes of the riots which rocked London and other English -- not Scottish or Welsh, just English -- cities. Predictably, Mr. Starkey's extremely politically incorrect remarks have caused cries of outrage from the usual progressive right-thinking liberals throughout Britain and around the world.

The row erupted after Dr. Starkey spoke on BBC's Newsnight on Friday, opposite leftie author Owen Jones, who wrote Chavs: The Demonisation of the Working Class. You may remember seeing Walt's note on chavs, referencing this book, on July 18th.

Here's what Dr. Starkey had the courage to say: "I think what this week has shown is that profound changes have happened. There has been a profound cultural change. I have just been re-reading Enoch Powell. [The reference is to Mr. Powell's 1968 "Rivers of Blood Speech", quotes by Walt on August 10th.]

"[Powell's] prophecy was absolutely right in one sense: the Tiber didn’t foam with blood, but flames lambent wrapped around Tottenham, wrapped around Clapham. But it wasn’t intercommunal violence; this was where he was completely wrong.

"What has happened is that the substantial section of the chavs that you wrote about have become black. The whites have become black. A particular sort of violent, destructive, nihilistic gangster culture has become the fashion.

"Black and white, boy and girl operate in this language together. This language, which is wholly false, which is this Jamaican patois that has intruded in England. This is why so many of us have this sense of [living in] a foreign country."

Dr. Starkey said there had been "a profound cultural change" and added that the disturbances and accompanying looting were not riots in the traditional sense, but simply "shopping with violence".

Strong stuff, and of course reaction from the usual suspects has been equally strong. Dr. Starkey has been called a "classist" (by Mr. Jones, of course) for looking down his educated patrician nose at the scum ["chavs", surely! Ed.] doing the rioting.

Others, such as David Lammy, Labour MP for Tottenham (where the rioting began) and, errr, a gentleman of the coloured persuasion, had to admit that, yes, the rioters and looters were chavs, but "those who engaged in criminal behaviour came from all races".

Mr. Lammy, called Dr. Starkey's comments were "misleading" as well as "dangerous and divisive". Ah yes..."divisive". That and "unhelpful" are this year's code words for "You may be right but you're not allowed to say these things because our disadvantaged minorities might be offended."

However, Dr. Starkey has his defenders. Author and commentator Toby Young told the Daily Mail that Dr Starkey was not criticising black culture in general but a "particular form of black culture, the violent, destructive, nihilistic, gangster culture associated with Jamaican gangs and American rap music". [My emphasis. Walt.]

Young added: "Had he been talking about these qualities as if they were synonymous with African-Caribbean culture per se, or condemning that culture in its totality, then he would have been guilty of racism. But he wasn’t. He was quite specifically condemning a sub-culture associated with a small minority of people of African-Caribbean heritage.

"Rather than being racist, he was merely trotting out the conventional wisdom of the hour, namely, that gang culture is to blame for the riots. In addition, Starkey wasn’t linking this sub-culture to people of just one skin colour, but condemning working-class white people – chavs, as he put it – who embraced it as well."

In his blog "If David Starkey is racist then so is everybody", the Telegraph's James Delingpole said: "The cultural point he is making is indisputable. Listen to how many white kids (and Asian kids) choose to speak in black street patois; note the extent to which hip-hop and grime garage and their offshoots have penetrated the white mainstream; check out how many white kids like to roll like pimps or perps with their Calvins pulled up to their midriffs and their jean waistbands sagging below their buttocks. Is anyone seriously going to try to make the case that this isn’t black culture in excelsis?"

Walt's answer to Mr. Delingpole is no. Of course no observant person will try to shift the blame from where it obviously belongs. We have eyes and ears. We can see and hear. We know who the perps are and what they represent. The only reason we can't say so plainly -- and take the appropriate corrective action -- is that people like Mr. Jones and Mr. Lammy find telling the truth "divisive" and "unhelpful".

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2026043/UK-RIOTS-David-Starkey-backed-furore-whites-black-culture-claim.html#ixzz1V6YYc35I

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

"I told you this would happen!": Enoch Powell

Earlier today, I wrote about the riots which are spreading across England like wildfire. (Pun intended, of course.) What we are seeing, I said, is class warfare. Karl Marx would not have been surprised, but he would have been astonished, I'm sure, by the degraded nature of the revolting underclass.

Marx foresaw warfare between the rich upper class and bourgeoisie and the lower class of workers and peasants. He didn't imagine that there would be a still-lower class of NEETs and chavs -- see previous post for definitions -- biting the hand of the nanny state that feeds them.

The other element Marx didn't factor in was race. He lived and worked in 19th century England, which had yet to admit millions of immigrants from its former colonies.

The tide of black and brown wannabe-Britons didn't reach flood proportions until the UK started winding up its empire in the 1950s. Marx was long gone by the time more dark faces than white were seen in the streets of London, Birmingham, and Leeds.

One man who saw it -- or them -- coming, and predicted disaster, was Enoch Powell, a Conservative member of the British parliament. On April 20, 1968, Mr. Powell made what he always called "the Birmingham speech", better known then and now as "the Rivers of Blood speech".

The speech caused a political firestorm, for Mr. Powell had the courage to say what had already become politically incorrect. He said that Britain would rue the day when it opened the doors to 1000s of third-world immigrants who would not or could not be assimilated into British society. The phrase "rivers of blood" does not appear in the speech. However, it includes the line, "As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see 'the River Tiber foaming with much blood.'"

Powell quoted a letter he received about the troubles of an elderly woman living in a Wolverhampton street where she was the only white resident. "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."

Powell argued that although "many thousands" of immigrants wanted to integrate, the majority did not. Some, he said, had vested interests in fostering racial and religious differences "with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow immigrants and then over the rest of the population".

He went on to say that those who were urging the government to pass anti-discrimination laws -- this was in 1968, remember, at the height of the "civil rights" movement -- were blind to the rising peril which would ensure. Powell said that such legislation would be used to discriminate against the indigenous population and that it would be like "throwing a match onto gunpowder."

Mr. Powell described the position to which he thought the indigenous -- meaning white -- population would be reduced:

"For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision...on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.

"They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted.

"On top of this, they now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by Act of Parliament; a law which cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their grievances, is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions."

Enoch Powell said all of this and much more at Birmingham in 1968. His speech is worth reading in its entirety, for it paints a deadly accurate picture of the future of once-great Britain, after half a century of largely unrestricted immigration and reverse discrimination.

The rioting in progress today has its origins in the class war, sure enough. But it is also about race. As in Watts and other American riots of the `60s and `70s, it began (in Tottenham, a poor and blighted section of north London) when a white cop shot a person of colour. Minutes later, the gangstas and looters were burning, smashing and grabbing for all they were worth. "Police brutality" and "discrimination" makes it all right, you see.

The Brits are wringing their hands now, trying to figure out what to do, since it's obviously impossible to send them all back home. Powell advocated "voluntary repatriation", but that was over 40 years ago. Most of the boyz in the hoodz we see today were born in the UK. Which is where the class aspect of the problem manifests itself.

The mobsters intent on wrecking anything and everything are not only black or brown, but white too. What they have in common is being part of this huge underclass, the NEETs and chavs and scum which constitute a rapidly growing cancer in the body of our society.

How can this cancer be cured? Don't expect me to write "to be continued", for honestly, I have no printable ideas. We were warned. We didn't listen. We're still not listening, even though the disease is now endemic. In due course, I fear, our society will die. And, from wherever he is, Enoch Powell can rightly say, "I told you so."