Enoch Powell: on immigration to Britain
Yesterday several people asked, in the comments of this post, what reason (or excuse) was initially given for the Western Europeans letting in so many third-world immigrants, and whether there had been any explicit reference at the time to the falling birthrates of native Europeans. I don’t know the answer. But I believe the phenomenon of increased immigration was starting to occur before falling birthrates were explicitly an issue. However, as I wrote previously, one of the arguments for immigration advanced at the time was that the immigrants were needed for labor. So there’s at least some implied element involving the local populations’ not being present in great enough numbers.
A week or so ago I had come across an interview with Enoch Powell, he of the famous “rivers of blood” speech given in 1968. I’d heard of Powell quite a while before that, and had read the famous speech for which he became a pariah (although a hero to some) by warning about the growing pace of immigration to Britain from third-world countries that were part of the British Commonwealth. The term “rivers of blood” came from this quote from the speech:
Here [referring to a proposed anti-discrimination law] is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood.” That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect.
Because the speech was made in 1968, the specter he was raising was of the widespread race riots and unrest in the US at the time.
Here’s more from the 1968 speech that stirred so much controversy [emphasis mine]:
We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependents, 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. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancés whom they have never seen. …
In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people, writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had expressed, and that they would risk penalties or reprisals if they were known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine. …
Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of 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.
That was followed by a quote about Sikhs not assimilating but rather wanting to be granted “special rights”; that reminds me, on reading it now, of the killing of Henry Nowak by Vickrum Digwa, the knife-carrying Sikh.
Powell’s speech certainly describes with some accuracy trends which have only increased. He seems to have foreseen not only the growth of third-world immigration to Britain, but describes the phenomenon of the reaction of native British people feeling like third-class citizens, the desire of the immigrant groups for power, and the fear of reprisals and censorship native Britishers felt for speaking out against the immigrant influx. These are not recent trends; they were already present over fifty years ago.
A couple of weeks ago I’d come across some interviews with Enoch Powell from the 1960s and 1970s in which he further discussed the reasoning in Britain of those encouraging immigration at the time. But when I tried to find one interview in particular just now I couldn’t locate it, although I’ll continue to look. Instead, I found the following fascinating segment from a 1971 Dick Cavett Show in which Powell and Jonathan Miller debate the two sides of the issue. It is absolutely fascinating how Powell states the nativist side and Miller states the globalist side, the same battle that goes on today. Note also how eloquent they both are, although I think Powell is the more impressive in that regard:
That clip makes me sad. It not only shows how long these problems have been with us and how long the sides have been at loggerheads, but it also shows how public discourse has degenerated over the years.
[NOTE: I’ll post the other Powell video – the one I was originally searching for – if I find it.]
By Google AI:
“Sociological studies show that people tend to preferentially congregate with those who share similar backgrounds, beliefs, and socioeconomic statuses—a phenomenon known as homophily. This drives the formation of tight-knit social networks, residential segregation, and influences how social behaviors, cooperation, and preferences spread through human populations.Key sociological concepts and studies explaining this behavior include:Homophily (“Birds of a Feather”): A foundational 2001 study by Miller McPherson, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and James M. Cook (published in the Annual Review of Sociology) details how similarity is the strongest basis for connection, leading people to preferentially befriend, marry, and associate with those who share their race, education, age, and values.”
Note the key phrase, “Similarity is the strongest basis for connection.”
So whites prefer whites, blacks blacks, gays gays, etc., etc., etc.
Not new news.
But Democratic partisans don’t observe this readily observable fact (the Truth! of Homophily). They use authoritarian means to govern instead. Shove people into their designated (by rulers) slots.
So glad you posted this, and I hope Powell is not “beyond redemption”. Brilliant man and I hope more and more people will give him a listen.
Birds of a feather flock together.
The debate comes into sharp focus when one has actually spent part of their life living in other countries, for any length of time, but for a long enough durations where the local smells become familiar, where the cultural norms are viewed incidentally day by day, where an understanding begins to assert itself on how the government functions, how law and order are kept, how routine unexpected human events run their course. See a few weather disasters, witness a few traffic deaths, see how the emergency services (don’t) perform, visit a hospital, encounter some civil unrest.
All of that is what you are importing when you bring the immigrants in, en masse. You will only understand what you are seeing in your native land, if you start there.
Thanks for posting ! I miss the skills on display here.
Hot Air headlines today featured this post by Gregory Ingersoll, who is an editor at Daily Caller.
https://stateoftheday.us/p/state-of-wednesday-here-it-comes
He referenced one of his posts from December 2025
https://dailycaller.com/2025/12/03/ingersoll-afghan-migrants-oceans-blood-somethings-coming/
Let’s just say he updates Enoch Powell’s commentary for the current decade.
Add this post for good meausre.
https://hotair.com/david-strom/2026/06/12/the-perfect-rant-n3815882
Have the recent attacks on Henry Nowak and the Belfast man finally brought the untenable situation in the UK to its tipping point?
Predicting what happens next is probably more a matter of listing the most likely possibilities and flipping a coin.
The government agencies will follow their leaders, and right now they are all on the side of the invaders (not all immigrants are violent criminal thugs, but all the thugs seem to be immigrants).
Some of the citizens, and most of the immigrants (even if not violent thugs themselves) will side with the invaders.
Will the protesting citizens allow themselves to be suppressed, or continue to fight for their rights?
If the latter, WILL they be successfully routed, or just go underground?
If they go underground, as in the Irish Troubles or one of the myriad past civil wars in the British Isles, will they eventually be victorious, or not?
You will notice that I have not listed the possibility that the government will end its support of the immigrant attackers and restore the civil rights of the indigenous citizens.
I am reminded of the old saying “you can take the people out of the slums, but you can’t take the slums out of the people.” This refers to the famous Pruitt-Igoe low-cost housing. They moved the slum dwellers into these brand-new apartments, tore down the slums, and the residents then turned Pruitt-Igoe into the brand-new slums.
Like the ongoing train wreck of our entitlement programs (e.g., Social Security and Medicare), the problems of poor immigration policies are both predictable and subject to one of the most powerful forces in the world–compounding. Fixes to immigration policy, Social Security, and Medicare that would have been “tweaks” 30 years ago have since grown by an order of magnitude and now require major surgery (remember that annual interest of 7% doubles money every 10 years–so $1 in 1996 is $8 today and will be 16 dollars in 2036 (by which time Social Security will have run out of the ability to pay promised benefits)).
We need a serious government that makes relatively small (but hugely unpopular) changes today to achieve a sustainable future. Just to be clear, there are only two ways to “save” Social Security: increase taxes (by increasing the tax rate or the wage base) or cutting benefits (by means testing or across-the-board cuts (by either increasing benefits by less than inflation, an actual reduction, or increasing the retirement age)). And immigration is a perfect example of a “hole” problem–the simplest fix is to immediately stop digging. To a large extent, that happened in January 2025–now we have to clean up the mess of the last 50 years.
Neither immigration nor entitlements are particularly tough problems to diagnose–but fixes require political courage and a willingness for everyone to take a bite of the sandwich of fixes.
Thank you for this post. Enoch Powell deserves to be remembered and honored.
I have one of Enoch’s books (Freedom and Reality). And Kassam’s book Enoch Was Right. The adverse impact of uncontrolled immigration is only not obvious to to people addicted assuaging their feelings or those who ignore the consequences in search of power. And those who want the destruction of the country. Since critical thinking either does not exist anymore or is suppressed by the thinker do to fear the outcome is obvious. I cannot despise these groups enough. Hate them with a passion.
Here is the man himself:
https://youtu.be/ix_7p1qczXs?is=kVEZqb-EdvkYdWbO
In re my earlier comment on the possibility tree in Belfast, a quick look at today’s news from Northern Ireland confirms that the support of leadership and some of the native Irish is for the vicious attacker (who is seldom identified that way until late in the posts, if at all): they are “showing support for anti-racism” by protesting the violence directed against other immigrants, but very few (if any) are expressing any dismay that there WAS an attack (one of many similar cases) that precipitated the violence.
IOW, as in the USA, “mostly peaceful protests” are only allowed to go one way (“Revolution is always justified in the first person”).
Personally, I think it is wrong to use mobs, or the law, to penalize groups for the actions of individuals, and would like to have all violent and destructive behavior result in arrests and punishment, but that’s not the world we are operating in today, and both sides know it.
Which is why it has taken so long for the public to react violently to an attack by an immigrant.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/republic-of-ireland/sickening-racist-riots-condemned-as-sudanese-man-remanded-over-belfast-attack/a/156627970.html
Basic facts: watch how quickly they disappear.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/lord-mayor-of-belfast-receives-death-threats-amid-violent-disorder/a/156704207.html
If you weren’t already clued in about the situation, you would never know what actually happened and who was involved on which side. BTW, it’s not about “race” specifically, but about immigrant-status, a meaningful difference.
https://thenewneo.com/2026/06/12/enoch-powell-on-immigration-to-britain/#comment-2854555
“Parade goers injured by car” sort of thing, as usual.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/large-crowds-gather-for-anti-racism-rallies-in-belfast-and-derry-we-are-the-majority/a/156285563.html
One wonders if the Irish have leftist-organized rent-a-mobs as we do in the USA, as chronicled so ably by DataRepublican.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/large-crowds-gather-for-anti-racism-rallies-in-belfast-and-derry-we-are-the-majority/a/156285563.html
It’s not racist to attack someone of a different race* with a knife and try to behead them; it’s only racist to react against some group that person belongs to. But (USA example) it’s not racist to threaten to kill the family of a white murder victim (or random white strangers) if the perpetrator is black.
Notice the rampant double standard.
*(Randomly? So far I haven’t seen any motives alleged.)
As with the George Floyd incident, protesting is spreading. Glasgow is in Scotland.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/rival-protesters-clash-at-glasgow-reclaim-our-streets-rally/a/157154984.html
By their flags ye shall know them.
I saved this Irish post for its own comment, as it engages in one of the more common methods of propagandizing by “lying with statistics,” although I suspect the writers are typically innumerate rather than deliberately obfuscating in this case.
More like “see we told you so!” rather than “don’t look closely at what we are telling you.”
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/comment/news-analysis/fact-checker-all-you-need-to-know-around-immigration-and-crime-in-northern-ireland/a/156547219.html
But the post doesn’t actually do that.
“Fact checker: All you need to know” is usually a give-away on that point.
The post was ginned out pretty darn quickly, however. And it has good pie charts, except it omits the most important one for total population.
The fallacy here is directly comparing absolute numbers and percentages of populations as if those were a meaningful measure of rates of criminality (suspected, charged, or convicted).
The proper comparison is more like the one beloved of the Democrats and DEIists: disparate impact. Are the rates of involvement with the justice system (one of my favorites among their vocabulary concoctions to disguise the obvious facts) disproportionate to the total population numbers?
We’ll go with the figures we have, despite them coming from different years which is always bad practice for comparing statistics, since that’s what we have.
So: whites (presumed but not confirmed native Irish) percentage-wise comprise 96.6 of the total population and 92 of the arrested/charged population. That’s a deficit of 4.6 who “ought” to have been hauled up on some suspicion or other.
If Travellers are being numbered among the white population, as they should be, the figures are hopelessly muddled. The link below gives a population estimate of 0.7 for the Republic of Ireland, none for Northern Ireland. Still, their inclusion gives 94.1 to 94.3 percent of arrested/charged persons, and doesn’t make up the deficit.
The minority ethnics (presumed but not confirmed to be immigrants, and not including Travellers although the post doesn’t make that clear) have corresponding numbers of 3.4 total population and 5.9 (or 5.7) percent of the criminal suspects.
Those are the relevant comparisons.
********
Excerpts from the excerpt, which were not relevant to its argument comparing populations, but were thrown in to conflate refugees and asylum seekers, and accentuate the nationality of the beheader-wannabe, as if either of those made some difference the anti-beheaders should take into account before protesting against immigration-cum-invasion policies.
******
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/humza-yousaf-breaks-silence-after-37290703
The names of the guilty man and his sister look ethnically Bulgarian, but Yousaf (who on Day One condemned the 12-year-old girl who was the target of their attacks) tried to tie the case to an incident involving suspected arson of the house of a Muslim imam. No story I have read on the Scots case calls the Belov siblings Muslims.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Irish-Travellers
Not the typically members of the “various minority ethnic groups” that the Fact-Checkers are trying to support, and neither group are the refugee/asylum seekers drawing the protests.
As always: check my math.
Did some memo go out over the Terrorism Grapevine?
https://pjmedia.com/robert-spencer/2026/06/13/italian-woman-beheaded-as-attacker-recites-passages-from-a-book-yeah-that-book-n4953937
In this case, the man and woman were friends, and had been arguing, but there is no doubt the Muslim man murdered her.