Part 6 – From ‘Rivers of Blood’ to Muslim Rape Gangs: Britain opens the gates to Islamic theocracy

Part 6: What is to be done?

The Britain I grew up in is now in the greatest danger of invasion since 1940, but an invasion that is so different from anything that’s gone before, that either people don’t see it for what it is, or choose not to.

In ‘normal’ wars, the distinction between ‘us’ and ‘them’ is clear, but this time the difference has become so blurred that in the public mind even those who do see the danger are wary of being called ‘racist’ or even worse, ‘Islamophobic’.

So far, the Islamists have been winning hands down, because our tolerance extends to a willingness to tolerate the intolerable. We have afforded the invaders the democratic right to attempt to destroy our democracy. They have used our freedom of speech to attempt to come close to destroying our freedom of speech.

Attack is the best form of defence
Campaigns against Islamification have failed because Islam has been treated as a monolithic bloc. But Muslim opinion in the UK occupies a wide spectrum, ranging from a small but significant minority who support stoning for adultery, to 20^th century people who are more or less integrated into UK society.

So any backlash against Muslims in general would be counterproductive; the solution requires the political isolation of the jihadist Muslims.

What is needed is a proactive attack on the extreme Islamists, rather than the reactive and flabby defence that has failed to stop the tide. At the moment, there is no sign that any party has the combination of imagination, intelligence, and balls, to contemplate what I have in mind: an explicit attack on the Islamist extreme, who have no intention of integrating with mainstream British society. This could take the form of posters displaying a message such as the following:

STONING FOR ADULTERY IS PRIMITIVE, 7^TH CENTURY BARBARITY THAT HAS NO PLACE IN A CIVILISED SOCIETY.
IF YOU ARE OFFENDED BY THIS – EXCELLENT. OFFENDING PEOPLE LIKE YOU IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS POSTER.
YOU ARE NOT WANTED IN BRITAIN, SO PLEASE LEAVE!

What sensible person could possibly object to this, and more to the point, on what grounds?

Any complaints of ‘Islamophobia’, would simply confirm the validity and need for the poster.

So spineless and politically brainless are the existing political parties that I can’t see any politician taking up the idea, with the possible exception of Rupert Lowe.

The above could be a launching pad for a campaign to rid the country of a political cancer. So what could such a campaign entail?

Some minimal suggestions:

1. In war the aim is to kill the enemy, so pleas for their ‘human rights’ are meaningless. All Muslim rapists, including those in prison, together with their supporters, should be expelled from the UK, irrespective of their citizenship. In times of war, killing the enemy is the aim, so rendering the enemy stateless would be comparatively humane.
2. Islamic schools promoting radical Islam should be closed, and any Imams preaching values that are incompatible with ‘western’ values should be expelled from the country.
3. The most visible symbols of the non-person status of women, the burqua and the niquab, should be banned in public.
4. Since learning the language of the host country is a prerequisite for integration, all immigrants who cannot speak English should be required to attend English classes.
5. Sharia councils should be banned, so there is one law for all.
6. The Royal navy should take its historic role of defending Britain, by intercepting the boats of illegal immigrants and sending them back.

Enoch Powell in retrospect

In an interview on GB News, Douglas Murray gave his perspective on Powell, saying that he was a ‘remarkable man’ who ‘got a lot more right than wrong’. Referring to Powell’s 1968 ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech, Murray said that “he didn’t get everything right. And you might say, well, who does? And there are certain parts of his famous ’68 speech which are lurid and definitely didn’t help his argument in certain ways. But that aside, on a range of issues, he just got a lot more right than he got wrong.”

Importantly, Murray said that there is a reason why, decades later, Powell is remembered over other key political figures.

“If somebody has a theory or a claim that is simply not true, it dies with them. But there is a reason why all these decades later, somebody of your [the interviewer’s] age would know the name Enoch Powell.

“And I imagine that from one week to the next, you very rarely think about Reginald Maudling, Barbara Castle – we do not discuss Ted Heath’s thoughts, Roy Jenkins, even Shirley Williams is not on the tip of everyone’s tongues in 2025. But Enoch Powell lingers, and there’s obviously a reason for that. Just as people seem to be fearful about Renaud Camus [1], if his thought was so easily debunked, if his observation and what he’s written about in his description of seeing with his eyes is so untrue, then why is it so dangerous? Why is it so much to be despised and rejected? And the answer is obviously that the problem is that Camus, like Powell, was onto something and that obviously terrifies a lot of people. And it would, wouldn’t it?”

The political firestorm that Powell had caused resulted from a deep disconnect between the rulers and the ruled. Any criticism about uncontrolled immigration was put down with the label ‘far-right’, ‘racist’, or ‘Islamophobic’. What the elite chose to ignore was that like almost all primates, humans are intensely social, with a need to feel that they are part of a group, sharing the same language, cultural beliefs and values. Though many of us may not like to think of it this way, this sense of ‘tribal’ identity goes way back to our hunter-gatherer ancestry, and continues to be an important feature of human behaviour today.

So when immigration is faster than assimilation, members of the host society may feel that they are losing their identity amid an alien culture. I well remember that, traveling on a bus in Bradford, Yorkshire forty-odd years ago, I could not hear English being spoken amid a sea of Punjabi, Urdu, and other languages. To a person whose first language is English—particularly someone who is unemployed, it’s understandable to blame his or her misfortunes on immigrants.

At the other end of the sociological spectrum, the elite form a ‘tribe’ of their own, but for a different reason – mutual assistance up the ladder to power. If that be the case, care for the needs of the plebeians would be an encumbrance, which would go some way to explaining the patrician/plebeian disconnect in much of contemporary politics. Indeed, the failure of the rulers to pay attention to the needs of the ruled only serves to heighten the need of the ruled to help each other and intensify the feelings of group identity.

In this context, the Labour elite and the Islamists who vote them into power are inter-dependent ‘tribes’, the white, working class school-age girls and their families being an irrelevant ‘outgroup’. In this situation the refusal of the Labour government to have a national enquiry into the organised, industrial scale rape and trafficking white girls becomes clear.

Final thoughts

Enoch Powell’s focus had been on ethnic aspect of immigration, and in that particular respect he was wrong. People of African descent have generally integrated well, to the extent that Kemi Badenoch, of Nigerian ancestry is, at the time of writing, leader of the Conservative party. What he did not foresee was dangers of immigration of an altogether different, and far more dangerous, kind, one based on religion rather than ethnicity. I must re-emphasise that in this case the threat comes not from Islam per se, but from Islamism, the aggressive campaign to replace democratic society by radical Islam, which is incompatible with human decency.

It is time for a more muscular defence of our values, before it is too late. I will finish by quoting Christopher Hitchens in a 2009 interview:

“I beseech you, resist it while you still can, and before the right to complain is taken away from you, which will be the next thing. You will be told you can’t complain because you’re Islamophobic. The term is already being introduced into the culture as if it was an accusation of race hatred,”

“The barbarians never take a city till someone holds the gates open for them. And it’s your own preachers who will do it for you, and your own multicultural authorities who will do it for you. Resist, resist it while you can.”

Postscript: Andrew Norfolk, who did more than anyone to bring the threat of Islamist rape gangs to public attention, died on May 8, 2015, aged 60. As his Times obituary put it, “Norfolk’s reporting led to a national action plan on child sexual exploitation.

Note

[1] Renaud Camus is a French novelist who has warned about uncontrolled immigration been labelled by Wikipedia a ‘far-right conspiracy theorist’, just as it labels those who don’t accept government accounts of the JFK assassination and 9/11 an ‘conspiracy theorists’.

End of Part 6.

See also:

• Part 1: Powell vindicated
• Part 2: The UK Labour leadership – enablers of child rape, trafficking, torture and pimping
• Part 3: Islam is the problem
• Part 4: Radical Islam is already inside the gates
• Part 5 – A fish rots from its head

This is the sixth and final installment of a series by Martin Hanson examining the legacy and consequences of Enoch Powell’s infamous 1968 “Rivers of Blood” speech. Far from fading into history, Hanson argues that Powell’s warnings about mass immigration and political denial have proven disturbingly prophetic. In this opening part, he revisits the speech in its full historical context, explores the immediate and long-term reactions it provoked, and draws a direct line to one of the most harrowing and underreported scandals in modern British history—the widespread, organized sexual exploitation of young girls by grooming gangs, and the institutional failures that allowed it to continue unchecked.