Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Related posts:
The Drum-beat to War?
Britain and Iran: Breaking the Chains of Misrule
Slavery Reparations: An Exercise in Occam’s Razor
Tea, Trade, and Polite Civility: Chinese Visitors in 18th-Century London and the Realities of Cultural Exchange
Bring Back the Gallows: Crime, Eugenics, and the Death of Justice
Powered by YARPP.
A wonderful speech. The attitude to the USA is very important. US figures have been warning recently that Britain’s role in the world will be compromised by spending cuts in the military – but I think Britain should become a neutral state. Sean, you are right that the cultural Marxists only came to prominence because their views happened to suit the self-delusion of the Establishment and its search for a new sense of mission. Cultural Marxism of itself would have been a quirky academic pursuit of a handful of people in the universities otherwise. It is amazing that both sides of the EU debate appeal to Britain’s sense of itself as a great power: the Europhiles say “we will lose influence at the top table”, whereas the Eurosceptics regard the whole project as demeaning for a country that was once a great power. We need an approach that accepts, cheerfully, that we are not and cannot ever be a great power again.
Enoch was right.
The remarkable thing to discover, from a libertarian perspective, having been “frightened off” the man by mainstream smearing for too many years, is that not only was he right about immigration, he was an economic liberal (long before it was fashionable) and a civil libertarian who was passionately committed to the ancient English constitution that has been largely destroyed by far lesser men than he.
So!!! we are where we are!!!!! and thanks to our pathetic lying political class as we look around us at incomers with absolutely no interest or allegiance to our country and some of whom want to kill us and destroy our sometimes bloody hard won basic legal and moral character. “Lions led by Donkeys” has an immediate political relevance – as well as military.
The unsurprising disdain offered by unelected dictatorial Brussels bureauocrats to Cameron, and his sad and insulting illusions of Grandeur in respect of the Soviet EU offering to accept a new UK position says it all.
Would dear Enoch have allowed, as part of our famous democracy, an immediate Referendum on joining the EU – and do we have now to remain angry, disenfranchised and robbed of the prime Democratic obligation. Or is our only and pleading hope “cometh the hour ,cometh the man”
Vic Wroth
Superb speech, Dr Gabb.
I am not sure what your past audiences have said to you about this, but I find your oratorical style very clear and engaging. Short, to-the-point sentences that are eloquent and follow on from each other with few ‘fillers’, confusion, and backtracking — I am reminded of a very good spoken essay.
Thanks – if I achieve a good spoken essay, I am happy.
I certainly do not think that Mr Powell would have supported the policy of defence cuts – military spending is now down to less than 2% of the economy in Britain.
After all this policy makes us completely and utterly dependent on the United States of America – even to prevent Mr Putin’s bombers flying over British airspace.
Not a situation that Mr Powell would have been in favour of.
As for Mr Powell himself – he was, whatever one thinks of his view of world affairs, a great man. I was proud to have met him on several occasions – even if the media took advantage (by misquoting his reply) of a question I put to him in Birmingham too pretend that Mr Powell thought that that MI6 had murdered a Conservative MP (and close friend of Mrs Thatcher). Mr Powell’s commitment to the United Kingdom (his contempt for little Englanders who did not care about other parts of the United Kingdom – such as Ulster) was strong). He understood (as so many do not) that one can not talk to the IRA (or whatever they call themselves) – one must destroy them.
Mr Powell was also a solid free trader – understanding that there is no way that the United Kingdom (let alone England) could survive in a world of taxes and other limitations on free trade.
And Mr Powell understood that Welfare State spending had got out of control – he and Lord Thorneycroft (and Nigel Birch) had resigned over this matter as far back as the 1950s. And Mr Powell despaired over Mrs Thatcher’s failure to tackle this matter – the media constantly talk of cuts but there HAVE BEEN NO CUTS (he said this, in despair, again and again – and he was correct).
Mr Powell also understood that the harm the ever growing (unlimited) Welfare State does is not “just” economic – it is also social and cultural, leading to a depraved and corrupted population, a nation that will eventually destroy itself.
Mr Powell was also no fan of the credit bubble economy he watched developing – especially after the “Big Bang” of 1986 (falsely described as “deregulation” – but, in reality, a government takeover of the private companies and clubs that had made up the City of London).
Fixed exchange rates (that obsession of Nigel Lawson) were also a target of Mr Powell – after all logically (and Mr Powell was a logical man) one can only have a stable fixed exchange rate if one has THE SAME CURRENCY (for example physical gold or silver) – if there are two different fiat currencies (being printed as governments whim) who can the exchange be fixed? It is insanity.
Mr Powell rightly understood that fixed exchange rates with the D.Mark were really part of a plan to bind us to the E.U. – an abomination that he utterly despised (Mr Powell was willing to tolerate many things – but not someone who would make deals with the EEC, people who thought it could be “reformed” were, to him, utterly misguided – missing the central principles of the abomination).
Where I differed from Mr Powell.
Not, as might be thought, on immigration – I agree that, in a Welfare State, the idea of free migration is insane. And it is more than just the Welfare State – if people have no loyalty to the country they are going to they should NOT be let in the gates of the city.
That might be considered a “feudal” view (worrying about personal individual loyality) – but Mr Powell was learned enough to know that “feudal” is not a “dirty word” and need have nothing to do with serfdom (which is just about the opposite of personal individual loyalty based upon sworn word – i.e. a voluntary chosen compact).
Also on Marxism.
Mr Powell thought the Marxists were absurd – which they are, their Labour Theory of Value and their theory of “exploitation” is crack brained nonsense (there I agree with Mr Powell).
However, I think this led him to underestimate the Marxist threat – and I am not “speaking out of school”, after all I said that to his face when he was alive.
People like me were, according to Mr Powell, quite right to oppose and ridicule the Marxists – but greatly overestimated the danger they posed.
We had a “nightmare” view of the world – which is fair enough (I do).
And our opinions, on this matter, were similar to the paranoia of Senator Joseph McCarthy – I accept this charge also, although I reject the words “paranoia” or “paranoid”.
Still Mr Powell was always open to argument – for example…..
Mr Powell opposed, in hidesight, the Suez Operation of 1956 – ironically the last major military operation this country undertook without the support of the United States (contrary to what is often said – the 1982 Falklands war got full, although private, American logistical and other support).
The position of Mr Powell was that as we had given up India in 1947 – we did not need the Suez Canal in 1956.
However, “what about the growing importance of the Middle East” – “did not the surrender of Suez lead to the loss of face that led to the coups in Iraq in 1958, and the coups in Yemen and Syria in the early 1960s – and even the one in Libya in 1969?” the general collapse of Western influence in the Middle East.
Mr Powell was actually quite open to this argument – especially when it was pointed out that this meant that the American government had been wrong not to support us (wrong even in terms of American national interest).
Of course Americans have tried to rewrite history a bit on this – at least some Americans have.
For example John Foster Dulles, (yeas later) visited Eden (by then Lord Avon) and said “but I do not understand – why did you not go on in Suez?”.
Given the total lack of American support (indeed the undermining) at the time – this was prize cheek.
Although it is true that Enoch Powell’s old enemy “Super Mac” may have deliberately overestimated the extent of American opposition in 1956 – and overestimated the economic strain (which was actually caused by his demented, or perhaps corrupt, clinging to the FIXED EXCHANGE RATE between the Pound and the Dollar).
Harold M. was often called “first in and first out” on Suez – pushing Eden into the operation and then back stabbing Eden in cabinet.
This is normally put down to cowardice – but “Super Mac” (like Edward Heath) had given no sign of physical cowardice during his military service.
Like the late Mr Powell I suspect that the real cause of “Super Mac’s” conduct was blatant political ambition.
The desire to get Eden out – become Prime Minister himself.
Even if he had to stab Eden (and the Britain) in the back, in order to become Prime Minister.
People who put personal desire for high office over principle were always objects of great contempt for Enoch Powell.
Fascinating comment.
Do you have a decent source regarding this: the “Big Bang” of 1986 (falsely described as “deregulation” – but, in reality, a government takeover of the private companies and clubs that had made up the City of London)?
I have read wildly differing things about “Big Bang” and am trying to more clearly understand what happened.
Powell’s claim re Airey Neave and Lord Mountbatten is repeated in Simon Heffer’s biography. He made the claims in 1983.
I am quite taken with Sean Gabb’s explanation of how Americans resent England because their language (and Common Law and much else) are ultimately England’s heritage, as this puts them in a permanently inferior position in relation to England. This would be a wonderful concept to flesh out. I think we need to forget about the US – and, to a certain (guarded) extent that makes me slightly more reconcilable to EU membership, as the EU is an organisation that can and occasionally does stand up to the US.
I don’t think, from long experience, that “ordinary Americans” resent England (or the UK) at all. Quite the opposite. It’s the USA’s federal Ruling Class that is the problem and which carries that chip on its shoulder.