 |
| A front-page article from The Observer, 18 March 1979 |
The station of course was named after Enoch Powell, a conservative politician from the West Midlands best known for his Rivers of Blood speech in opposition to continued non-White immigration.
1. Immigration of Hindus and Muslims creates problems with food in public schools.
2. Rhodesia: the situation is unstable because of conflict among “tribes,” among whom the White Man had been the source of order and stability.3. The need to curb the power of trade unions (discussion followed by anti-union song).
4. Praise of anti-Communist dictator Augusto Pinochet.
5. Complaint about opposition to nuclear power by ecologists, merging into a counter-accusation about overpopulation: “People are the pollutants.”
I love the quality of the broadcast, and the material is interesting, better than anything that we get from “conservative” media today — but that isn’t saying much. The ideology presented by Radio Enoch is quite flawed.
Also, the way Radio Enoch discusses race is not as direct as the discussion on The Voice of Tomorrow. Radio Enoch doesn’t confront the listener with the worst aspects of multiracialism and ask, “Whatcha gonna do, Whitey?” (Which was more or less Enoch Powell’s approach in the powerful Rivers of Blood speech.) Instead they have a woman bemoaning the complications of arranging school-lunches for Hindus and Muslims. Between these two clandestine political broadcasters you can discern the difference between conservative racism (such as it was in the 1970s) and race-radicalism.
 |
| Unionized workers mass-demonstrated in support of Enoch Powell. |
Right-wing anti-unionism may have harmed the anti-immigration cause in Britain, since much of the groundswell of support for Enoch Powell’s anti-immigration stance came from unionized White laborers, e.g. dockers and meat-porters. This kind of internal contradiction is the weakness of national-liberalism, in contrast to national-socialism.
When the Jewish problem is never stated clearly, and when multiracialism is presented in terms of difficulties of implementation rather than as something unwanted in itself, and when it’s all mixed with anti-Marxism and anti-unionism, the possibility of gradually pushing racial concerns out of conservative discourse entirely is obvious. With Jews gaining a foothold in “conservative” media during and since the 197os (and being all-too-eagerly received), that is what has happened. We have reached the point now that so-called conservatives will even accuse someone of being un-conservative if he tries to raise one of these neglected topics.