The blogger British Activism has produced a fascinating video compilation detailing the views of ordinary British people about the phenomenon of mass immigration and the concomitant transformation of our country. Spanning the period from the 1960s to the 2000s, the message conveyed by the voices that you will hear remains surprisingly constant: we were never asked about the policy of mass immigration; mass immigration is causing serious problems, yet our politicians won’t listen; we feel like strangers in our own country; the incomers won’t integrate; we don’t bear ill will towards immigrants and the immigrant population, but they have their ways and we have ours, so why do the politicians encourage them to come? We don't want mass immigration. Why are our views ignored?
Listening to the tone of these British voices is instructive. In the interviews from the 1960s and early 1970s, a certain freedom and lack of inhibition can be detected, whereas in the voices from the last decade can be heard a tenor of despair and fear. As the immigrant population has multiplied, grown in confidence and acquired political muscle and special legal privileges, the English in particular (for they and their land have been the primary victims of this influx) have felt themselves increasingly marginalised.
Enoch Powell of course, was the man who bravely drew attention to the negative impact of mass immigration in his famous speech delivered in Birmingham on 20 April 1968. The press dubbed it the ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech, and this is the label that has stuck ever since. If you were to believe the “chorus of execration” that Powell correctly predicted would follow the delivery of his speech, you could be forgiven for believing that Powell was some kind of fiend. However, if you have not read his speech in full, I would urge you to do so. The first time I read his words I found them to be revelatory. Here was a man, a brave man, who viewed the role of the politician as being one of public service, eloquently articulating the concerns of his constituents and the wider British public with respect to mass immigration. Moreover, he foresaw the long-term consequences of this policy and thus felt powerfully moved to express his foreboding. He was right. The prescience of this highly educated and humane man, as well as his character, have been unjustly pilloried and stigmatised by a hostile political class and mass media ever since.