Sean Gabb and Enoch Powell

by Roderick Long

A successfully iconic satire destroys the viability of its target. After Tina Fey’s celebrated skit on SNL, for example, Russia’s visibility from Alaska could never again be invoked without derision as an argument for Sarah Palin’s expertise in international affairs. This is a lesson that Sean Gabb really should have taken to heart before offering this particular defense of race-baiting anti-immigrant politician Enoch Powell ….

We therefore say this with regard to Enoch Powell. He was a classical scholar of great brilliance and distinction. His Lexicon to Herodotus (1938) is one of the most valuable works ever produced on the ancient historian. As well as in Latin and Greek, he was fluent in every main European language, and in Welsh. He was also at least competent in several ancient and modern oriental languages.
Sean Gabb, 2011

And then you get cornered by some drunken greengrocer from Luton with an Instamatic and Dr. Scholl sandals and last Tuesday’s Daily Express and he drones on and on and on about how Mr. Smith should be running this country and how many languages Enoch Powell can speak and then he throws up all over the Cuba Libres.

18 responses to “Sean Gabb and Enoch Powell

  1. Nothing you have written constitutes an argument against either Sean Gabb’s writing or Powell’s speech.

    You imply that any right-thinking person MUST agree with you in tones that make you sound like you are Frazier Crane with a political rather than an aesthetic wasp up your arse.

  2. Well:

    First, I posted this on my own blog, not here. (I don’t know who posted it here.) And readers of my own blog are for the most part already familiar with my arguments about immigration, multiculturalism, etc.

    Second, the point I’m making actually has nothing to do with whether Powell’s position was right or wrong. Even if I thought Powell was right, I would still think it a self-defeating strategy to invoke in Powell’s defense an argument that not only a) has itself nothing to do with whether Powell is right, but b) irresistibly reminds many readers of a particular Monty Python sketch.

  3. I posted it. I always repost attacks on me if I think they are witty.

    This being said, please be aware that I said nothing about whether EP was right or wrong on immigration. I said that EP is hated partly because he did not accept the main legitimising ideology of what you call the aristocratic left, and partly because he was almost comically superior, in moral and intellectual qualities, to the people who hate him.

    In making this point, it is relevant to mention his intellectual qualities.

    As for the Monty Python sketch, I was unaware of it. Then again, my taste in comedy doesn’t run to the surreal. I enjoyed Jabberwocky and Brazil because the usual Pythonesque self-indulgence was subordinated to tight narrative structures. I grant that Fawlty Towers is a masterpiece. But I found the MP sketches tiresome on their first airing, and have never revised my opinion since.

  4. By the way, how did you find this repost so quickly? I usually come across things about me only by accident.

  5. In what way is that attack on you in the slightest bit witty?

  6. “I always repost attacks on me if I think they are witty.”

    I’m glad you found it witty (though I think pretty much all the wit it contained was in the Python sketch), but sorry that you considered it an attack on you per se (as opposed to its being, more narrowly, a negative remark about a particular thing you’d written).

    “By the way, how did you find this repost so quickly?”

    It pinged back to my blog.

  7. On a more substantive point, re your mention of the “aristocratic left”: Powell’s attitude toward immigrants strikes me as actually quite similar to the attitudes toward lower-income North Carolinians of the “aristocratic left” I described in my “How to Reach the Left” talk.

  8. I think there is much to be said for reading EP before knocking him. He was an English Tory. Think what you like of his sort, it is an intellectually formidable position.

  9. Just a general point Sean, but I think you ought to make it clear when you’re copying stuff from other people onto this blog. It is often unclear whether somebody has written a piece for the LA, or the LA have just half-inched it. Your presentation makes this look like Roderick is an LA blogger. It is surely just polite to ensure that attribution is correct?

  10. I do make it clear when something is reposted. You can see the original location at the top of the message.

  11. That just tells the reader it is also posted somewhere else. Since you clearly didn’t ask permission, you’re creating a false impression that the author has knowingly posted it here. It’s just a matter of netiquette. That may or may not matter to the original author- they might be flattered- but surely you should be making clear to us readers which of the content here is actually LA content and which is scraped without permission from other places.

  12. I generally do post with permission. However, if you want to suggest a form of words and presentation to remove all ambiguity, I will consider it.

  13. When I recopy stuff directly from other writers as an insert of direct stuff, I generally highlight it in red in the text. I seem to remember that Tim Evans (of late revered memory) objected to this for he thought it looked “untidy”. But I ignored his objections at the time and also later.

    I instituted this convention very early on in the history of the blog, and many many posts contain such stuff. I suggest that all writers who post here might use that convention, since after 6 years everybody knows what it means.

    However, this is not an all-encompassing rule with the force of a command,

  14. I defer to no one in my veneration of our late President – may he rest in pease – unless it be to our Blogmaster, from whom I now beseech a dispensation to continue with my own deviant custom of reposting with a url at the top.

  15. There is a tendency hereabouts to revel in hating people.

    I recall a lengthy discussion with Jeremy Shearmur in which he made it very clear that this was unattractive behaviour as well as being poor strategy for freedom-lovers.



    Is it, as the extreme right wing contends, the Jews who are behind the racial assault on whites? The evidence is extremely compelling that it is. You Tube and the internet overflow with Barbara Lerner Spectre’s assertion that because Jews are behind the drive for multiculturalism, that therefore Jews “will be resented”. But the evidence for the Jewish assault on the white racial back bone goes far beyond this. One of the most brazen of all the Jewish admissions on Jewish responsibility for “diversity” comes from Earl Raab of the Institute for Jewish Advocacy of Brandeis University. Writing in the San Francisco Jewish Bulletin of July 23, 1993 Raab stated:

    “We (Jews) have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible – and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever.”

    The idea is crystal clear. When whites are subsumed in an avalanche of non-white immigration, whites will no longer be able to organize against Jewish power. This idea is being enforced by Jews all over the globe. It is taking place in France, Germany and the Scandinavian countries as hordes of Turks and Arabs pour in, raping women, mugging men and bankrupting social systems. It took place in South Africa and Rhodesia, where Jews and the heavily Jewish Communist parties of both countries pushed for the overthrow of white rule.

    No group has worked harder than American Jews to overthrow the whites only immigration laws of these United States. Hollywood, a Jewish controlled industry, has for decades pushed the lie of racial equality and promoted miscegenation. “Evil white racist” is virtually a staple of Hollywood film stereotypes. The Earl Raab quotation previously referenced came from a Jewish newspaper. Another newspaper, the Los Angeles Jewish Journal, ran a column suggesting that Jews should defuse anti-Semitism in the Latino community by forming a political alliance with them to support Israel. The barely concealed corollary was that the Jewish-Latino alliance would then be used against California whites. Another Jewish politician recently appealed to the Hispanic vote by claiming that he was a minority like them.

    There is no denying that groups other than the Jews are jumping on the diversity bandwagon. Big business sees it as a useful means of lowering labor costs. But big business did not overturn apartheid in South Africa. Big business did not testify in favor of overturning the 1952 McCarran Immigration Act. Joe Slovo, the Jewish head of the South African Communist Party and the American Jewish Committee did those things. The American people are very angry over the illegal immigration that is ruining their country. But they do not know who is doing it to them or why. They cannot solve the problem without attacking the source. And until they understand that the source is the Jews, they cannot resist. The Jews own the politicians and the politicians shall do the bidding of the Jews, not enforce the will of the people.

  17. This comment is irrelevant to the main discussion. Please desist from these postings at once.

  18. Irrelevant?

    Enoch Powell spoke out against the swampning of England by non-whites. I point out that the Jews are responsible for the alien invasion he warned against. How is “cause and effect” irrelevant?

    Explain, please.