Monday, 10 March 2008

"It never occurred to us"

Did anyone else watch "Rivers of Blood", the BBC2 documentary on Enoch Powell's famous speech, on Saturday night? I did, and I must say that I was pleasantly surprised. Although I didn't agree with all of its conclusions, it was far from being the hatchet-job that I was expecting, and it certainly seemed strongly sympathetic towards Powell's critique of multiculturalism, even if it did, rather bewilderingly, imply that his speech was responsible for bringing state-sponsored multiculturalism about. It was also a pretty well put-together programme, with plenty of interesting talking-heads, balancing out the predictable ("he was a wicked racist!") contributions of a couple of race hustlers, and the execrable Roy "Tub of Lard" Hattersley. Plus, the Socialist Worker and the New Statesman both hated it, which can only count in its favour! As a regular critic of the BBC, I must say that on this occasion they've actually done rather well. Now, if only they could get it right the other 99% of the time...

If you didn't catch it, then it's been uploaded to Youtube, and the first segment can be seen here. It's all interesting, but I was particularly intrigued by some comments from Lord Lester, the left-wing barrister, and former advisor to Roy Jenkins, who as Home Secretary in the mid-1960s first articulated the leftist doctrine of multiculturalism. Speaking at the very end of the film, he said:
The model we had was, everyone would share the broad values of being British; what we did not expect, was that there would be those who would unwisely suggest that, for example, Sharia law should be applied in this country, or that the punishment of stoning for adultery might be looked at...It never occurred to us that there would be those kinds of unwise challenges to the broad values of a liberal democratic society.
It really is astonishing that the liberals who launched the multiculturalist agenda that has dominated (and disrupted) society for over forty years never even considered the possibility that not everyone was going to accept the "broad values of a liberal democratic society", however they might be interpreted. They never thought it possible, that encouraging people to continue living their lives as though they were still in some backwater village in Pakistan, would also have the effect of encouraging them to continue to adhere to the moral, social, and political codes prevalent in those backwater villages. Their naivety was simply astounding!
Of course, while Lord Lester, and, apparently, Roy Jenkins by the end of his life, may have realised that something is not quite right, there are still a Hell of a lot of liberals who have not achieved this realisation. They still believe, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, that the increasing size and influence of the Islamic population in Britain is nothing to fear, and that, indeed, it is those of us who oppose Islamification who are the real threat to this country. I have had plenty of liberals tell me that even should Muslims eventually become a majority in Britain, it will be no problem, because they will have accepted all our values. Well, they haven't done so in the last forty years, but have rather become more extreme with each passing generation. The fact is, these liberals who decry any attack on Islam as part of some "racist" conspiracy may well find, that in thirty or forty years' time, they, like Lord Lester today, will be complaining that "it never occurred to us" that British-born Muslims would actually start executing apostates, or establishing separate Sharia jurisdictions in cities such as Birmingham or Oldham. But by then, of course, it will be too late for them to do anything about it.

28 comments:

Alex said...

Thanks for this excellent commentary, FF.

I didn't watch the Rivers of Blood documentary because I assumed, after so many years of routine denigration of Powell, the bias of the BBC would infuriate me. I'll catch up on YouTube.

After irreparably damaging British society with their imposition of multiculturalism, the liberals are putting out a disclaimer. They say, we didn't expect that immigrants would not share the broad values of the British way of life. Well, they would say that wouldn't they?

That mass immigration, largely from poverty-stricken "commonwealth" countries, would change British society was obvious from the start. The question was whether the change would be for the better, or the worse, or whether the outcome would be neutral.

For a very long time, we have been repeatedly assured that the outcome has been entirely positive with mindless slogans like "We should celebrate our diversity" taking the place of rational analysis. The switch of emphasis in recent months is too late; far too late.

The liberal intelligentsia conducted a huge social experiment involving mass immigration from alien cultures without bothering to consult the British people first. Now we learn they added insult to injury by failing to consider even the possibility that their fundamental assumptions were dubious.

It's no use a few liberals admitting their mistakes at this late hour. Under their guidance, Britain has been changed almost beyond description from the country it was forty years ago. What used to understood as essential British values, are now distant curiosities depicted in old films shown on TV from time to time.

Umbongo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
muzzylogic said...

I second alex's comment, and his own commentary was good. Liberals are finally realizing truths that were obvious fifty years ago to "racists" like Powell.

fellist said...

Remember that multiculturalism was a means, not an end in itself, to achieve the total dispossession of the British peoples in their homeland.

I've blogged on the program myself, and say about Lester's comments they are an admission that multiculturalism was never about granting equal respect to foreign and minority cultures, or being open to ideas and traditions from different cultures.

The promotion of foreign cultures was merely a part of the project of dismantling the old culture. This dismantling was necessary because a national culture rooted in history and place is people-specific and an aid to that people's survival.

It was Scruton's closing comments for me that really summed up where we are. Powell was wrong, said Scruton - 'it' is not about race. The 'real' conflict is between those who are content with secular, liberal democracy, and an 'inclusive national identity' and those who aren't.

This phrase is almost empty of meaning, but chock full of implications. There are, obviously, conflicts of interest between people with radically different worldviews - including 'Islamist' Muslims, nationalists, and our current regime - but does that mean strictly political differences are a more common or fundamental cause of conflict than ethnic and religious differences? We know from the daily news that it does not.

What happens when a religious group, or a people wanting to retain control of their homeland, becomes The Problem in the eyes of a government?

Scruton does not say by what right the government suspended democracy these decades past to impose mass immigration and re-cast the nation's ethnic character, until such a time as the immigrants had the casting vote on immigration policy; he does not say how many more peoples should lose control of their homelands in the name of 'inclusivity'; he does not say how many more countries need, like Serbia and Iraq, to be bombed to hell in the name of 'liberal democracy'; or why it's always 'liberal democracies' doing the bombing, and the race-replacing of populations against their will.

He does not say because to make a moral defence of his position, with all that follows inevitably from it, is impossible.

Alex said...

fellist writes:

.........multiculturalism was never about granting equal respect to foreign and minority cultures, or being open to ideas and traditions from different cultures

The promotion of foreign cultures was merely a part of the project of dismantling the old culture. This dismantling was necessary because a national culture rooted in history and place is people-specific and an aid to that people's survival.


If I understand this assertion correctly, what might be called the "liberal project" has, or had, a goal - but it isn't the creation of a multicultural society: it's the destruction of the British cultural heritage.

One of the means to this end is mass immigration from alien societies that would attenuate and finally destroy the national culture - thus achieving the "total dispossession of the British peoples in their homeland".

I'm quite prepared to consider this sinister plot as a possibility; but where's the evidence for it?

Anonymous said...

Here are some questions for you all:

What if the ruling classes, from the 1960s to the present day, viewed the social and educational progress of the white working class with foreboding? The more progress we made, the less controllable we became. Parties of all stripes needed to keep us down, the Tories needed to keep our wages down, and Labour needed to rein in our independance, and squash our aspirations.

What would they have done?

And what is the result today?

Finally, does anyone believe that any of this was an accident, an honest mistake?

Monty

fellist said...

alex, I would reword your paraphrase -

The ‘liberal project’ has a goal: it is not, specifically, the destruction of British cultural heritage - it is to achieve the rationalization of human social affairs and the union of global markets.

One of the means to achieve this end is the public-political denial of ethnic interests and associated territorial claims - ‘Savage Reservations’ if you will, of distinct peoples and particular cultures - which would provide competing models to the ‘Brave New (One) World’.

Surely you’ve heard of globalism, the World Bank and IMF, the UN, the EU, central banks, anti-nationalism, ‘racism’, Race Does Not Exist, mass immigration, multiculturalism, The International Community, Human Rights, International Law, the bombing of Serbia, the bombing of Iraq, The End of History, and The Clash of Civilizations?

fellist said...

Monty, I’m in partial agreement with you. Specifically regarding race-replacement immigration, the Tories publicly justified it to potential voters by claiming economic benefits to ‘Britain’ that they knew benefited only a few, while Labour argued social benefits arising from diversity and accused dissenters of ‘racism’.

Both parties were – and remain - wholly in thrall to the ‘liberal project’ discussed above. Negative effects, which follow inevitably for communities under its cosh, are hoped to be temporary or otherwise compensated for.

I don’t think either party particularly wanted – or wants - the working class to be ill-educated, under-employed, or socially dysfunctional (traits increasingly seen in the middle class too). In fact, I think they are terrified by the collapse in civility, economic security, and social cohesion their policies have helped to create.

Can I ask what you think most likely to happen over the next few years?

Alex said...

@ fellist

Yes, I've heard of the institutions, lobbies, laws, and books in your list. But they don't provide a coherent basis for what you seem to be claiming. If there is an international conspiracy to effect the "rationalization of human social affairs" , who's running it?

typhoo said...

I also endorse what Alex said. When I went to Britain I always thought, well that is how it is over there, until now. We too, in NI are also feeling the effects of uncontrolled immigration. If one tries to air an opinion on the matter they're 'racist', we're just following so closely main land Britains footsteps its almost scary.

It seems we are destined to repeat your mistakes accross the water, instead of learning from them.

Great analysis FR. As always.

fellist said...

Alex, it's unclear what, if anything, you are disputing. Perhaps, rather than paraphrasing me and asking me to discuss your formulas, you could quote me and explain what you disagree with?

Typhoo: we're just following so closely main land Britains footsteps its almost scary.

The policies are the same because the philosophy - liberalism - from which they inevitably follow, enjoys an unchallenged position in the ruling classes of the west.

The American traditionalist conservative Jim Kalb has written some of the best analysis on this.

The Tyranny of Liberalism

Alex, I note from your profile you are a social conservative. You might appreciate Kalb if you don't already. Perhaps his language will be more clear for you.

fellist said...

From the blog, quoting Lord Lester:

The model we had was, everyone would share the broad values of being British.

From the commentary, muzzylogic:

Liberals are finally realizing truths that were obvious fifty years ago to "racists" like Powell.

It is clear now that the real racists were the liberals. It is they who thought africans and asians were *really* white men under their paint-jobs, who would readily adopt the white man's superior culture at once they were exposed to it.

Alex said...

@ fellist:

You seem to be suggesting that uncontrolled immigration isn't merely a means by which a multicultural society is created, but part of an "ultimate liberal project" to totally dispossess British people in their homeland.

This claim, if it's true, goes much further than what is commonly supposed. As far as I'm aware, no explicit "mission statement" on the lines you insinuate, has ever been circulated by the lefty-liberals who influence public opinion. However, as I said before, I am willing to believe it - if you can provide convincing evidence.

When I asked for evidence, you enquired whether I'd heard of the World Bank, IMF, the EU and so on - as though the list itself, without further explanation, provided the evidence I asked for.

It is not self-evident that "globalism" - by which I understand the integration of economies worldwide - will necessarily have cultural repercussions that effectively "dispossess British people in their homeland".

If you believe that, beyond economic considerations, there is a liberal conspiracy to impose a mono-culture on the entire planet, I'm asking for your reasons.

fellist said...

Alex, when you first responded to me with vague re-phrasings and speculations about what my comments might mean I directly responded by re-translating your words into mine.

After your second response in the same style I politely asked that you might start to debate me, quote me, and say where I am wrong. You have one more chance - your fourth - to show good faith.

I'm not being evasive - my words and opinions are right here on the page for you to point at and say "Baloney" if that is your desire.

Alex said...

fellist writes: "I'm not being evasive - my words and opinions are right here on the page for you to point at and say "Baloney" if that is your desire".

OK : Here's my final attempt to unravel what you're trying to say.

You claim : The ‘liberal project’ has a goal: it is not, specifically, the destruction of British cultural heritage - it is to achieve the rationalization of human social affairs and the union of global markets

You also claim : One of the means to achieve this end is the public-political denial of ethnic interests and associated territorial claims - ‘Savage Reservations’ if you will, of distinct peoples and particular cultures - which would provide competing models to the ‘Brave New (One) World’.

These are both unsupported and not necessarily affiliated assertions. Please provide an argument which demonstrates that the end you have specified is being pursued by the means you have outlined.

It would also be interesting to learn who or what are the forces actively employed in the process.

Anonymous said...

In answer to your question fellist, I view the next five or ten years with some trepidation.

Eventually, the islamists will inflict a devastating terrorist attack on us, and the public will be reading reports of celebrations within some of our muslim communities. That is bound to happen because the security services can't foil every single plot.

There will be a backlash, but it may take the form of the rise of an anti-islamic terrorist group carrying out reprisals. And a generation of non-muslim children are growing up with no illusions about the so called "religion of peace". I think public attitudes will harden against muslims in the UK.

If Iran conducts a nuclear strike against Israel, and in return, gets a counterstrike, there will be a war we won't be able to stay out of. Once that happens, all bets are off.

If our society does eventually become more cohesive, it will only happen as a result of shared hardship, and shared sacrifices.

Monty

fellist said...

Alex: These are both unsupported and not necessarily affiliated assertions. Please provide an argument which demonstrates that the end you have specified is being pursued by the means you have outlined.

I think those two statements - about the basic political goals of the west’s reigning ideology, and its absolute rejection of the ethnic nationalist claims of its peoples - are so self-evidently true that it would be redundant to waste more time discussing it.

It would also be interesting to learn who or what are the forces actively employed in the process.

Because, of course, I've quite failed to name our governments' partners and their methods in pursuing their agenda. Yup.

fellist said...

Monty, I share your gloomy outlook on prospects for peace and social cohesion.

Is your ideal, then, a peaceful and cohesive and avowedly multi -racial -ethnic -religious Britain?

That’s the ideal of our ruling class - despite it having escaped Alex’s notice – and it permits no recognition of the native British peoples’ rights to maintain their homelands as such.

Should the British peoples accept that - in principle - even if things don't get worse.

Alex said...

@ Fellist:

You ask me to quote you in order to examine what you're talking about. When I do so (more than once), you provide no argument but cop out by saying that your claims don't need evidence because they're self-evident.

In other words, you have opinions about the "dispossession of the British people" and the means by which this is being (or will be ) effected, but you can't support them by reasoned argument.

"If the cultivation of of the understanding consists in one thing more than any other, it is surely in leaning the grounds of one's own opinions"
John Stuart Mill.

Anonymous said...

"Is your ideal, then, a peaceful and cohesive and avowedly multi -racial -ethnic -religious Britain?"


It was, once.

There has been a great deal of chatter recently about Britishness, and allegiance, to the Crown, to Parliament, etc.

But fundamentally, allegiance, fellowship and loyalty must arise from the roots of a society, it can not be parachuted in from above. It depends on some seed of commonality, like the grains of sand inside the oysters, from which a string of pearls is conjured up. Whether that substrate is ethnic, religious, emotional, historical or moral, we all need something to stand on. A framework.

When you look at the state of Britain today, where are those seeds of commonality?
Obviously not ethnic, but the doctrine of multiculturalism has destroyed all the other seed mechanisms too.

Some aspects of our culture are vital, and these include liberty, self determination, respect for the person, respect for property rights, equality in law for all citizens, democracy, free speech, electoral integrity, protection of the most vulnerable, policing by consent.
They arise from the shared history, and temperament, of a nation state, which has endured, and repudiated, corruption and chaos. To me, they are not negotiable.

And these are the very aspects under greatest assault from the establishment. Under their baleful influence, Britain has become a dumping ground that no-one can be thrown out of, for any reason. Including planning and committing acts of terrorism at the behest of a foreign power. This is toxic.

Somewhere along the line, they invited folk to come to England, bring Kashmir with them, and then impose Kashmir on the English. And the only people who noticed, were the folk who, still in the houses they were born in, found themselves a despised racial minority in their own home towns.

If we could have had a multi-racial, culturally cohesive society, based upon the principles I have already cited, I would have supported that, back in the day.

But it's at least thirty years too late for anyone to offer that now. You can't abuse a whole generation of an indigenous population, and then expect them to cheerfully fall in line with your plans for hoodwinking their children too.

So the answer to your question, is no.

Sorry

Monty

fellist said...

Monty, thanks for that thoughtful reply. I know it takes time and effort to get your thoughts together and express them so clearly. If you don't blog, perhaps you should?

I'm substantially in agreement with you, of course. And I'm not sorry about it, I'm glad we're all waking up.

@ Alex

Alex: You ask me to quote you in order to examine what you're talking about. When I do so (more than once), you provide no argument but cop out by saying that your claims don't need evidence because they're self-evident.

In other words, you have opinions about the "dispossession of the British people" and the means by which this is being (or will be ) effected, but you can't support them by reasoned argument.


Nonsense, your earlier questions were not about my comments, but about your re-hash of them. When you eventually (and only once), asked me to explain my own comments rather than your hijacks, I choose not to only because they need no explanation.

Projects like the UN, the EU, the Euro, the World Bank, the IMF, central banks, and the harmonisation of Human Rights and international laws – projects created by Britain and the west’s ruling class - demonstrate clearly their commitment to the ‘rationalization of human social affairs and the union of global markets’.

That alternative and incompatible political systems, such as ethnic nationalisms, must then be opposed, and indeed are opposed, is also undeniable (or so I thought – but we’re clearly not on the same page, Alex).

In their united front against ethnic-nationalism, ‘racism’, and race-realism; in the conspiracy (says Frank Field) not to admit native concern about the effects of mass-immigration into public debate; in the defiance of democratic principles which saw Enoch Powell’s 80% support defamed then ignored; and in the bombing of nationalist and Russian-aligned Serbia (in the words of Wesley Clark, because ‘Europe shall have no ethnic-states’), our political class is unanimous on the ‘public-political denial of ethnic interests and associated territorial claims’.

If this - the absolute rejection of our legitimate ownership of our homelands as peoples - does not constitute our ‘dispossession’, what does?

Alex said...

@ Fellist:

It is not disputed that an attempt has been made to create a so-called multicultural society here in the UK. Any opposition to the project has been outlawed or silenced by legislation and by propaganda. Mindless mantras, which soften up public opinion, like the infamous, "We should celebrate our diversity", have been repeated by Jack Straw, the bishops, and the Guardian newspaper at every opportunity. Just lately, however, some lefty-liberals have had second thoughts - which is what this discussion is about.

But the above considerations are a long way from proving it's true that constructing a multicultural society is merely a prelude to the ultimate objective - which, according to you, is the total dispossession of British people in their homeland. (Or is this criticism another "hijack" of your meaning?)

It's no use giving vague references to globalism, the World Bank, the EU, etc., as though simply reciting a list of global trends and transnational institutions is enough to show them acting in concert on behalf of any specific plan, or to establish their culpability in the outcome you predict.

majorityrights.com said...

Monty - "Some aspects of our culture are vital, and these include liberty, self determination, respect for the person, respect for property rights, equality in law for all citizens, democracy, free speech, electoral integrity, protection of the most vulnerable, policing by consent."

Most reasonable people agree with those concepts, concepts not always adhered to in reality but at least aimed for. You will find the same attitude in all the Anglo countries and something similar in Europe. However such attitudes are alien in Asia, Middle East and Africa.

Those concepts are fundamentally born of white Europeans, culturally and I suspect at some level genetically too. Society reflects the genes of those who comprise it.

Any attempt to transplant these ideals into other areas will probably fail in time and transplanting alien people into our culture will also fail to mould them into the idealised westerner.

Of course thats en masse, some individuals can acculturate but not at the huge levels we are experiencing.

fellist said...

It's clear now that you don't dispute anything I say Alex. In fact, when you offer a positive description of the beliefs and conduct of our ruling class, you go further than I do:

The 'huge social experiment' carried out by 'the liberal intelligentsia involving mass immigration from alien cultures'; 'essential British values, ... now distant curiosities'; 'uncontrolled immigration'; 'any opposition to the project has been outlawed or silenced by legislation'...

If I were to ask you to justify these assertions in the same style in which you interrogated me, I might say:

Name the members of the sinister cabal which engaged in a conspiracy to transform the ethnic character of Britain just for the sake of it, and point me to the mission statement which explains their secret plan in exactly those terms. Show me the laws which surrendered all immigration controls, opened our borders to any and all, and offered citizenship to same, and the laws which criminalise opposition to Britain becoming a state with 'multiple cultures'...

My questions would not be reasonable, of course, but your language and claims could use some moderation Alex -- whereas I don't think mine need any.

Haven't I said pretty much what you meant to in more accurate and closely-argued terms?

Alex said...

Fellist writes: Haven't I said pretty much what you meant to in more accurate and closely-argued terms?

No. On the contrary, you haven't made any argument, that could be recognised as such, which demonstrates that mass immigration is merely a preliminary policy which has the deliberate objective of totally dispossessing the British people in their homeland. In fact you haven't made any attempt to substantiate this allegation despite being asked several times to do so.

As I've said before, you've made a number of woolly references to the World Bank, globalism, etc. - as though as list of these institutions and trends proved your case - but you never integrated them into a coherent argument.

Evidence about the coercing of changes in British society which I agreed aren't disputed, could be cited, for example, from the appropriate legislation - e.g. The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006.

Since you are unable or unwilling to address the disagreement, as far as I'm concerned it's pointless to continue this conversation.

fellist said...

Alex: you haven't made any argument, that could be recognised as such, which demonstrates that mass immigration is merely a preliminary policy which has the deliberate objective of totally dispossessing the British people in their homeland. In fact you haven't made any attempt to substantiate this allegation despite being asked several times to do so. As I've said before, you've made a number of woolly references to the World Bank, globalism, etc. - as though as list of these institutions and trends proved your case - but you never integrated them into a coherent argument.

I defined our dispossession as the public-political denial of our rightful ownership of our homelands as peoples - mass immigration against our known wishes demonstrates that dispossession, incontrovertibly, it seems to me. Multiculturalism was simply a sales-strategy to accommodate us to our dispossession, and a framework for the construction of a new, non people-specific public culture.

Alex: Since you are unable or unwilling to address the disagreement...

But do you disagree that the British peoples are dispossessed in the sense I claim? Do you disagree with anything I've posted? If so, quote me, and say where I'm wrong.

Alex said...

@ fellist

You have spoken about the total dispossession of the British people - not a partial displacement or any number of indeterminate positions that would stop short of full deprivation. So where, precisely, have British citizens been deprived of their rightful ownership of property by immigrants? How do you know that's what the lefty-liberal sophists intended?

In some cities (Bradford and Leicester for example) a huge influx of immigrants has transformed the cultural character of those places. But the presence of these unwanted incomers has not dispossessed the indigenous residents of their rightful ownership of anything - unless you characterize "white flight" as a form of dispossession. Consider: If I don't like the people next door and move out, they haven't dispossessed me of my home. I have chosen to go because I'd be more comfortable somewhere else.

Your opinion that the multicultural project in the UK is a "sales-strategy" that masks an attempt to construct a brave new world inhabited by people with a mongrel culture, might be true. But it's up to you to go beyond assertion and present an argument that at least shows its plausibility. You haven't done that.

If you study the history of British nationality legislation - starting with the British Nationality Act 1948 - you will discover why one government after another failed to consult the people by disclosing their intentions in any political manifesto, and made only token efforts to control immigration from the commonwealth.

I don't like our country's predicament any more than you do. However, I prefer to base my objections to mass immigration on reasoned argument.

NB. This is my final post on this topic: I won't be responding to any further inquiries from you.

fellist said...

Alex: This is my final post on this topic: I won't be responding to any further inquiries from you.

I am still waiting for you to start responding to my posts.

You have spoken about the total dispossession of the British people... So where, precisely, have British citizens been deprived of their rightful ownership of property by immigrants? How do you know that's what the lefty-liberal sophists intended? … the presence of these unwanted incomers has not dispossessed the indigenous residents of their rightful ownership of anything… Consider: If I don't like the people next door and move out, they haven't dispossessed me of my home.

I defined the public-political denial of our rightful ownership of our homelands as peoples as ‘dispossession’. Once again, you avoid responding to my comment and create a straw man to huff at. It is unnecessary to create an analogy, but if we must do so a more apt one, obviously, would see the people from next door move into your house, denying your rightful ownership of your home. When they take your family name, an over-sized share of your savings and investments, and, in your words, outlaw and silence your complaints, you can consider the dispossession total, you ‘own’ nothing.

Three further points: 1) The ‘liberal sophists’ are more responsible for our dispossession than are the immigrant beneficiaries. 2) The righty-liberal sophists (and politicians)
are just as responsible as the lefty-liberal sophists, and it wasn’t merely their ‘intention’ that we should come to be dispossessed, it is their belief - as I have already said, and which they regularly assert - that we DO NOT POSSESS legitimate ethnic interests and associated territorial claims. 3) If peoples don’t have recognised collective ownership of their lands as peoples, they are subjects of, and subject to, empires.

If you study the history of British nationality legislation - starting with the British Nationality Act 1948 - you will discover why one government after another failed to consult the people by disclosing their intentions in any political manifesto, and made only token efforts to control immigration from the commonwealth

But you have already told us why: ‘The liberal intelligentsia conducted a huge social experiment involving mass immigration from alien cultures without bothering to consult the British people first’.

This makes more sense than pointing at the British Nationality Act of 1948 and saying ‘look, they couldn’t do x because they did y instead’. Powell, for one, argued at the time that the bill should have done ‘x’, that is, link citizenship and right to residency with the specific national entity of the UK and those peoples with allegiance to it alone. This could have been done in 1948. Or 1949, or 1950, or 1951... Public opinion is relevant only in that it would have supported Powell’s preferred formula.

Your opinion that the multicultural project in the UK is a "sales-strategy" that masks an attempt to construct a brave new world inhabited by people with a mongrel culture, might be true. But it's up to you to go beyond assertion and present an argument that at least shows its plausibility. You haven't done that.

It makes sense to link motive and method when looking at the people and lobbies promoting mass immigration, multiculturalism, ‘anti-racism’, and to try and understand specific policies in context of the political and philosophical beliefs of their architects. You do so yourself when you talk about the ‘liberal intelligentsia’ with their ‘fundamental assumptions’ and ‘social experiments’ and ‘goal’ of ‘creating a multicultural society’.

Like you, I believe the ‘liberal project’ has a goal, but as I’ve already said, it is not, specifically, the destruction of national cultural heritages or the creation of a new ‘mongrel culture’ – it is to achieve the rationalization of human social affairs and the union of global markets. This, I think, is the international, epochal context in which multiculturalism and mass immigration can be understood.

Interestingly, one of the most influential theorists of multiculturalism says the same:

[…] we need to understand how multiculturalism fits into a larger set of government policies regarding ethnocultural relations. … this larger context … is typically ignored in debates about multiculturalism… I will try to show how multiculturalism works within, and is limited by, the larger context of common public institutions; and how multiculturalism works within, and is limited by, the larger context of basic liberal-democratic principles. […] Multiculturalism is not the only—or even the primary—government policy that affects the place of immigrant ethnic groups in Western democracies. It is just one modest component in a larger package. Many aspects of public policy affect these groups, including policies relating to naturalization, education, job training and professional accreditation, human rights and anti-discrimination law, civil service employment, health and safety, even national defence. It is these other policies which are the major engines of integration. They all encourage, pressure, even legally force immigrants to take steps towards integrating into society.

Will Kymilicka, Politics in the Vernacular, Nationalism, Multiculturalism, and Citizenship, pages 153-55

Multiculturalism is not the goal, it is a tool to affect the integration of native and immigrant into a new order. While it is true, as Kymlicka claims, that immigrants undergo pressure and coercion to integrate into the new order, it is also true that natives are pressured and legally forced to do the same, as you have pointed out. All this follows, of course, the mass immigration of the immigrants - a phenomenon which also ‘fits into a larger set of government policies regarding ethnocultural relations’ and which can only be understood to ‘work within’ the context of ‘basic liberal-democratic principles’.

It was not a passive response of British politicians to legislation they themselves wrote and could have modified – or a mere desire on the part of liberal intellectuals to create a ‘multicultural society’ as a social experiment (two quite different theses, incidentally, and both unique to you).