Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, December 31, 2014 at 07:19 AM in Activism, Awakenings, Business & Industry, Economics & Finance, Education, European culture, Homeschooling & Adult Education, Psychology, Science & Technology, Social Sciences, White Nationalism
As European(White) Nationalists, we all know that the wake of the World Wars has not birthed favorable circumstances for our people. Thus, we are decidedly less satisfied than Max Hastings that a marked separatism from Jewish power and influence was not achieved, its necessity not even understood; and along with that that a pervasive liberalism should have won-out as consequence, potentially auguring the final chapter for Europeans in entirety.
Was it “hubris” for Poland to want its nation back? I rather think not. It’s called ethno-nationalism and it is that which we should support as opposed to internationalism. Germany was still huge after Versailles. On the Polish border, all it had lost were Posen, Bromberg and Thorn. Danzig became neutral. The Max Hastings account introduces yet more discussion of Versailles to make it more understandable as an effort at justice, as it always appeared when looking at the territorial divisions. However, there have been a couple of parties who want me to run strong anti-Polish propaganda.
The large problem with that is that for those of us who view White Nationalist media as our veritable news source now (finding other, anti-White media wholly intolerable), a hypotrophied unanimity with Nazism and its antecedent regime’s military campaigns is what we get: for whatever reasons, but probably because America is so German- American that a “by-golly, Hitler was absolutely right!” perspective is all too convenient (and the most popular and economically supported of any WN perspective) in the wake of Jewish and Neo-liberal destruction; and all the more motivated with guilt trips of World War II being most pressing upon them; their having least perspective on anything but a direct desire to throw guilt trips off as entire fabrication: nuances of perspective and history are cast aside, and ultimately, the unfortunate difficulty they have in seeing our family relations and the more relative and complex justice of the circumstance seeds potential inter-European conflict, if not war. Seeds sown oblivious to the fact that we do not care to lay guilt trips upon them, certainly not subsequent generations, they go ahead and try to lay guilt trips upon us for events before our fathers lives even. Just as they want it understood that they and their forefathers were not ex-nihilo evil, but had reasons for their wars, so too those of “Allied” descent wish to claim the same.
Yes, there were corrupt forces manipulating the circumstances, but there were also justly reasoned motives. The circumstances were a great deal more complicated and justified from an Allied perspective than The Hitler contingent of WN will ever admit. That’s a problem if you want to treat WN as your media. Because Nazi Germany and Kaiser Germany were not pure and sheer victims, as the salient contingent of WN wish to claim. But so long as their childish and Jewish style of argumentation is what is being served in WN discourse, I am left no choice but to balance things off in the service of truth. There are several sites out there for those who want to take a “Hitler only good everyone else bad” perspective. You will not hear that the German regimes did have choices: Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian and other Nationalisms, even the British, of course, could have been aligned, willing and able to fight Soviet incursions (had done so already in some instances).
Until there are other, or more, WN sites which care for the truth and represent events in the context of their nuance and balance, I must continue to highlight discussions such as that from Max Hastings. In fact, there is much there that one would never hear and learn about if the now standard WN position on several sites - “Germany’s war efforts only good, their people only victims” - were the only perspective heard; and there is a great deal of intimidation that it be the only perspective heard in WN, to the point where the opposite of PC is in effect, to where it is a veritable taboo to say anything negative about Nazi Germany and its predecessors and anything good about the Allies and their predecessors. In truth, of course, there are many things for Germans to be proud of, and some things to not be so proud of. For some reason, that is too complex a fact for some to cope with. Those of us who are sick of that childish unanimity might find Max Hastings discussion refreshing and informative.
There are thoughts on responsibility in World War I which echo very much that of WWII. Thoughts on Versailles foreign to WN discourse. And of course the great taboo in WN, to suggest that a German military could have done anything worth resisting. It was of course noble to burn the library of Leuven (they just had to do that, didn’t they?); to do whatever I am not allowed to speak about to Belgian civilians there, in Dinant and elsewhere, to French and other civilians; in Kalisz as well. No, Germany was always a perfect nation, nobody can say otherwise; if you want to blame anybody, conveniently blame Poland as Hitler and Goebbels suggested, or as Friedrich the Great might have proposed of his then vanquished neighbor.
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, December 17, 2014 at 03:57 AM in British Politics, Education, European Nationalism, Political analysis, Revisionism, The American right, The Proposition Nation, U.S. Politics, White Genocide: Europe, White Nationalism
While defending our ghetto square and the merits of strengthening our grass roots community by preaching there to its choir, deepening our understanding and resolve, it seems that at this point Majority Rights could also do well with forays to visit those down some side streets - to pursue interviews not only with those who are most aligned with our views, but also to follow a path of those who might be slightly off - i.e. slightly antagonistic to our views in a somewhat liberal direction, at least explicitly, while having some implicit sympathy through connection to our square, our cause; such that MR’s platform might bring-out that connection with their underlying fairness in concern for our people and our kinds. The more public, known or respectable the person, perhaps the better. They might come to us with an intent to criticize us or save face in cover inasmuch – fine. Perhaps we can stand corrected. That’s not so much the problem as coming-up with good candidates for this kind of discussion/debate, those who may be lurking in what are the shadowy side-streets for us. Therefore the reason for this post is to ask for suggestions as to fairly prominent/respectable liberals, etc. Those fairly askance of our views, but not so antagonistic as to be futile to hope to engage. Rather to pursue those who might be ripe to debate GW or another MR representative, to at least hear-us-out. We might see where the dimly lit path takes us…
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, November 6, 2014 at 06:10 AM in Activism, Awakenings, British Politics, Conservatism, Education, Feminism, Libertarianism, MR Radio, Political Philosophy, Popular Culture, Race realism, Social liberalism, Social Sciences, White Genocide Project, White Nationalism
Challenge or corrective process to Enlightenment puritanism, depending on perspective
[Note: Søren chided me for not proofreading this sufficiently; and he was right. There was a typo in the very title and an uncouth repetition of the word “suggests” in the same sentence in the second paragraph. It’s fixed now]
There is a provocation from the other direction as well. You see, this hermeneuticist naturally wants different nations to have different, sovereign ways, and for there to be a variety of ways among the nations, including individuals who may believe themselves to be descended from god, as they see fit. So, the question, “do you accept the prerogative to exclude you?” is only mildly insulting in that it proposes the necessity to enforce something that I am advocating with all my might, in line with, and by my very natural preferences.
And it is not to be capricious or to look for serpentine ways for an inroad into a foreign culture, but rather to point-out a loophole in this Enlightenment model of “sortocracy” - the a-historical linearity of modernity - which indicates that consideration be given to the possibility that it might indeed, be enhanced by some consideration of the hermeneutic turn. That loophole of a-historicity/historicity and the necessity of narrative coherence may be used in a positive or negative way.
Hermeneutics was, after all, conceived for friendly purposes, to protect our people from the arbitrary ravages of a-historical scientism. And typically, abused by Jewish interests.
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, August 20, 2014 at 05:42 PM in Activism, Anthropology, Anti-racism and white genocide, Conservatism, Education, Environmentalism & Global Warming, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Globalisation, White Nationalism
John Shotter’s “Social Accountability and the Social Construction of ‘You”
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, January 14, 2014 at 09:15 AM in Activism, Awakenings, Education, European culture, European Nationalism, Free Speech, Political Philosophy, Popular Culture, Psychology, Science & Technology, Social Conservatism, Social liberalism, Social Sciences, The Ontology Project, White Nationalism
The most fundamental questions of who we are and how we might organize in our defense has a cogent, preliminary answer outlined by the Euro-DNA Nation
The very act of participating in the Euro-DNA Nation establishes a degree of merit to individuals as worthy members from the onset: This person is willing to undertake a minimal act in essential distinction of themselves and their group in flight or fight for the defense of European types.
There are additional qualities that need to be drawn-out by means of criteria other than genetics, of course. For example, Bowery might seek demonstrations of particular skills to confirm the type that he is looking for in his particular community. Lister would be correct to look for additional criteria beyond genetics and so on. These particular qualitative concerns are provided for in the Euro-DNA Nation as well.
We may hypothesize and verify that we do have a definition of White/European Nationalisms which can move easily in consensus, neither yielding to slobs or snobs.
Although there is some confusion over what constitutes White/European Nationalism by way of slobs and snobs, there is a de facto consensus that all people of indigenous European parentage, including Russians, are valid members. With that, there is a normal provision that the various kinds of Europeans ought to be able to maintain their distinct demographics and not have them blended away, not even with other European types. This normal provision protects against the slobs, those who cannot see the depth and importance of European differences from one another and in some of their slovenly cases, not even seeing difference from non-Europeans. It also protects against snobbish definitions of White, which would deny the overwhelming Europeanness or the value of some European kinds; in this case again, they are not seeing or acknowledging a difference that makes a difference from non-Europeans. Their concerns that some patterns among those others which are unlike theirs and not distinctly European might damage their kind if integrated, are alleviated by the human ecological accountability of the particular national and subnational bounds.
Thus, by maintaining national, regional and communal differences and values we may handle concerns of the snobs and the slobs. The snobs, those who do not really care for certain native Europeans, not recognizing them as a part of “us”, may be placated by the fact that borders with these groups that they do not particularly care for are maintained. They have the means to stem limitless blending away. Therefore, they do not need to throw these people overboard along with the non-Europeans. On the other hand, the slobs, people who have a tendency to be lax in recognizing the differences between Europeans or even worse, from non-Europeans, are, by the means of these national, regional and communal accountabilities, also prevented from going too far.
This framework allows for more and less pure alike, it maintains both genus and species of Europeans and thus provides a crucial basis that in theory might serve organizational grounds for our identity, its defense and expanse, even, into new territories.
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, January 4, 2014 at 07:47 PM in Activism, Anthropology, Demographics, Education, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European Nationalism, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Linguistics, Psychology, Social Sciences, The Ontology Project, White Nationalism
Let’s start with acknowledged instances of the use of nuclear weapons and some officially unacknowledged ones.
Posted by R-news on Sunday, December 8, 2013 at 03:29 PM in Books, Education, Global Elitism, History, Media, Military Matters, Political analysis, Science & Technology, That Question Again, U.S. Politics, War on Terror, World Affairs
According to Salvador Astucia, the singlemost important reason behind the assassination of JFK was JFK’s attempt to establish détente with the Soviet Union. Let’s see why this was a big issue.
Posted by R-news on Wednesday, November 27, 2013 at 01:54 PM in Books, Economics & Finance, Education, Global Elitism, History, Media, Military Matters, Political analysis, That Question Again, U.S. Politics, World Affairs
J.P. Mroz has written a three-part essay titled Will the Real Wikipedia Please Stand Up?: http://www.ctka.net/2010/wiki.html.
The essay is related to the futility of trying to correct blatant disinformation on Wikipedia pages regarding the JFK assassination. What is the “real Wikipedia” according to Mroz? It’s simply what Wikipedia claims to be: a wiki edited by the general public, and one that maintains a neutral viewpoint. Mroz’s problems at Wikipedia certainly haven’t stemmed from his being in the minority. In the U.S., surveys have shown that two-thirds to three-fourths of the population doesn’t buy the lone assassin/Oswald claim. So how does one explain Wikipedia “neutrality”?
Posted by R-news on Saturday, November 23, 2013 at 03:57 PM in Books, Education, Global Elitism, History, Media, Political analysis, That Question Again, U.S. Politics, World Affairs
The previous parts established that JFK was killed by at least three hitmen: Lucien Sarti and the other two likely François Chiappe and Jean-Paul Angeletti. Hired guns are mercenaries, and have no personal stake in the matter. This part addresses the people who hired these hitmen.
The following factors would’ve motivated the murder of JFK:
Posted by R-news on Friday, November 22, 2013 at 11:28 AM in Books, Education, Global Elitism, History, Media, Political analysis, That Question Again, U.S. Politics, World Affairs
This part addresses the assassins of JFK.
JFK’s would-be assassination was revealed a month before his murder. The revealer was U.S. army cryptographer Eugene B. Dinkin. An early source of this information is Bloody Treason by Noel Twyman, and it’s mentioned in LBJ, the Mastermind of the JFK Assassination by Phillip Nelson. The following excerpts from Nelson’s book are found on pages 360-362:
What happened to Dinkin? From Phillip Nelson we have:
Posted by R-news on Thursday, November 21, 2013 at 02:28 PM in Books, Education, Global Elitism, History, Media, Political analysis, That Question Again, U.S. Politics, World Affairs
The 50th anniversary of JFK’s murder is on Nov. 22, 2013. Some believe that before 9/11, the JFK murder was the greatest game-changing event in the century that has passed. I don’t know whether this assertion is correct, but the event had major significance, and it’s time to take a look at the JFK murder.
Part 1 addresses whether the official story about who killed JFK is correct.
Posted by R-news on Wednesday, November 20, 2013 at 02:01 PM in Books, Education, Global Elitism, History, Media, Political analysis, That Question Again, U.S. Politics, World Affairs
It’s been said that the halls of academia echo with the chorus of freedom of speech, but the most vociferous members of this chorus often do everything within their power to suppress it! I know of no better example than this of the uselessness of explicitly endorsing support for free speech; behavior, not what one superficially endorses, matters.
Assuming one’s inclined toward respecting freedom of speech, how does one accommodate those hostile to free speech? Suppressing the hostiles is a form of suppression of free speech, but one must suppress the hostiles in order to freely discuss the things the hostiles want suppressed. An open discussion can’t be productive if the hostiles barge in with obfuscation, lies, distortions, noise, nonsense, straw men, trolling, guilt-by-association arguments, discrediting the opponent by making assumptions and then critiquing the assumptions, exposing false information by fellow-hostiles, false dichotomies, deflecting attention from the perpetrators, directing animosity toward the victims and other foul techniques.
Getting rid of the hostiles is an easy matter if the discussion is taking place among a non-proselytising group. The hostiles can complain all they want about suppression of free speech, but the group can keep them out without explanation and without apology.
But the solution to having a productive discussion with hostiles lurking about isn’t easy when the discussion group seeks to bring naive individuals and fence sitters into the fold. Let’s look at a specific issue, the discussion of who did 9/11.
[submission by Genotype]
Murray’s thesis is higher cognitive abilities lead to greater economic productivity and thus higher salaries. This is merely an update to Ayn Rand‘s update to Horatio Alger’s “rags to riches” legends.
Murray and his jewish employers at AEI have two transparent goals:
1.Describe what anyone with an IQ > 90 can see has happened and continues to happen economically.
2.Gain control of the discourse by eliminating all references to “The Other” from the universe of permitted explanations for #1.
The undergrad degree data don’t support Murray’s proposed explanation for the Great Divide. Undergrad science and engineering majors that might lead to advanced science degrees are grossly underrepresented in the 1% group. They are so underrepresented that this data alone falsifies Murray’s primary explanation.
“Biology” obviously serves as a proxy for “pre-med.” Humanities majors of the kind that comprise “pre-law” curriculums are heavily over-represented. History, “economics,” and political science are obvious pre-law programs. What to make of zoology and physiology, except failure to make the cut for “pre-med”? Note that mathematics and physics are on the bottom. Computer science and mechanical/electrical/civil engineering didn’t make the list.
Posted by R-news on Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 06:59 PM in Blogs & Blogging, Economics & Finance, Education, Global Elitism, Political analysis, Social Sciences, That Question Again
Previously it was shown that intelligence was of practically no relevance to explaining spectacular Jewish success (control of the mainstream media, ZOG, etc.). An alternative proposed was ethnocentrism. This can be examined, too.
The National Opinion Research Center (NORC), at the University of Chicago, has conducted an annual General Social Survey (GSS) of a random, representative sample of Americans from 1972 onward.
In 1996 and 2004, it asked respondents to answer how close they felt to their racial or ethnic group [variable coded as ETHCLOSE]. The 4 possible responses were: very close, close, not very close, not close at all. Assigning these responses values of 4, 3, 2, 1, respectively, Ron Guhname provided the following averages:
Table 1. ETHCLOSE values
ETHCLOSE captures the core of ethnocentrism and will have to do in the absence of better data on representative samples. Jews, on average, are more ethnocentric than whites. Now let’s look at the proportions among whites, by year:
Table 2. ETHCLOSE answers for
In the data, Jews are coded as white. Assume that all Jews who say they’re not very close to Jews are lying, in reality very close to their group. This gives a population having a size of about 3.3% of the white population that is very close to its ethnic/racial group, whereas at least 30% of whites are very close to their ethnic/racial grouping. In other words, the number of ethnocentric whites considerably exceeds the number of ethnocentric Jews. We’re dealing with some crudeness, but in spite of making some assumptions that favor those who explain spectacular Jewish success in terms of ethnocentrism, we have to conclude that this couldn’t possibly be an explanation.
Yesterday I had to drive my daughter the forty miles or so to her university halls in central London. The journey took me through the southern outskirts of the London I used to know, and where I spent twenty of my first twenty-one years, and on through the dark heart of Africa. It’s a journey I made in September too - for the same purpose - and, as then, I arrived at the river in a state of deep misgiving, even though I knew in my mind what I would find.
But it’s when one encounters Africa and Asia in person in the places one knew intimately as a child that the term “race-replacement” is revealed in its starkest and most uncompromising reality. My secondary modern school had over six hundred white-skinned pupils between the ages of twelve and sixteen. There were a handful of Jews among them, who I did not notice or pay attention to. But there were no Africans or Asians at any time while I was there. In six years of representative football, cricket and athletics matches with the other five secondary moderns in the district I came across one black lad. My old stamping ground looks to be 25 to 30% vibrant now, though it’s much more than that, of course, as one travels northward up the London Road.
There is, though, something very evident that no one in the mainstream speaks about, and that’s the de facto racial segregation that forces itself onto one’s consciousness as the ribbons of shops and shoppers go by. White couples, white friends, white families walk together. They do not mix with other races. Asians do the same. Blacks do the same. The In-Betweens who, in South London, are overwhelmingly the products of black male “cross cultural fertilisation”, would seem to disappear into the black groups.
There were vanishingly few multiracial groups visible on both journeys. I don’t doubt that where social mixing across the races takes place it is negotiated without too much in the way of problems. But a preference for social mixing, if it is there at all, is manifestly avoided when people go outdoors! The anti-racist strategy, exercised as it is by the presumption, itself racist, of an original sin of white skin, appears to have failed - if, of course, we accept that its goal was panmixia rather than white suppression.
If it was just designed for suppression, it’s been a startling success:
Along with international humanitarian aid, Bill Gates (through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) is attempting to solve the problem with education in the United States. It is well known that the United States lags far behind other advanced nations in terms of education, and the causes of that failure just keeps getting redefined and reworked, with no real progress in understanding why. Of course, the cause is rather simple but is unacceptable when the country is committed to the egalitarian religion—our students are innately less intelligent than students in other advanced countries.
The year 1965 was a big year for civil rights and for opening up immigration. Since then, there has been a keen interest in closing the achievement gap between Blacks and Whites, and to a lesser extent between Whites and Hispanics. So while millions of low achieving Amerindians from Mexico started flooding the country, educational achievement has declined over time to the consternation of educators, government and the business community.
There is something deeply offensive about the knowledge of the workings of the mind claimed by these educationalist creatures. Everything is somebody’s myth, they say. It’s all relative. It’s all about power ... all about politics. The only question is whether we are serious about building a better, more tolerant, more equal world. Etc, etc.
I’m glad I’m not a “senior lecturer in History in Education” like Dr Foster. I can cling to the fond belief that the point of educating children is to equip them with the capacity to think for themselves all life long. But Dr Foster very specifically does NOT share that belief. In his mean little world, students are no more than human blotting-paper - except, of course, those like his own student self who possess the powers to freely discriminate for the marxian concept of Man. Gods in a postmodern system that makes the rest of us less than human, they are the final word in hypocrisy.
Now I’ve got that off my chest, I will explain.
By Stanley Womack, ResistingDefamation.org
Well, all those disappointed state and local government agencies need pine after the old days no more. The San Jose Mercury News reports:-
Under-represented minorities groups. That’s a new phrase, even from Lisa Krieger, who we at RD judge to be one of, if not the, most consistent purveyer of anti-white American hate-journalism at San Jose Mercury News. What it signals is a new wedge for ethnic cleansing.
Misology in America Part 4 - Gender
Misology is the hatred of objective knowledge gained by the scrupulous use of the scientific method when it contradicts the political goals, ideology or religious faith of the misologists.
Misologists dominate the discussion of public policies in several areas in the modern world.
In the United States misologists predominate in the media, the universities, the schools, and among the elected politicians and the clergy.
Part One presented evidence that misologists dominate the public discussion of the distribution of the general mental ability factor or IQ in various identifiable human genetic clusterings.
Part Two presented evidence that misologists dominate the public discussion of the health hazards of smoking tobacco.
Part Three documented the stranglehold misologists hold on the public discussion of homosexuality.
This essay will evaluate the evidence for the beliefs that mental ability is equally distributed among men and women and that male oppression is the sole explanation of the failure of women to succeed in many fields in proportion to their numbers.
“The white majority has rights, damn you.”
That’s my short response to all the activists in academia who are guiding the process of white annihilation, physical and moral. We know the nature of these creatures, and their politics. We know their terms: if we do not accept to self-annihilate as “supremacists”, as “the privileged”, as “oppressors” but, instead and simply as the people of the West, insist upon our free life, our nature, our rights, our interests, then, automatically, these “educators”, these human dross, label us “haters”. They allow no resting place to us. The venomous, reptilian energy of these people knows no stop, nor anything but the prosecution of its own special hatreds (pdf):-
And two pages on, to put the knife in:-
And on page 8, to close every escape route:-
There’s no suggestion that WW2 as a whole is being dropped from the curriculum, but it does seem a bit difficult to teach it without reference to three of the conflict’s most crucial leaders. Will they say that Britain wanted to appease Germany, and then all of a sudden had a feat of schizophrenia and decided to make war on it? Or will internal politics still be discussed, albeit with Churchill’s name being scrupulously avoided, like the nitty gritty in a prep school sex education class?
Or…or…will it be all about the Holocaust and the 20m…10m…certainly, definitely 6m (or we’ll extradite you to Austria and lock you up for suspected group libel). And the lamps made from Jewish skin, and the incinerators, and all the other relics of essential activities the Germans obviously prioritised, above getting some labour out of their prisoners, whilst fighting a modern war against larger and better financed opponents. But here I am, trying to apply reason to the Nazis’ actions. Don’t I realise the whole Nazi hierarchy was stark, raving mad?!
It’ easy enough to see what the matter, from the point of view of leftie educationalists, with Churchill was. He spoilt the morality story that is the Holocaust. He was a Euro who mustered the resistance to Hitler, suggesting that Jews owe us much to Euros in gratitude as we to them in compensation. No Euro can be shown so much as sheltering Jews, lest we unleash A Second Hitler.
I suppose from now on Jews will be presented as saving themselves. Maybe the role of the three Israelis and one Israeli dog who enlisted will be emphasised (better ignore those nasty Nazi-supporting Zionists - oh, I know, call them British instead). Or maybe we’ll get educational videos like The Great Escape (from Auschwitz). Modern teens barely know what century WW2 was in, so why shouldn’t they swallow this.
Regardless of how it is played, Churchill’s attempts to unite his country against the Nazis will be all but forgotten. Maybe some stray puff of collective guilt for the Nazi crimes will even attach itself to us. Some gratitude.
Kozol doesn’t explain his role very well, but it seems he is a freelance researcher into minority schools and an apologist for minority student failures. He relies primarily on narrative to try to show that minority schools are underserved by society, but a careful reading just reinforces that minorities are innately ill-equipped to compete in modern society.
Kozol laments the resegregation of schools after a couple of decades of trying to use busing to integrate schools. Integration however failed to improve the academic performance of minorities (Blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans). It seems that parents still have an interest in living among people like themselves, and will relocate to communities where their children can go to school with those like them—with a challenging academic program and a safer environment.
From the Daily Mail today:-
So the prime-mover of this deeply unwelcome proposal is The Rt Hon Alan Johnson MP, who was appointed Secretary of State for Education and Skills in May 2006. Here is his ministerial team, among them Jim Knight, who seems to be connected with this particular proposal.
The political provenance of this initiative is the failed attempt to legislate powers for local councils to make new faith schools reserve a quarter of places for children outside the religion.
Johnson defended that attempt by declaring, “There must be a balance between preserving the special quality of faith schools and building greater community cohesion and understanding between different cultures. By opening up a proportion of places to children of different faiths where local communities wish this, we will help create a system where all faith schools play a full part in the education of local children.”
The principle involved in this seemed clear at the time, even if it was not directly enunciated by ministers for fear of inflaming Pakistan in the North. Islamic schools narrow their pupils’ understanding of the majority way of life. Experience of the Kufr and the Kufr’s faith might tell little Moslem mites not only something about the England in which they were domiciling, but about themselves, their teachers and even some of the Suraw.
Now, it was not a particularly good proposal. Natural balkanisation is better. And the Bishops took it as an attack by secular leftists on faith schools per se, which is certainly not what Johnson said. But the implicit focus seemed to me to be in the right place for once.
The new proposal, however, is quite different. Now we are not talking any more, even implicitly, about challenging Islamic fundamentalism. It’s the English instinct to separate that ministers find offensive. The old, self-hating leftist twitch is back.
Well, in my unending quest to be charitable to politicians I persuaded a certain John Standing (who, you will understand, is someone extremely well-known to me but, strangely, to no other living being) to e-mail Lucky Jim the Schools Minister and his Tory Shadow, Nick Gibb MP. Nothing too complicated. I don’t want to tax their limited intellectual resources:-
White Genocide Project
Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.
Endorsement not implied.
Nationalist Political Parties
Whites in Africa