No choices left

The cleavage between right- and left-liberalism can be summed up in a word: choice. When people are encouraged to make their own choices they somehow never make the ones that the social engineers require.

School choice ‘means classroom ghettos’

Giving consumers choice in public services - and particularly in schools - is causing acute risks to racial equality.

That, at least, is the view of the Commission for Racial Equality which warns that Tony Blair’s commitment to increasing choice undermines that other current political mantra of increasing integration.

Indeed, it’s feared that choice will encourage racial segregation in an already highly segregated country.

This report was a special feature on BBC 1 evening news. Mark Easton examined the educational divide in Blackburn, where ...

22% of the population come from ethnic minorities but 90% of non-white primary school children go to overwhelmingly non-white schools - up from 60% in just six years.

In secondary schools too, segregation is increasing.

Twenty-five years ago Pleckgate High School was predominantly white.

Today, 30% of pupils are white and the latest intake is 20% white.

“It is the parental choice that is having the main impact,” says head teacher Robin Campbell.

“How do you resolve that? We are then into the realms of social engineering and I don’t think that would work in any borough

Then it was the turn of the government’s favourite race advisor, Professor Ted Cantle. He of “hideously white” fame, the Visiting Professor of Community Cohesion at Coventry University and leading light of the kosher-sounding Institute for Community Cohesion, said “segregation of schools along racial or religious lines is dangerous.”

“It is not just Blackburn,” he says. “The problems of segregated schools can be found in towns and cities across the country.”

In central London, the white middle-classes are increasingly abandoning state education.

In total, 75% of inner London’s population is white and yet only 35% of state pupils are - a fall from 42% seven years before.

In outer London, the polarisation is clear. In the borough of Havering 80% of all secondary school pupils are white British. In Brent, it is 8%.

The BBC website article does not quote the CRE commissar Trevor Phillips, who appeared on TV as a talking head. But the article does end with this:-

The CRE’s view is that choice in other public services risks greater racial segregation.

They claim to have evidence that choice in council housing may be further ghettoising communities and that even in health services, patient choice may result in ethnic segregation.

The language of choice is about individual needs, about self-interest. The language of integration is about society’s needs, about the collective interest.

Our natural desire to be surrounded by people like ourselves means the specific is often in conflict with the general - a contradiction that presents a huge challenge for our diverse consumer society.

These people know, therefore, that their heaven on Earth is not achievable. Up to a point, they even know why. They have no answers, short of a genuinely oppressive state machinery. But, also, they have no vision. They cannot see that even segregation will not be acceptable ad infinitum to a native people threatened with approaching minority status. Nature will out in that respect, as it has already in respect of the choice of schools.

Interesting times are around the corner.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 at 06:35 PM in Education
Comments (19) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Posted by Al Ross on June 14, 2006, 09:24 PM | #

Some things need to change and these include the exemption of non-White parents from compulsory education laws. As many of the innately backward Muslims resent having to send their daughters to school, this move would reduce the number of pests burdening White taxpayers.

Of course this would curtail the expensive scholastic warehousing of school-age aliens and further pollute our inner-city streets with gangs of even younger Black mischief-makers, so any crime committed by a group member would be punishable by swift deportation of that nucleur family. Jews love group punishment of Germans so they shouldnt whine when such a measure is applied.

Also, recognition of dual nationality must be withdrawn vis-a vis Third Worlders and all those currently enjoying such status should be repatriated to their country of origin, where White racism is but a distant memory.

As for UK university places, the domestic student intake for minorities must never exceed half of their pro rata percentage of the overall population. This would ensure that the character of such institutions doesnt suffer the terminal degradation visited upon America’s colleges by Jewish and Negro infestation.

Posted by JB on June 15, 2006, 12:52 AM | #

the parents would have a real choice if the government gave financial help to families who do home schooling. The choice of not going to school at all. I wish I’d been told that it was possible when I was in school

Posted by Daveg on June 15, 2006, 02:34 AM | #

Two interest jews are Auster (VFR) and Michael Savage (Wiener).

Over the last moth Auster has been about as good as it gets on the immigration and culture issue. MS is generally good as well.

See this.

Sure, both are big time supporters of Israel. Fine. But what if the following deal was offered:

Unconditional support for Israel, including the Jewish identity thereof.

In exchange, the “Jewish” community would support at substantaila reduction in immigration, including reasonable “dislocation” of immigrants already in the country.

Would you take that deal, if you thought it could be “enforced”?

I would. These guys are, overall, on the right side of the most important issues.

Posted by Guessedworker on June 15, 2006, 07:17 AM | #

Daveg,

Immigration-restrictionist Jews are rarities and have no purchase on government. It’s the ubiquitous other kind whom Western governments listen to. I am resigned to a perpetual ethnic hostility from organised Jewry and from high profile individual actors like Professor Ted. I don’t believe that a quid pro quo on Israel will appeal because we already give them everything they want on that front for free.

Posted by Kenelm Digby on June 15, 2006, 07:44 AM | #

Sorry, but there is no possible way, shape of form that the population of “inner London”, (however it is defined), is “75% White”, as the report claims.
As someone who was born and lived all his life near tthe centre of London, I can state with complete confidence that the former GLC area definition of London is majority non-White.
Reports such as this one are the reson why I am so very sceotical of all official government estimates of non-Whites in Britain.
My guess is that of Britain as a whole, 15 - 20% is already non-White.

Posted by Andrew on June 15, 2006, 08:13 AM | #

“public services risks greater racial segregation”
What a load of Crap; it would be that every ethnic soul that could be found would be in a Public service job.
If for instance; Australia; we have the “Ethnic and Idiot Equal Opportunity Employment”. In short; that means; if you are white or educated, you have not got a chance in hell of getting employed by the Government. Because, “You would Know” and less likely to heal to the perpetual liars and thieves, unless you have attended the brain dysfunctional and alteration Unit “ University” and public education.
Remember that International umbilical chord?
That is a reason for the supposed institutions and Government services being on the brink of collapse; might I say, along with everything else.
The tooth paste has left the tube; and there isn’t any way of putting it back in.

Posted by EC on June 15, 2006, 10:17 AM | #

As a result, they’re liable to try to “get at” parents who home-school, as is being done right now to Paul Belien, editor of the Brussels Journal blog.

Don’t know if anyone saw this article a few weeks ago. However, this is an avenue the Marxist elite seem intent on attacking.

UN and homeschooling

A U.N. treaty conferring rights to children could make homeschooling illegal in the U.S. even though the Senate has not ratified it, a homeschooling association warns.

Michael Farris, chairman and general counsel of the Home School Legal Defense Association, or HSLDA, believes the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child could be binding on U.S. citizens because of activist judges, reports LifeSite News.

Posted by rustymason on June 15, 2006, 12:59 PM | #

One of the very best ways to undermine homeschooling is to have the government pay for it. There are always strings attached to government money, such as required curriculum, regulations, inspections, tests. It doesn’t start out that way, but it always ends up that way. Just say NO to government “help” if you want to keep your and your children’s minds healthy.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 15, 2006, 01:22 PM | #

Excellent point, Rusty. As they say, the ten most terrifying words in the English language are, “Hi! We’re from the government, and we’re here to help.”

Posted by Søren Renner on June 15, 2006, 01:52 PM | #

- The New World Order’s official motto: “To the extent we can manage to commit genocide, there’s hope.”

I thought that was our motto.

Posted by Al Ross on June 15, 2006, 03:00 PM | #

Fred Scrooby’s “ten most terrifying words in the English language” quote reminds me of the advice of an old British friend,( commanding officer of a special forces regiment of Malayan aboriginal jungle troops) who warned his men : “Whenever you see a government employee coming your way with an offer of help, run like hell”.

Posted by President Barbicane on June 15, 2006, 07:22 PM | #

Fred Scrooby’s ‘moratorium plus repatriation’ line brings an interesting question to my mind. Is it possible to repatriate British non-whites? Could a just repatriation plan be practical?

One of the biggest problems with the abolitionist movement in America was the question of what to do with the freed slaves. Abraham Lincoln was a major proponent of ‘colonization’, or repatriation as Mr. Scrooby would call it. This was never mentioned in any of my history books—I only found out about it when I took it upon myself to read the Lincoln-Douglas debates so I would better understand the issues of the era. Lincoln’s plan originally was to send the freed slaves some place in either Central America or the Caribbean. Eventually, though, representatives from several Central American countries told Lincoln they didn’t want millions of blacks shipped to their countries, so he had to propose shipping them to Liberia.

Unfortunately, Mr. Lincoln was shot before his plan could be carried out, so now we have even more blacks in the USA—probably around 30 million. I can’t comprehend how 30 million people could be repatriated without bloodshed, and that’s something I’m unwilling to do. Things might be different in Britain, however. There are probably fewer blacks, and they’re much more recent immigrants, so there wouldn’t be as big a feeling of injustice in them—perhaps many would consider it going home.

How would repatriation be carried out? Are there any practical repatriation plans anywhere?

Posted by Guessedworker on June 16, 2006, 02:53 AM | #

Jim as insightful and eloquent as always. Thanks, Fred.

The civil rights laws are an expression of a period of extraordinary political centralization through control of economic life and public discussion. That period, which gave us communism, fascism and managerial liberalism as well as the civil rights laws, is dying. The abandonment of socialism and fall of communism are the dawn of a new and less managed age. That age will have its own problems, but there is reason to hope the civil rights laws will not be among them.

For me “managerial liberalism”, which is a term really only describing left-liberalism as constituted now under cultural Marxist principles, contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction.

I’ve argued here many times that liberalism is a migratory political zeitgeist since, being anti-Nature, the freedoms it concentrates upon do not and cannot exist or sustain and, therefore, change with each political generation. Advocates of both left and right liberalism scarcely seemed to notice the last “Oceania is at war with Eastasia” moment, when classical Marxism was quietly dropped and cultural Marxism adopted. The right-liberals - Reaganites and Thatcherites - actually thought they had “won”!

In Britain the beginnings of the Age of Cultural Marxism lay with the post-war British Historians Group of intellectuals, and it received a great boost from the Marxisation of the Birmingham School by Stuart Hall and Raymond Williams in 1970. Gorbachev’s liberalisations in the 1980’s - essentially the exposure to light of the rottenness of the Soviet model - signalled the death of classical Marxism and liberalism’s smooth onset upon a new path, but one that has its own rotten core of unrealisable aims.

In that much, I differ from Jim in my reading of events. But I strongly contend that this time liberalism cannot be reborn with some great new teleology in its soul. The Age of Cultural Marxism will be its last age, and its passing will likely be marked by something not less but far more managerial and unjust - but demonstrably illiberal and short-lived.

This is simple historical mechanics. The great imponderable, for the moment, is: what will replace the liberal zeitgeist?

Posted by Amalek on June 16, 2006, 08:49 AM | #

Daveg wrote:

what if the following deal was offered:

Unconditional support for Israel, including the Jewish identity thereof.

In exchange, the “Jewish” community would support at substantaila reduction in immigration, including reasonable “dislocation” of immigrants already in the country.

Would you take that deal, if you thought it could be “enforced”?

I would. These guys are, overall, on the right side of the most important issues.

So here we go yet again—whites abjectly tying themselves in knots trying to find ‘good Jews’, trying to assure themselves that Jews are ‘on our side’ and really and truly ‘one of us’, trying to cut a deal to save a nation with its most persistent parasites.

Why bother? Why not just take Jews at their statistical significance—a dwindling 2pc of America and 0.5pc of Britain—accord them that much political and cultural weight, and not one ounce more?

But if we must thrash out a deal with Diaspora Jewry, how about this:

If you prefer to stay here, fair enough. Only we desire to hear no more about our sacred duty to defend Israel, no more whining over ancient atrocity stories, no more exaltation of your separate identity, why you’re a light unto the world and all that poloney. Just behave like undividedly loyal citizens of the land whose passport you carry—or it’s off to the Judenstaat, one-way, before you can say ‘Jonathan Pollard’.

No more playing both ends against the middle, no more dual citizenship, no more one-rule-for-goyim-and-another-for-us… in a word, no more ‘American Jews’, just ‘Jewish Americans’.

Too difficult to change the habits of two millennia? Fair enough. You know where El Al takes off.

Posted by john on June 16, 2006, 10:56 PM | #

More than reasonable.

Next entry: Culture, Discipline, and the No Child Left Behind Act

Previous entry: Celebrating 350 Years of Our Misfortune

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

General News

Science News

Science Categories

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Controlled Opposition

Crime

General

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Whites in Africa