Wednesday, 27 May 2009

BBC: The Incredible Human Journey

I didn’t see the first two episodes, Out of Africa and Asia, but tuned in to see the one about the journey to us, Europe.

Two points.

I couldn’t help being amused by Alice Roberts’s struggle to find the right words to describe the reconstructed face of the ‘first European’. In the context of the ‘Human Journey’ she was forced to acknowledge the obvious: we Europeans clearly don’t look like that nowadays. But if modern Europeans can so easily be distinguished from the reconstructed model, can’t we just as easily be distinguished from present-day people who look quite like the model, or otherwise look quite unlike Europeans? Of course we can, but this simple fact sits uneasily with the BBC’s usual racedoesnotexist line. How would the lovely doctor avoid seeming to take sides in the conflict between fact and politicised pseudoscience - essential if she hopes to keep on fronting BBC documentaries?

She came up with a clever dodge: “this face doesn’t look like we may think of modern Europeans as looking.”

A tortuous verbal formula that seemed to acknowledge the obvious but forbidden truth, so could move the narrative along its inevitable course, but that didn’t directly confront establishment lies. “We may think -- but maybe our eyes are lying.’’ Sure. A free person would simply have said “we don’t like that today,” what a shame Alice Roberts didn’t feel free to say that.


Second point, illustrating again the tension between honest science and prevailing dogmas. The theory is proposed that a ‘shared identity’ and ‘distinct culture’ was our ancestors’ decisive advantage over the relatively individualistic Neanderthals. In other words, one human group displaced another - to the point of its extinction - mainly by virtue of the incoming group’s higher levels of solidarity and co-operation.

The parallels between 40,000 B.C. and today, between the long-settled European populations and funny looking Afro-Asian colonists of both periods, must have occurred to many viewers even though Roberts never made the connection explicitly; the phrases ‘distinct culture’ and ‘shared identity’ are familiar from discussions about mass immigration and multiculturalism.

But could the same dynamic arise between rival sapiens sapiens groups - and with a similar outcome? Well, in Darwin’s famous words:

“A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit
of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage and sympathy, were always ready to
aid each other and to sacrifice themselves for the common good would be
victorious over most other tribes.”

Common sense, really, but the establishment persists in telling us the only thing to fear is our own ‘racism’ - by which they mean our will to survive. We should welcome immigrants; respect but not emulate their high degree of group cohesion and mobilisation; we should not be alarmed at the rapid demographic changes we see; and we certainly shouldn’t vote BNP who advocate the kind of policies that appeal only to "Neanderthals"! History and science, though, tell us the opposite.

Home Schooling for Nationalists

Preliminary research.

Current rules on Home-schooling in England are mercifully lenient. Any parent at any time and for any reason may decide to home-school his child. In the government publication Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities it is stated:

The responsibility for a child’s education rests with their parents. In England,
education is compulsory, but school is not.

Parents may choose home education for a variety of reasons. The local authority’s primary interest should lie in the suitability of parents’ education provision and not their reason for doing so. The following reasons for home educating are common, but by no means exhaustive:

  • distance or access to a local school
  • religious or cultural beliefs
  • philosophical or ideological views
  • dissatisfaction with the system

So, even if a parent’s decision to home-school his child relates to politically incorrect views, the state is not likely to interfere unless gifted the excuse of curriculum-based concerns. Such hazard is easily avoided, instilling pride in our children for their heritage does not require us to use ideas that are easily characterised as “hate-speech” by the real haters, for example.

The booklet continues:

Section 7 of the Education Act 1996 provides that:

“The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive
efficient full-time education suitable –

(a) to his age, ability and aptitude, and
(b) to any special educational needs he may have, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.”

An “efficient” and “suitable” education is not defined in the Education Act 1996 but “efficient” has been broadly described in case law [1] as an education that “achieves that which it sets out to achieve”, and a “suitable” education is one that “primarily
equips a child for life within the community of which he is a member, rather than the way of life in the country as a whole, as long as it does not foreclose the child’s options in later years to adopt some other form of life if he wishes to do so”.

1 Mr Justice Woolf in the case of R v Secretary of State for Education and Science, ex parte Talmud Torah Machzikei Hadass School Trust (12 April 1985)

Multiculturalism to the rescue! Although principally a tool for destroying the old social order, it does at least formally provide for every group – even the majority – the ‘right’ to maintain its distinctiveness. And the qualification would not be a problem for most nationalist-minded parents. It is the state’s desire to engender self-hatred in the English which needs be coercive, not our hope to pass on to our children a healthy and natural self-respect.