Britain's chief rabbi: "Multiculturalism threatens democracy"

[Erik P]

Multiculturalism promotes segregation, stifles free speech and threatens liberal democracy, Britain's top Jewish official warned in extracts from his book published Saturday.

Jonathan Sacks, Britain's chief rabbi, defined multiculturalism as an attempt to affirm Britain's diverse communities and make ethnic and religious minorities more appreciated and respected. But in his book, "The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society," he said the movement had run its course.

"Multiculturalism has led not to integration but to segregation," Sacks wrote in his book, an extract of which was published in the Times of London.

"Liberal democracy is in danger," Sacks said, adding later: "The politics of freedom risks descending into the politics of fear."

Sacks said Britain's politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment.

The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been "inexorably divisive."

"A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others," he said.

In an interview with the Times, Sacks said he wanted his book to be "politically incorrect in the highest order." But Sacks defended his strong support for Jewish schools in Britain, saying the promotion of Jewish education was compatible with integration.

Photogenic and outspoken, Sacks is highly regarded in Britain and makes frequent appearances on television, radio and in the national press.

His reputation among Britain's 260,000-strong Jewish community is more varied. Ultra-orthodox believers were dismayed by the suggestion in Sacks' earlier book, "The Dignity of Difference," that the faith did not contain the absolute truth, according to The Times.

In 1997, he outraged many among his more liberal-minded constituents when he criticized the late leader of the Reform movement as a "destroyer of the faith" in a letter leaked to the media.

Sacks also raised hackles when, in 2002, he said in an interview that there were many things that happened in Israel that made him "very uncomfortable as a Jew."

Jerusalem Post

Very interesting. He both acknowledges that much of the multiculturalist tendencies began with Jews, still criticizing them. I think more and more Jews will understand that multiculturalism, rather than shifting focus from the Jews, will give other groups (who dislike Jews more than most native Europeans) more power and influence.

I don't know much about Sacks, but can he or other conservative Jews become (temporary) allies?

[Marcus Marulus]

"Liberal democracy is in danger," Sacks said, adding later: "The politics of freedom risks descending into the politics of fear."

Liberal democracy is part of the problem and not of the solution.

In an interview with the Times, Sacks said he wanted his book to be "politically incorrect in the highest order."

He seems though to be a representative of a new brand of the political correctness. He is not politically incorrect, on the contrary. The new political correctness is integrationism/Westernism, instead of multiculturalism.

Originally Posted by Erik Puke

Very interesting. He both acknowledges that much of the multiculturalist tendencies began with Jews, still criticizing them. I think more and more Jews will understand that multiculturalism, rather than shifting focus from the Jews, will give other groups (who dislike Jews more than most native Europeans) more power and influence.

I don't know much about Sacks, but can he or other conservative Jews become (temporary) allies?

He appears to be a liberal though.

What kind of allies?

[Marcus Marulus]

Far right praises British chief rabbi

Published: 10/29/2007

A new book by Britain's chief rabbi has received accolades from the far right for his views on multiculturalism.

In "The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society," released on Oct. 25, Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks writes that multiculturalism encourages individual ethnic groups to define themselves as victims and has led to segregation instead of integration.

After excerpts of the book were printed in the London Times, message boards for far right groups such as Stormfront White Nationalist Community included comments saying that Sacks' work was helping them out "big time" even though he was a Jew.

Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party, Britain's most mainstream and organized far-right political party, called the book "important and welcome."

But London's Deputy Mayor Nicky Gavron, a strong supporter of Britain's Jewish community, criticized the work, saying that attacks on multiculturalism feed on ignorance about other cultures and religious faiths, which can lead to intolerance. Other human rights groups have accused the chief rabbi of making the statements merely to garner publicity for the book.

In his defense, Sacks told the Jewish News in London that he saw multiculturalism as a form of separation and stressed that he was proposing the creation of a unifying culture, calling for a "national Britishness day."

[source]

...

[Menydh]

Sacks said Britain's politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment.

The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays.

About time that Jews admitted that they've been behind multiculturalism and victimism.

Originally Posted by Erik Puke

I think more and more Jews will understand that multiculturalism, rather than shifting focus from the Jews, will give other groups (who dislike Jews more than most native Europeans) more power and influence.

I don't know much about Sacks, but can he or other conservative Jews become (temporary) allies?

You are letting yourself be fooled. He is not attacking multiculturalism for the sake of it. He is attacking multiculturalism to promote assimilationism, which is worse.

While there is multiculturalism, there is hope because there is division. If assimilationism reaches the levels of multiculturalism today, everything will be lost.

Bear in mind that assimilation does require the destruction of all the identities, including the indigenous European identities, to merge into one newly created identity. Notice how he tips about it, rejecting identity politics.

Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party, Britain's most mainstream and organized far-right political party, called the book "important and welcome."

Hardly surprising. The concept of britishness is assimilationist in itself.

[Errigal]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

About time that Jews admitted that they've been behind multiculturalism and victimism.

I would say that the new method the Jews successfully introduced into politics is the concept of Political Correctness. Of course, we have always understood that throwing around insults does nothing for social peace; Political Correctness is new because it seems to assign magical powers to words and symbols.

In our civilization it was understood that words and symbols are not the same as the objects or actions they signify. From what I can piece together this is not true of the Jewish world-view. They seem to think that calling someone a "damned foreigner" is the same as physically attacking that person, and that saying there are too many foreigners in the country is the same as lining foreigners up against the wall and shooting them. This bizarre understanding of reality seems to have been adopted by our current governing class.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

You are letting yourself be fooled. He is not attacking multiculturalism for the sake of it. He is attacking multiculturalism to promote assimilationism, which is worse.

While there is multiculturalism, there is hope because there is division. If assimilationism reaches the levels of multiculturalism today, everything will be lost.

Bear in mind that assimilation does require the destruction of all the identities, including the indigenous European identities, to merge into one newly created identity. Notice how he tips about it, rejecting identity politics.

I know I've used this metaphor before, but I think it best illustrates the ideal host society for Jews. Multiculturalism would be like a room with four large yellow, green, blue and red beach-balls. Assimilation would be like this:



In either case, the happy children represent the Jewish community, naturally.

[Kernunnos]

Freedom of speech should be reinstated simnce it will likely give vent to an outburst against islam, which is in the best jewish interest.

Also ours, of course.

The words of the rabbi, even if they happen to be useful to us, are not borne out of a sublime love of freedom.

Anyway, best for us.

[Errigal]

Originally Posted by Breha

Freedom of speech should be reinstated simnce it will likely give vent to an outburst against islam, which is in the best jewish interest.

Also ours, of course.

The words of the rabbi, even if they happen to be useful to us, are not borne out of a sublime love of freedom.

Anyway, best for us.

I think so too. The rabbi is speaking out of nostalgia for the days when it was just prosperous Jews living in safety in England.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Breha

Freedom of speech should be reinstated simnce it will likely give vent to an outburst against islam, which is in the best jewish interest.

Also ours, of course.

The words of the rabbi, even if they happen to be useful to us, are not borne out of a sublime love of freedom.

Anyway, best for us.

Best for what? For the assimilationism? So that we all become one great and "tolerant" race Babylon, ruled by Soviet style beaurocracies? All modern, all eternally young, superficial, having fun in free time, when not working for multinationals and the beaurocracy, all eternally happy (on pills or not...) All the "dark forces" of the past removed...

I suspect (I might be wrong) that it is the direction the rabbi's words are pointed to, and not toward the ethnic preservation.

Will there be freedom of speech for Nationalists or only for Westernists?

Westernism is the new brand of the politically correct.

[Menydh]

What is this "free speech" anyway? I believe in fair speech and in decent speech. But what is free speech? The right to lie to people, to defame and to denigrate people, without having to expect being held accountable for it?

At least this is what many so-called pro-free speech campaigners use it for.

It is not real freedom there, because it is only the freedom of some, against the freedom of many. Like the anarchists used to say here, you don't beg for freedom, you take it.

[Errigal]

Originally Posted by Plethon

Best for what? For the assimilationism? So that we all become one great and "tolerant" race Babylon, ruled by Soviet style beaurocracies? All modern, all eternally young, superficial, having fun in free time, when not working for multinationals and the beaurocracy, all eternally happy (on pills or not...) All the "dark forces" of the past removed...

I suspect (I might be wrong) that it is the direction the rabbi's words are pointed to, and not toward the ethnic preservation.

Will there be freedom of speech for Nationalists or only for Westernists?

Westernism is the new brand of the politically correct.

Let's be honest, we currently live in a world where British rabbis get to say things in the mainstream media which would get people sacked from their jobs in Germany or Sweden. So having a rabbi in England say a little bit of the truth is good for the rest of us. We shouldn't have to live with such rules but we do right now.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Errigal

We shouldn't have to live with such rules but we do right now.

"It is just that the cowardly be ruled by the wicked."

Plotinus

[Menydh]

Errigal, I'm afraid that this time you are being a little too much naïve. Please, take no offense as none is implied.

The first thing that you should ask yourself is why he is saying it. And then, if you can come to the conclusion that it is to promote another agenda (which I would call "phase II", which is assimilationism and where "phase I" would be multiculturalism), they you may as well see how twisted it is that all of a sudden they present themselves before the public media as champions of a cause that belongs to us, only to pervert its meaning and give it a further and more vicious twist. A twist which, once it reaches a level, there is no way back from it.

And I would add that it is significative that Nick Griffin and the British National Party are backing it from behind.

[Errigal]

Originally Posted by Plethon

"It is just that the cowardly be ruled by the wicked."

Plotinus

Very true.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Errigal, I'm afraid that this time you are being a little too much naïve. Please, take no offense as none is implied.

The first thing that you should ask yourself is why he is saying it. And then, if you can come to the conclusion that it is to promote another agenda (which I would call "phase II", which is assimilationism and where "phase I" would be multiculturalism), they you may as well see how twisted it is that all of a sudden they present themselves before the public media as champions of a cause that belongs to us, only to pervert its meaning and give it a further and more vicious twist. A twist which, once it reaches a level, there is no way back from it.

And I would add that it is significative that Nick Griffin and the British National Party are backing it from behind.

I agree. I was thinking only that his statement moves the public conversation forward one step. It introduces the heretical idea - that unrestricted immigration may be bad - to the brainwashed types who think that if a rabbi says something, it cannot possibly be racist. But, as you said, his statement is part of an attempt to take the leadership position in the immigration restriction debate.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Errigal

I was thinking only that his statement moves the public conversation forward one step.

Such statements definitely move the public conversation one step forward. But forward - towards what? That is the important question. Toward the Babylonization of Europe (see my previous post)? Towards outcries to save "our" modern civilization? (which "civilization"? of the Wall Street? of the globalism? of Hollywood? etc) To save "the West"? (beaurocracies of "our" NATO, EU etc)

I am personally not interested in "saving" these things.

Originally Posted by Errigal

It introduces the heretical idea - that unrestricted immigration may be bad - to the brainwashed types who think that if a rabbi says something, it cannot possibly be racist. But, as you said, his statement is part of an attempt to take the leadership position in the immigration restriction debate.

Well, maybe the thruthful part of the rabbi's statement could be quoted somewhere (saying something like: "You know, even a rabbi said..."), but his whole ideological outlook should be rejected. And he shouldn't be considered as any kind of ally. Because he is a Westernist, as is Nick Griffin and his ilk.

It is well known that everyone can occasionally say some truth. And that truth could be quoted somewhere. Even, say, Ayatollah Khomeini could have said something that corresponded to the truth and, in some specific occasions, you may quote it, but it does not mean that you should accept Khomeini's ideology at the same time.

It is in this way that these statements should be treated.