- 7 July 2011: Having pride in Britain protects all ...
- Sacks to House of Commons on Multiculturalism 8 se...
- Sacks: The Times: It is the end of a dangerous mor...
- ABRIDGED!!! Sacks: Pride in Britain: Compare with ...
- Sacks / Guardian: COMPARE WITH my today's POSTS!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Note in particular his views on multiculturalism as per these few words extracted from my below post in Generally Jewish, in particular:
''My parents lived those values and taught them to us. They became the first Jews in their families for perhaps a thousand years not to teach their children Yiddish because they wanted us to be English and identify with the wider society.''
Ref: ABRIDGED!!! Sacks: Pride in Britain: Compare with
and
http://www.chiefrabbi.org/2011/02/07/having-pride-in-britain-protects-all-cultures-published-in-the-times/#.UCMJlU0gdqj
It is the above words in particular, the conclusions I postulate indubitably follow on from same - that I will comment on in ever greater detail another time.
There are many tangents flowing from what has been written here that will inevitably require my attention. ANOTHER DAY.....
For now I want to merely didactically elucidate on what Sacks written in his article.
I for now merely write a cryptic introduction as below.
Again - note there are many more problems with this screed of Sacks!
GS
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
SYNPOSIS / INTRODUCTION OF SACKS' VIEWS ON MULTICULTURALISM AND MORE: TO BE CONTINUED...LATER
by Geoff Seidner
Note his words as reproduced in full in the below article - the article incidently appears to be complete.
''My parents lived those values and taught them to us. They became the first Jews in their families for perhaps a thousand years not to teach their children Yiddish because they wanted us to be English and identify with the wider society.''
Superficially I have problems with this. Sacks is so proud of his parents' yearnings to assimilate; plainly not realising that in vouchsafing ''these values'' he / his parents plainly contradicted the same said ''values'' quoted by Montefiore a paragraph earlier!
THIS IS SIMPLY PATHETIC!! SACKS DOES THIS HUMBUG - HOKUM THING THROUGHOUT MANY OF HIS ARTICLES! I HAVE SEEN IT ALL.
HE PLAINLY THINKS WE ARE ALL MORONS AND CANNOT FOLLOW LOGICAL - AND ILLOGICAL AND PERVERSE AND OBTUSE CORROLLARIES THAT HIS PROLIX CONSTRUCTION UNSKILLFULLY ATTEMPTS TO HIDE! WRONG!
ONE MERELY HAS TO NOTE HOW HE THINKS IN COMPILING THE VERBIAGE RESIDENT IN HIS ARTICLES!! THIS DELIBERATE MALFEASANT HUMBUG IN THE CORPUS OF HIS ARTICLES HE SMUGLY THINKS NO - ONE CAN DISCERN!!
IT IS HIS ARROGANCE THAT GETS ME!
BUT I DIGRESSED - I GO ON: NOTE THAT I EXPLORE HERE MERELY ONE OF HIS CONTRIVANCES
....................................
I guess Sacks uses disparate alternative words and phrases to assimilate like:
- identify with the wider society
- wanted us to be English
- They integrated
Note what Montefiore is quoted as quoted as having said by The Times - Sacks wrote the original article for The Times - which explains why he is prepared in THAT forum prepared to break with the basic ele,ents of Judaism!
''....birthday in 1884, said that he had shown that “fervent Judaism and patriotic citizenship are absolutely compatible with one another.''
So much for his parents ignoble sycophantic yearning to assimilate - or ''integrate'' as Sacks puts it.
Indeed, Sacks ''went further!!!''
''They integrated and encouraged us to go further because there was something to integrate into.''
Indeed, Sacks ''went further!!!''
As demonstrated in merely this one tangent of his contradictory theme.
Note that the pathetic man plainly does not realize that his own words so plainly vitiate / contradict the ethic of assimilation / integration / and as he grandly puts it - ''identifing with the wider society''!
Oh the silliness - the trite imbecility of simultaneously insulting the basic principles of Judaism via his sycophantic efforts to APPEASE THE TIMES AUDIENCE!!
AND THEN ADMITTING IT DID NOT WORK!! SEE HIS SECOND AND THIRD PARAGRAPHS!!
SEE DIFFERENT TYPE!!
I leave this essay unfinished.
Geoff Seidner
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
The role model was Sir Moses Montefiore, the Victorian philanthropist and president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. The Times, in an editorial written on his hundredth birthday in 1884, said that he had shown that “fervent Judaism and patriotic citizenship are absolutely compatible with one another”. That might sound condescending now, but considering what was happening to Jews elsewhere in Europe, it was a lifeline.
Ex Jonathan Sacks' website pulished there on 7 February 2011
AS PER LINK ABOVE.
[GS]
Having pride in Britain protects all cultures (published in The Times)
7 February, 2011\
David Cameron was right to say that multiculturalism has failed, echoing similar statements by Nicholas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel. It was undertaken for the highest of motives. It was intended to create a more tolerant society, one in which everyone, regardless of colour, creed or culture, felt at home. Its effect has been precisely the opposite.
Last week the Community Security Trust, the body that monitors antisemitic incidents, published its annual report, showing that the figures for 2010 were the second highest since record-keeping began. Jews especially in London and Manchester have found themselves attacked on their way to and from synagogue, or abused by passers-by. Jewish students feel themselves so intimidated on campuses throughout the country that last week they were in Westminster lobbying their MPs, something I cannot recall happening before.
The Jewish community in Britain is small, and antisemitism only one form of hatred among many. But the Jewish story is worth telling if only because the re-emergence of antisemitism in a culture is always an early warning signal of wider breakdown. The alarm has been sounding loudly for some time.
Many Jews of my parents’ generation owed their lives to this country. It took them in when they faced persecution elsewhere. They loved Britain and deeply internalized its values. The inscription on the tombstone of a former President of the United Synagogue summed up the entire Anglo-Jewish experience. It read, “A proud Englishman and a proud Jew.”
The role model was Sir Moses Montefiore, the Victorian philanthropist and president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. The Times, in an editorial written on his hundredth birthday in 1884, said that he had shown that “fervent Judaism and patriotic citizenship are absolutely compatible with one another”. That might sound condescending now, but considering what was happening to Jews elsewhere in Europe, it was a lifeline.
My parents lived those values and taught them to us. They became the first Jews in their families for perhaps a thousand years not to teach their children Yiddish because they wanted us to be English and identify with the wider society.
They were not naive. They remembered vividly when Mosley and the British Union of Fascists marched through London’s East End. They knew the genteel anti-Semitism that was almost ubiquitous in certain literary and social circles. They knew that England was a class bound society with many faults.
But they admired the British for their tolerance and decency, their sense of fair play and their understated but indomitable courage. They were proud to be English because the English were proud to be English. Indeed in the absence of pride there can be no identity at all. They integrated and encouraged us to go further because there was something to integrate into.
At some time that pride disintegrated, to be replaced by what Kate Fox amusingly calls “one-downmanship.” TheBritish started seeing their own history as an irredeemable narrative of class, snobbery, imperialism, racism and social exclusion. It was in this atmosphere that, in the 1970s, multiculturalism was born. It said: there is no need to integrate.
The first people to try multiculturalism, the Dutch, were also the first people to regret it. The Princeton sociologists Paul Sniderman and Louk Hagendoorn found that the Dutch favoured tolerance and opposed multiculturalism. When asked what the difference was, they replied that tolerance ignores differences; multiculturalism makes an issue of them at every point.
Multiculturalism is part of the wider European phenomenon of moral relativism, a doctrine that became influential as a response to the Holocaust. It was argued that taking a stand on moral issues was a sign of an “authoritarian personality”. Moral judgment was seen as the first step down the road to fanaticism. But moral relativism is the deathknell of a civilization. In a relativist culture, there is no moral consensus, only a clash of conflicting views in which the loudest voice wins.
That is where we are today. The extremists command attention and capture the headlines, and they become the role models for the young. Since there is no national identity to claim their allegiance, there is no contest. Hence the phenomenon, widespread throughout Europe today but rare in the past, that the children of immigrants are more hostile to the host society than their parents were, and feel themselves more alien to its values.
I have never known the British Jewish community, especially its university students, more anxious about the future than they are today. But I have heard the same from many Hindus and Sikhs. They feel that the more they seek to integrate, the less attention is paid to them by the government and the media. They are no problem, therefore they can be ignored. That too is terribly dangerous for the British future.
Multiculturalism, entered into for the noblest of reasons, has suffered from the law of unintended consequences. By dissolving national identity it makes it impossible for groups to integrate because there is nothing to integrate into, and by failing to offer people pride in being British, it forces them to find sources of pride elsewhere.
Without shared values and a sense of collective identity, no society can sustain itself for long. I fear the extremism that is slowly but surely becoming, throughout the world, the siren song of the twenty-first century. We have to fight it here before we can convincingly oppose it elsewhere.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@Having pride in Britain protects all cultures (published in The Times)
7 February, 2007
Articles, Writings & Speeches
David Cameron was right to say that multiculturalism has failed, echoing similar statements by Nicholas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel. It was undertaken for the highest of motives. It was intended to create a more tolerant society, one in which everyone, regardless of colour, creed or culture, felt at home. Its effect has been precisely the opposite.
Last week the Community Security Trust, the body that monitors antisemitic incidents, published its annual report, showing that the figures for 2010 were the second highest since record-keeping began. Jews especially in London and Manchester have found themselves attacked on their way to and from synagogue, or abused by passers-by. Jewish students feel themselves so intimidated on campuses throughout the country that last week they were in Westminster lobbying their MPs, something I cannot recall happening before.
The Jewish community in Britain is small, and antisemitism only one form of hatred among many. But the Jewish story is worth telling if only because the re-emergence of antisemitism in a culture is always an early warning signal of wider breakdown. The alarm has been sounding loudly for some time.
Many Jews of my parents’ generation owed their lives to this country. It took them in when they faced persecution elsewhere. They loved Britain and deeply internalized its values. The inscription on the tombstone of a former President of the United Synagogue summed up the entire Anglo-Jewish experience. It read, “A proud Englishman and a proud Jew.”
The role model was Sir Moses Montefiore, the Victorian philanthropist and president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. The Times, in an editorial written on his hundredth birthday in 1884, said that he had shown that “fervent Judaism and patriotic citizenship are absolutely compatible with one another”. That might sound condescending now, but considering what was happening to Jews elsewhere in Europe, it was a lifeline.
My parents lived those values and taught them to us. They became the first Jews in their families for perhaps a thousand years not to teach their children Yiddish because they wanted us to be English and identify with the wider society.
They were not naive. They remembered vividly when Mosley and the British Union of Fascists marched through London’s East End. They knew the genteel anti-Semitism that was almost ubiquitous in certain literary and social circles. They knew that England was a class bound society with many faults.
But they admired the British for their tolerance and decency, their sense of fair play and their understated but indomitable courage. They were proud to be English because the English were proud to be English. Indeed in the absence of pride there can be no identity at all. They integrated and encouraged us to go further because there was something to integrate into.
At some time that pride disintegrated, to be replaced by what Kate Fox amusingly calls “one-downmanship.” TheBritish started seeing their own history as an irredeemable narrative of class, snobbery, imperialism, racism and social exclusion. It was in this atmosphere that, in the 1970s, multiculturalism was born. It said: there is no need to integrate.
The first people to try multiculturalism, the Dutch, were also the first people to regret it. The Princeton sociologists Paul Sniderman and Louk Hagendoorn found that the Dutch favoured tolerance and opposed multiculturalism. When asked what the difference was, they replied that tolerance ignores differences; multiculturalism makes an issue of them at every point.
Multiculturalism is part of the wider European phenomenon of moral relativism, a doctrine that became influential as a response to the Holocaust. It was argued that taking a stand on moral issues was a sign of an “authoritarian personality”. Moral judgment was seen as the first step down the road to fanaticism. But moral relativism is the deathknell of a civilization. In a relativist culture, there is no moral consensus, only a clash of conflicting views in which the loudest voice wins.
That is where we are today. The extremists command attention and capture the headlines, and they become the role models for the young. Since there is no national identity to claim their allegiance, there is no contest. Hence the phenomenon, widespread throughout Europe today but rare in the past, that the children of immigrants are more hostile to the host society than their parents were, and feel themselves more alien to its values.
I have never known the British Jewish community, especially its university students, more anxious about the future than they are today. But I have heard the same from many Hindus and Sikhs. They feel that the more they seek to integrate, the less attention is paid to them by the government and the media. They are no problem, therefore they can be ignored. That too is terribly dangerous for the British future.
Multiculturalism, entered into for the noblest of reasons, has suffered from the law of unintended consequences. By dissolving national identity it makes it impossible for groups to integrate because there is nothing to integrate into, and by failing to offer people pride in being British, it forces them to find sources of pride elsewhere.
Without shared values and a sense of collective identity, no society can sustain itself for long. I fear the extremism that is slowly but surely becoming, throughout the world, the siren song of the twenty-first century. We have to fight it here before we can convincingly oppose it elsewhere.
No comments:
Post a Comment