The article yesterday by Chief Rabbi Sacks was one of the best articles I have read on the internet for a long, long time.
There was virtually nothing I could disagree with - except for this part ; "Multiculturalism has run its course, and it is time to move on. It was a fine, even noble idea in its time. It was designed to make ethnic and religious minorities feel more at home, more appreciated and respected, and therefore better able to mesh with the larger society. It affirmed their culture. It gave dignity to difference. And in many ways it achieved its aims. Britain is a more open, diverse, energising, cosmopolitan environment than it was when I was growing up."
Multi-Culturalism was never about making ethnic and religious minorities feel at home here, it was a political mechanism designed to undermine the existing social orders of nations and undermine nationalism as a political force. Multi-Culturalism as an ideology was first defined and applied in Canada as a way of undermining the power of both Quebeci French Nationalists and the British elite in Canada.
The Bi-Cultural Canadian society was felt by people like Paul Yuzyk to be discrminatory against people like him who were neither part of the French Candadian or British Canadian elites. 'Alienated 'sections of Canadian society could be assisted into becoming Canadian by 'absorbing' them into the mainstream of politics by removing their status as an alienated group in Canadian society under the Multi-Cultural model. The power that the French and British elites had in Canada was such that immigrants into Canada who were not British or French, even if they were Europeans, suffered disadvantage.
Only by creating a multi-cultural Canadian society, and breaking down the Bi-Cultural power elites, could a 'fairer' society be crated though Yuzyk. Multi-Culturalism as a political model was based on the work of Paul Yuzyk (24 June 1913 – 9 July 1986) who was a Canadian historian and Senator. He was an associate professor of Slavic studies and professor of history at the University of Manitoba and a professor of Russian and Soviet history at the University of Ottawa.
In Canada, multiculturalism was first articulated by Progressive Conservative Senator Paul Yuzyk in his maiden Senate speech in 1964. It was officially adopted in 1971, following the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, a government body set up in response to the grievances of Canada's French-speaking minority (concentrated in the Province of Quebec).
The report of the Commission advocated that the Canadian government should recognize Canada as a bilingual and bicultural society and adopt policies to preserve this character. This policy was Multi-Culturalism.
Paul Yuzyk was born on June 24, 1913, in Pinto, Sask., — a sleepy town on the Canadian prairies with which he became so familiar as he traversed the land working on behalf of Ukrainian causes and helping Canadians develop a national consciousness. Sen. Yuzyk's father, a coal miner who came to Canada in 1913 during the first of the three waves of Ukrainian immigration to Canada, eventually moved the family to Saskatoon where young Paul completed public school and graduated with top marks in 1932. After receiving a teaching certificate from a Saskatoon teacher's training college, Sen. Yuzyk had his first jarring encounter with anti-East European policies that would later lead him on a crusade for ethnic minority rights in Canada.
His first face-to-face encounter with discrimination occurred when the neophyte teacher joined the ranks of college-educated Canadians searching for employment. Considered a "foreigner" by local school officials — the majority of which were British — Mr. Yuzyk was told that they did not want him to "contaminate" their children. The job, he was told, was the exclusive privilege of the English. But after months of pounding the pavement searching for a school that would accept him. and 77 job applications later, Mr. Yuzyk was finally offered a teaching position in a Ukrainian community near Hafford, Sask.
After several run-ins with discrimination, Mr. Yuzyk formed close alliances with other Canadians who felt that something had to be done about the alarming lack of accommodation for non-British, non-French Canadian citizens. Said Sen. Yuzyk about his experiences as an unwelcome job-seeker: "They really did things like that. We are a!l being called bohunks and foreigners. The result was to strengthen my Ukrainianism. 1 said to myself that if they called me a foreigner when I had been born in Canada, it meant Canada needed some changing." Indeed, the senator's tireless efforts in fighting for ethnic minority rights in Canada brought him national recognition and earned him plaudits from ethnocultural leaders throughout the country.
Sen. Yuzyk's crusade for multiculturalism caught the attention of then Prime Minister John Diefenbaker — himself a western Canadian and of European origin — who decided to reward the young Ukrainian's efforts with a seat in the Canadian Senate. Sen. Yuzyk became the first Ukrainian ever to be appointed to the Canadian Parliament's upper chamber.
On March 3, 1964, he presented his maiden speech in the ornate Senate chamber; it was titled "Canada: A Multicultural Nation," The address, which was warmly received by his colleagues, voiced the concerns of several ethnic groups that Canadians must accept the fact that they live in a "multicultural nation" — not a country of two solitudes comprised of the British and French. Said Sen. Yuzyk in a 1983 interview with The Ukrainian Weekly: "1 came out with the idea that Canada is a bilingual, multicultural nation, and that all are equals, and that there should be no discrimination of any kind against anyone — regardless of his background, whether for religious purposes, no discrimination based on color, race, or creed of any kind. And so multiculturalism really made Canadians conscious that there are cultural values that should be recognized."
Sen. Yuzyk's campaign for multiculuralism was capped in 1971 when Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau told the nation that the government, after extensive deliberation, would introduce an official policy of multiculturalism. The policy, which committed the government to support ethnocultural endeavors, was endorsed by all parties.
The statement by the Chief Rabbi that Britain is a more "open, diverse, energising, cosmopolitan environment " than the one he knew when he grew up is also very interesting. Note he does not say 'Nation' instead of environment. This is because he recognises that under Multi-Culturalism Britain is not a nation. Multi-Culturalism is in fact ' Separate Development' such as under the Apartheid regime of South Africa. It has destroyed society by fragmenting it. Britain is certainly a more 'open' society, the numbers of immigrants and terrorists entering the country prove that is correct. It is certainly more diverse, as the numbers of immigrant groups prove though diversity is itself not a good thing and nor does he say it is. Energising is also true, as the people in all their respective communities all now work for the benfit of themselves and their communities and not the nation itself. It is certainly a more cosmopolitan environment as well, and this also is not a moral thing by itself.
The Chief Rabbi makes two fundamentally important observations ;
1) The divides that had driven politics hitherto, especially class and wealth, became less salient after the 1960s. Other, more “lifestyle” issues took their place. At first these were construed in terms of the individual, but eventually they came to be framed in terms of groups: first Jews, then African-Americans, then women, then gays. It was not merely that these groups sought equal rights. The real change was that they defined themselves as oppressed. This was a seismic shift.
Here he says that the politics of the Group allied with the politics of victim status as used by those groups as collectives has damaged our nation and society. As a Jew he is making a direct attack on the Jewish individuals in the past who have used their group identity as a way to promote themselves and at the same time falsely promote their own sectarian political and social interests as representing the 'interests of the Jews as a group' above that of our society and the nation. This is a groundbreaking admission.
It reflects the reality that certain members of the Jewish groups took advantage of their minority status to damage the rights of the majority. What the Jews who did this have done is in fact damage the interests of all the British Jews as a community as a result. It is many of the Liberal Jews who have been the appeasers of Radical Islamists and who have primarily called those who warned of the dangers of Islamism as 'racists'.
It was many prominent Leftist Jews, such as researched by Kevin McDonald in his groundbreaking book The Culture of Critique
http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books-Preface.html
who supported mass immigration, Communism and Islamism as a way to undermine the powers of the British state and the White British indigenous community. The Jews who took the lead in this process, were then followed by the Blacks and homosexual groups who also employed the victim status dynamic for their own advantage, and they bear much of the burden for creating the nightmare situation we all face today.
The prospect of Eurabia is the greatest threat the Jews have ever faced in European history. If the immigration from Islamic nations is not stopped and reversed then the White indigenous people of Europe will be a minority by 2050. Before this point will have been reached Islamist insurgents in every European nation will have begun the Jihad via civil wars and the struggle to impose Sharia Law in our nations. When they succeed then we, both Jews and indigenous Europeans, will be under the control of Dhimmitude and Sharia Law.
As stated in the Times article below ;
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2409833.ece
One of the world’s most respected Deobandi scholars believes that aggressive military jihad should be waged by Muslims “to establish the supremacy of Islam” worldwide.
Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani argues that Muslims should live peacefully in countries such as Britain, where they have the freedom to practise Islam, only until they gain enough power to engage in battle. "
The views of Muhammad Taqi Usmani explode the myth that the creed of offensive, expansionist jihad represents a distortion of traditional Islamic thinking.
A book published by Le Seuil in Paris imay further Western understanding of this reality. Written by the Swiss investigative reporter Sylvain Besson and not yet available in English, it publicizes the discovery and contents of a Muslim Brotherhood strategy document entitled "The Project," hitherto little known outside the highest counter-terrorism circles.
Besson's book, La conquête de l'Occident: Le projet secret des Islamistes (The Conquest of the West: The Islamists' Secret Project), recounts how, in November 2001, Swiss authorities acting on a special request from the White House entered the villa of a man named Yusuf Nada in Campione, a small Italian enclave on the eastern shore of Lake Lugano in Switzerland. Nada was the treasurer of the Al Taqwa bank, which allegedly funneled money to al Qaeda. In the course of their search of Nada's house, investigators stumbled onto "The Project," an unsigned, 14-page document dated December 1, 1982. Copies of the Project can be found here ;
http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/Read.aspx?GUID={61829F93-7A81-4654-A2E8-F0A5E6DD3DC4}
The following tactics and techniques are among the many recommendations made in The Project:
Networking and coordinating actions between likeminded Islamist organizations;
Avoiding open alliances with known terrorist organizations and individuals to maintain the appearance of “moderation”;
Infiltrating and taking over existing Muslim organizations to realign them towards the Muslim Brotherhood’s collective goals;
Using deception to mask the intended goals of Islamist actions, as long as it doesn’t conflict with shari’a law;
Avoiding social conflicts with Westerners locally, nationally or globally, that might damage the long-term ability to expand the Islamist powerbase in the West or provoke a lash back against Muslims;
Establishing financial networks to fund the work of conversion of the West, including the support of full-time administrators and workers;
Conducting surveillance, obtaining data, and establishing collection and data storage capabilities;
Putting into place a watchdog system for monitoring Western media to warn Muslims of “international plots fomented against them”;
Cultivating an Islamist intellectual community, including the establishment of think-tanks and advocacy groups, and publishing “academic” studies, to legitimize Islamist positions and to chronicle the history of Islamist movements;
Developing a comprehensive 100-year plan to advance Islamist ideology throughout the world; Balancing international objectives with local flexibility;
Building extensive social networks of schools, hospitals and charitable organizations dedicated to Islamist ideals so that contact with the movement for Muslims in the West is constant;
Involving ideologically committed Muslims in democratically-elected institutions on all levels in the West, including government, NGOs, private organizations and labor unions;
Instrumentally using existing Western institutions until they can be converted and put into service of Islam;
Drafting Islamic constitutions, laws and policies for eventual implementation; Avoiding conflict within the Islamist movements on all levels, including the development of processes for conflict resolution;
Instituting alliances with Western “progressive” organizations that share similar goals;
Creating autonomous “security forces” to protect Muslims in the West;
Inflaming violence and keeping Muslims living in the West “in a jihad frame of mind”;
Supporting jihad movements across the Muslim world through preaching, propaganda, personnel, funding, and technical and operational support;
Making the Palestinian cause a global wedge issue for Muslims;
Adopting the total liberation of Palestine from Israel and the creation of an Islamic state as a keystone in the plan for global Islamic domination;
Instigating a constant campaign to incite hatred by Muslims against Jews and rejecting any discussions of conciliation or coexistence with them; Actively creating jihad terror cells within Palestine;
Linking the terrorist activities in Palestine with the global terror movement;
Collecting sufficient funds to indefinitely perpetuate and support jihad around the world;
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/704xewyj.asp?pg=2
http://www.kosovo.net/news/archive/2004/July_27/2.html
http://www.laweekly.com/index.php?option=com_lawcontent&task=view&id=12921&Itemid=47
First the Islamists will come for the Jews, then they will come for the nationalists and the patriots who will form the nucleus of the nationalist resistance to their plans for Sharia Law and the Global Caliphate, and then they will come for the Christians that refuse to pay the Jizya and wear the Zunnar.
The Jewish supremacists and the political Jews who used their ethnicity and Jewishness as a mechanism to subvert our society and culture have enacted the greatest of evils upon their own people. These short sighted fools have placed their own people under the threat of Eurabia.
This article by the Chief Rabbi is the basis of a new understanding as regards the threat to the Jews themselves by the actions of their so called 'leaders' in the past.
The Chief Rabbi has understood that the Jewish people have been misled, decieved, exploited and abused by their own people.
The fools who led them have led them almost directly into catastrophe.
We must thank the Rabbi for his brave and prescient words.
