Racism, Part II: Between One Who Serves God and One Who Does Not (Column 449)

If you replace the concept of racism with tribalism, that will make things clearer for you. The phenomenon exists among monkeys too.
Among human beings, of course, the matter is more complex, and tribalism takes on and sheds forms according to all sorts of different divisions.

I didn’t understand a thing. How does that make things clearer? What does it have to do with my discussion?

At the time, in column no. 133, you wrote about Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef that he is a racist. For example, you wrote, “So what exactly is the problem,” and the second problem was “that he is also a racist. A fool can think all kinds of incorrect thoughts. He doesn’t have to arrive דווקא at racist conclusions. So beyond the foolishness, there is also racism here.”
In light of the above, does the rabbi retract the accusation of racism?

I used the accepted terminology. Racism is discrimination or unequal treatment on the basis of some kind of profiling.

Rabbi Mikyab, may he live long, you revived me!
I read in the column things that, ever since I came of age, I have thought and argued myself. Thank you for the elegant writing and the pure humor that accompanies it throughout the article.
By the way, years ago someone commented on one of the blogs that he saw graffiti on a stone in the Galilee: God is dead. Nietzsche. Under it some hooligan settled the score and wrote: Nietzsche is dead. God. And the fellow continues: “And I say they’re both dead.” (Apparently neither of them grasped Nietzsche’s meaning.)
I replied: since you are making the definite claim that God is dead, then at the same time you are proving and establishing that He existed at some point. If so, please tell me when He was killed, and where were you that night?…

Two things. First, you argue that racism is not a value problem and that only the attitude derived from it is problematic. In my opinion, you are presenting a confused claim here. Racism, in the accepted definition, is precisely that combination of factual/scientific assertions (usually mistaken or distorted) with the problematic “attitude,” that is, the discriminatory racist ideology. So your claim that racism is not problematic clashes with your other claim that it is problematic (in the sense of “attitude”). You simply fail to notice that what you call attitude is, according to the accepted definition, an organic part of racism.

Second, your attempt to reduce Whoopi Goldberg’s “guilt” by arguing that at most she made a factual mistake is disingenuous. It’s hard to believe she hasn’t heard of Nazi racial theory (which admittedly differs from mere skin-color racism) and doesn’t connect it to the Nazis’ actions. In any case, the point is that she has much in common with the progressive sanctimony you attack: she tailors “her” racism in accordance with the autistic political agenda she adopts. According to this, you can’t be “racist” toward privileged groups like the Jews (even in Germany on the eve of the Nazis’ rise). In her eyes, racism is too terrible a thing, so it must not be mixed up with what she considers mere malice. Heaven forbid the sacred struggle of identity politics, which she apparently supports, should be harmed. Notice: not only a theoretical failure but a value choice to enlist dogmatically in a very biased agenda. Someone apparently moved her cheese (and yours).

If one has to account for the various phenomena you are discussing, I think the tribal instinct is what underlies them (an instinct that exists among monkeys and other animals as well).
When one group of people persecutes another group in order to consolidate among themselves, obviously this is bad and destructive tribalism.
Bibi supporters competing over who can slander Bennett more are also driven by a tribal impulse.
Liberals competing over who can condemn more strongly a statement suspected of racism are in fact also driven by tribalism (a phenomenon known as virtue signaling).
Beyond that, hair-splitting over whether skin color, religion, nationality, etc. fit the definition of racism, or some other definition, is empty pilpul.

I didn’t understand the claim. My claim is that there is no value called anti-racism. What are you arguing against in that?

Regarding Whoopi, my claim was that if she sees this as sheer evil and not as based on racism, that is not a reduction of Nazi wickedness but merely a mistake or a disagreement about the definition of the concept. In the end, as I showed, she is even right according to her definitions of the concepts (it fits the accepted definitions). What are you arguing against in that?

Suppose you are right (that this is just an empty definition). So what? What are you arguing against me?

Note: race does have a biological meaning. It is called a “subspecies” in the animal kingdom. In the plant kingdom a subspecies is called a “variety.” Indeed, two individuals from two different races can mate and produce fertile offspring (and are thereby defined as belonging to the same species), but this is a concept that exists to describe different populations of the same species that were geographically separated and upon which the environment imprinted variation derived from environmental conditions. In future generations they will become members of two different species (like the leopard and the jaguar, which belong to the same genus but are two different species. And they are so similar that the effective way to know whether the leopard you just encountered is actually a jaguar or not is simply to ask yourself whether you are in America—mainly South America—or not).

Besides that, I have always had the feeling that among progressives racism is the gravest sin there is. Even graver than murder. In the matter of Whoopi Goldberg (who herself is part of that progressive cult, like most of the other empty-headed people in Hollywood), it seems the criticism simply stems from the implication of her words that the Holocaust just isn’t such a terrible thing, period. Because if this isn’t racism, then it’s really not all that awful (since, as said, racism is the gravest sin there is). Even though she mentioned inhumanity, that really is the subtext of her words (black people are the biggest victims there are, and you mustn’t take that away from them. And at that point the diasporic Jews suddenly remembered to cry out about their usual victimhood and self-pity).

“That is, the discrimination, the exclusion, or in the Nazi case the abuse and murder. But all of these are morally wrong and severe acts in themselves, even when they are done on the basis of shoe size, the first letter of a name, height, or place of residence.”

Yet in your wonderful world these acts become from forbidden to necessary when it comes to fear of catching corona.

What is the connection between racism and idolatry?
A bit long, sorry. I may have a suggestion for understanding racism as a genuine moral defect and not merely a factual error.
I assume that in your view deriving normative conclusions from facts is indeed a moral sin on some plane. And indeed, as you explained in the previous article, on the face of it that seems to be the only problem with racism in particular, and not the factual claim itself about this or that race. Even here one could say that such transitions are themselves mistakes made in good faith (about how one ought to infer conclusions about what is right and wrong on the normative plane—their doctrine they apparently received on some other mountain), but I assume you would answer that here too a person is judged, because all of us bear responsibility to clarify the normative plane properly (negligence). However, in my humble opinion there is a defect that lies not only in the transition between the planes (that is, the discrimination), but usually there is another defect already beforehand, when the factual claim itself is formed. More than that: these are two different defects, but the motivation for both (the factual claim and the discrimination that follows from it) is one and the same, and what led to the mistaken factual claim (insofar as it is indeed mistaken) is precisely what leads to those transitions from is to ought (explained at the end). First I will clarify the problematic aspect that exists already at the stage of forming the racist “fact.”
From what I see in everyday life, quite a few racist inferences of one kind or another are not made in good faith, but usually מתוך all sorts of self-deceptions, together with a willingness to trample to some degree honesty and inner integrity regarding the groups with which I identify and to which I attribute characteristics essential to my identity (perhaps connected to what you call emotional motivation and intellectual motivation). True, self-deception is not such a sacred cow, and it too would count as a general defect (distorting reality is bad). Now, under the assumption that self-deception is indeed a moral defect, even if a general one, here is where the proposal enters regarding the moral problem that exists in the racist assertion itself (with respect to racism of that sort).
So I’ll first try to explain by way of example: everyone would agree that not extending a hand to help in a time of distress is a moral defect. Whether this is done out of laziness or out of anger is irrelevant to the question whether the failure to extend a hand was immoral, since in the end one can argue that what is immoral is that one ought to help in a time of distress. Even so, the reason that moved us still seems to most of us relevant to the moral defect itself, and not merely an accompanying motivation, and some would classify them as two different moral defects. Perhaps there is more defect in being motivated by anger than by laziness, or vice versa, and in my view by racism more than by shoe size (and in your view, perhaps the opposite). I would qualify and say that without transgressing what seems to me right to call the moral command, there is no moral defect here (unless anger or laziness are themselves forbidden). Still, I would see fit to distinguish in Heaven between transgressing the same moral prohibition because of a person’s motives (even if I have no idea how).
And here is the punchline: one does not (always) arrive at racist facts the way one arrives at a scientific fact, or even at an everyday impression on some subject. Rather, there is a fairly clear temptation to identify who I am with the ideal—the is and the ought.
And now add to the god of racism his grandfather: the god of man and his freedom to worship himself. And from there it follows that anyone who differs from me in one of the ways in which I identified myself as being me—for I am not only who I am, but I am also ideal, and I am my own god, and I am the way you ought to be as well—and if not, then it is only proper to derive for you such-and-such legal/social consequences that discriminate in my favor over you. And if one sees it that way, this is quite similar to idolatry (in which you are the god), since most racists are racist in favor of their own race. Secretly they are driven by the temptation to idolize themselves. And if there is one thing that shook me about the Nazis (among other things), it is this.
But this is far from what people say today; usually the reasons and most of the discourse are conducted under assumptions of pragmatic morality. I agree with what you wrote in general, and I would distinguish between someone who does not hire a Mizrahi over an Ashkenazi because he has to draw them at random from one Ashkenazi jar and one Mizrahi jar, and Hitler. Both are racism, but the motivation of one is self-racial idolatry,
and the other is a rational capitalist consideration.

I don’t see the point of disagreement. You are claiming that sometimes people arrive at racist conclusions (I assume only the false ones) because of various biases. So there is an error here in perceiving reality, and I am also to some extent guilty of it. So what? Where is the moral problem here? Only in the attitude I derive from those observations.

This does not detract in the least from the truth that the outcry itself on the American left is of course because of worship of the progressive god and the progressive religion itself, which is really the proper name for what the article here calls the anti-racist religion (the progressive religion is the religion of equality emptied of content). But one has to ask why she said what she said at all. She did not simply want to note some dry fact (whether correct or not). I did not see the interview, but if it was not just an incidental terminological remark, then she wanted to argue something by it, even if she was not at all aware of what she was saying. And if indeed that was the case, she simply said that the Holocaust is not as serious as classical racism. Personally I do not care about that at all, and on the contrary it is preferable that she say it explicitly. I appreciate that honesty. When a person who hates me comes and tells me he hates me, then there is somewhere to go from there. Or at least to prepare for war with him. Thought-terror is the worst. In the end the hatred will burst out at the least suitable time. As far as I am concerned, the Holocaust is a memory of the wretchedness of the Jewish people, who went like sheep to the slaughter, far more than of human evil (which was no greater than that of Khmelnytsky, say). There is nothing sacred in that memory.

Interesting.
But it is likely that a negative bias will not erupt outward in a massive public wave without a long period of free engagement with the subject. As with the decree “one may not read by candlelight lest he tilt the lamp,” one should not reveal one’s revulsion lest one become lenient in the general matter and it become a slippery slope, etc. A thousand isolated repressed hatreds will not blaze up without oxygen and wind.

Following Emanuel’s words, it seems to me that the speakers here do know the words but do not understand the progressive language. In the progressive language, the meaning of Whoopi’s words is that the Holocaust was not something terrible—it doesn’t come close to being in the league of the terrible thing being done to blacks here (in the United States). And that is why they were enraged at her, with complete justification.
Literal analysis does not always capture the meaning of the words. Someone can know every word in Hebrew and hear Reuven say to Shimon: “I ate your cake and it was all over the place,” and he won’t understand why Shimon was offended, since when Reuven ate the cake it got smeared on his face…
And a joke related to the matter:
An old joke about a Sephardi yeshiva student who came to be admitted to a prestigious Lithuanian yeshiva. The rosh yeshiva says to him: “Listen, I don’t think you’ll fit in with us. Here we pray only in the Ashkenazi rite.”
The student says: “No problem.”
The rabbi continues: “Here we also eat gefilte fish all the time.”
The student says: “Excellent, I love gefilte fish.”
The rabbi presses on: “Here in the yeshiva we also speak only Yiddish.”
The student answers: “Excellent, I speak and understand Yiddish like a mother tongue.”
The rabbi gets angry: “What Yiddish?! You don’t understand Hebrew!”

If I were to make myself into an idolatrous entity because of my skin color, say, and add to that that blue blood flows in my veins unlike everyone else, and on that basis not only would I not do anything bad to people, but I would spend all day helping them in every possible way (by virtue of the status I had attained), would you classify my deeds as moral deeds? Would you not see a moral defect in such a distorted perception (perhaps not moral in the conventional sense)? If all morality boils down to is harming/helping others, then there really is no disagreement. But if one broadens morality to include inner integrity as well, then the greater the distortion, the greater the defect. And there are errors that are not made in good faith; I assume I would be judged for them in Heaven as well, even if not the slightest bad consequence followed from my actions (“the work of the righteous,” etc.), and I also would not classify them in the usual religious/halakhic category. I’d be glad to know what the rabbi thinks.

It’s not complicated. The first claim was that you argue there is no principled value defect in racism, while distorting its accepted concept known to everyone, certainly in the Nazi context. You are attacking a straw man. In the accepted view, “racism” is primarily a system of values (what you call an “attitude”), not a neutral body of knowledge. Yet you insist on presenting it as such.
Why??
The second claim is that I don’t believe Whoopi when she supposedly doesn’t know that Nazism is also considered racism and is also a kind of racism, albeit a different kind. Do you really believe she doesn’t understand that? Don’t you think, as I do, that her position is enlisted in advance in service of her agenda and therefore is not fair (and not merely mistaken)?

I agree that the morality of an act depends on the motive and not only on the act itself. But what does that have to do with racism?
If you expand morality to include mathematics, then someone who gets 60 on a geometry test is immoral. One cannot expand morality to facts.

Where am I distorting? How do you want me to respond to unsupported declarations?
You don’t have to believe her. I explained that she may disagree with them about the definition of race. I am addressing her statement itself and not her views in general, which I do not know.

Okay, I understand what you are saying.
I also tried to make this point in my first comment at the end: the blame is not in the fact itself but in what is sustaining it in me. For example, a scientific consideration as opposed to a Hitlerian megalomaniacal consideration: in both cases I would not hire the Ashkenazi for the job, and one is justified while the other is not. And I think people, at least the saner ones, when they say racism is bad, are referring to that value defect in racism. Again, these things are said more in the context of the Holocaust, less in relation to where the left has unjustifiably expanded this today. That is, racism that rests on glorifying the self—in the context of race—out of biased considerations, is what is bad. I agree that if you arrived at it through scientific inquiry, or even if you erred but erred because of the law of small numbers, for example, as you like to cite, I personally would not see a major moral problem in that, if any at all—certainly not when the fact itself is correct.
But one can say more than that (mainly for the sake of discussion, because if someone asked me to explain my opinion on racism as it is understood in discourse today, I would send them your article): one can argue that assigning value to something valueless is itself moral corruption, and that is what appears here. Racism, for example, is an excellent example of something empty of (value) content that receives enormous value among racists, and discrimination is only its natural consequence.
That is, it is a bit the reverse of how the course of events is presented in the article: the person first understands the incorrect fact for his own reasons and then additionally errs and discriminates. Apparently what happens is that the person assigns value (what makes me good) to something devoid of value—namely, the race to which I belong—and consequently infers discrimination from it, while at the same time tipping the scales in favor of his own race, of course.
Again, briefly: one can argue in favor of the new justice warriors that they hold that it is not the holding of the racist fact itself that is bad, but the attaching of importance to race that is bad, and that is the reproach behind the way people condemn a person by saying “you racist” (or at least some of them—I hope). People simply are not inclined to make such distinctions, and from the superficiality of the discussion they also reach the conclusion that there is something bad about holding that there are differences between races. But what bothers them is this: race is not important, so don’t make it into something important.
What does the rabbi think?

And what is truly paradoxical is that if that yeshiva student had understood the subtext, that itself would have meant that he actually was suited to that yeshiva (even more than if he understood Yiddish and ate gefilte fish and prayed in the Ashkenazi rite with Ashkenazi pronunciation). Understanding the subtext of Haredi language is the entry ticket to their society, that’s all. Those nuances in their internal language toward outsiders constitute no small part of their Haredi identity.

Tell me, did you even read what I wrote and the arguments? For your convenience I’ll repeat myself. You set up a straw man called racism and then fought against it. You said that racism as such (especially Nazi racism) contains no ideological and practical components at all. In your view it is merely a body of knowledge or a collection of facts, true or false, etc. But that is nonsense. Everyone knows there is a deep normative component there; Whoopi Goldberg knows it too.

You claim that she may disagree with them about the definition of race. Suppose so—what is relevant about that? She understands perfectly well that even if their conception of race is incoherent (I grant her that this is her claim), they hold a racist theory and act upon it. Yet she tries to deduct that accusation from them. Is that not a normative problem on her part, this act?

The question of her motives is indeed only a hypothesis, but a highly plausible one. What probably motivates her to distort reality (consciously) is identity politics, etc.

In my view that is the same definition. There is no reversal here.

I don’t know if I understood what you are referring to. And in your view, is there a defect in assigning value to something devoid of value?

There is a defect in it, but not a moral defect. Morality characterizes behavior, not thoughts.

It’s on Wikipedia in the last section under “Career”
https://he.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%95%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%99_%D7%92%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%93%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%92

Sorry, I misread the note, but perhaps you meant this:
https://he.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A8%D7%A6%D7%97_%D7%93%D7%A8%D7%A7_%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%98

I’m really not arguing against you—I’m for you 🙂
I enjoy reading your words. More power to you!

“As far as I am concerned, the Holocaust is a memory of the wretchedness of the Jewish people, who went like sheep to the slaughter, far more than of human evil”

Interesting. Please explain, in your great kindness, what the Jews there were supposed to have done in order to avoid that “wretchedness.” I recoil from ad hominem arguments, but in this case perhaps I may permit myself one, since I direct it mainly toward myself: I assume I would not have behaved any differently from those “wretches.”
And you?

To unite and fight for themselves. How many Jews were in Auschwitz and how many Germans were there? A ratio of 1 to 10? Couldn’t they have charged as one and snatched a weapon from one of them and staged an uprising? Yes. Some would have died, but they were going to die anyway. At least they would have died with honor and not in the despicable way they died. I am not judging them (and I too probably would have behaved like one of them), but it was still utterly despicable. It was a little-Jew mentality, a petty mentality in which each person thinks only of himself and does not understand that this is even to his own detriment. It is indeed hard to shake off (to be redeemed from) such a mentality of 2,000 years, but still it was despicable. They were pathetic. The Holocaust is something I would like to forget, but one must remember it only so that we will not be like them and so that it will not happen again. At least as far as what is in our power to do.

I do indeed wrestle with this issue a lot, but there is a limit and we are approaching it. In the end one needs to dismantle the explosive material (the pent-up hatred) and not be occupied with preventing oxygen and heat and various igniters. There is a limit to how much one can prevent it, and we are approaching that limit in giant strides. In the end hatred will erupt, and then everything that prevented it beforehand will only contribute to the force of the eruption. One must turn hatred into love, and it is permissible to let off steam. I think I would almost completely abolish the offense of incitement, and keep it only for outright lies (not for evaluations like “traitor” or “wicked,” etc.) and for explicit calls to physically harm people. People need to learn to take responsibility for their actions, and you cannot prevent people from expressing themselves. Otherwise it will cause an explosion whose results will be far more severe than harm to one person. Beyond that, these laws are exploited hypocritically only to silence the right, while the left is completely free and all its incitement is called “freedom of speech.” So in any case, if there is vagueness that allows selective enforcement, the offense should be abolished. And incitement laws are subject to discretion and are therefore inherently vague. It’s the same story as breach of trust.

I don’t understand. You don’t judge them, but their behavior is despicable? And you even admit that you would have behaved like them.
Do you understand why one might raise an eyebrow here?

Yes, to the first question. What is so complicated? I don’t know whether I would have been capable of avoiding the wretchedness, but it existed. And I also explained what should have been done. It requires courage, but on the other side lies disgrace.

Don’t raise your eyebrows. It causes wrinkles.

In the strange world in which I live, there is a contrast, if not an outright contradiction, between saying that you despise someone and saying that you do not judge him.

And I’ll reveal another secret to you about my bizarre world: people there say that given the conditions under which the Jews lived in all those horrifying years, an overwhelming majority of people would not have risen up to rebel and save their honor. In any case, the preaching about “saving honor” seems to us, in our strange world, like empty bombast. Especially when the speaker openly admits that he too would probably have adopted this despicable norm.

I know everything you said about the conditions of Europe’s Jews in the Holocaust. And still, it is wretchedness. What difference does it make what brought them there? If you want, then yes, I do judge them, fine? And then I judge you and myself too, okay? Can’t a person say of himself that he is pathetic? There is a pathetic and despicable mentality here, even if it is my own. What is not understood?! As you said, the norm is despicable and pathetic. And whoever holds it, no matter the circumstances and whether or not he had a choice, is still despicable and pathetic. I can despise someone in the sense that I do not want to be like him, and with all that I do not come to him with complaints against the background of his inability not to be that way (in most cases because he is not aware of it. And that, by the way, is somehow even worse than if he had had a choice in it).

Just to make things clearer. There is a transgression in the Torah of desecrating God’s name. That is the sin hardest to atone for (only death atones). Yet in the book of Ezekiel there is mentioned a desecration of God’s name by Israel in the eyes of the nations because of their wretched condition: “These are the Lord’s people, and yet they had to leave His land.” That is, because of their wretchedness, and because they are His people, His name is desecrated (His honor diminished in the eyes of the nations). There is no sin of desecrating God’s name there that Israel committed. They need no atonement. But because of that desecration of God’s name, God promises to redeem Israel even though they do not deserve it, because of the desecration of His name and the disgrace to His honor.
So it is the same here. I would not want to be friends with the Jews of Europe, and still I am not coming to them with complaints. Just as I do not want to be friends with children because of their childish behavior, even though one cannot complain to a child about childish behavior. I want to be mature, and therefore I want to be in the company of mature people.

Tens of thousands of Russian soldiers (not little Jews) were exterminated in Auschwitz.
And members of other peoples too.
Your claims, Emanuel, were already refuted years ago.
Today they are considered downright childish.
Recommended reading: the booklet “Like Sheep to the Slaughter?” by K. Shabtai — introduction by Gideon Hausner.
You can search on utube for Russian videos showing rows of thousands of German soldiers
being led by a few soldiers, almost boys.

Oh dear, oh dear. My arguments have gone out of fashion. Rejected by the courts of the world government of thoughts. They are “considered” childish in the eyes of the “experts.” So what shall I do now? How will I manage to sleep tonight? Shall I adopt new thoughts according to the fashion designers at Yves Saint Laurent? Please love me and give me approval. What will I do without you and without your agreement? Please, accept me into your club.

As for the substance, you answered nothing. Even if there were ten times more Germans than Jews in the extermination camps, they still died a despicable death. A death like exterminated insects. Instead of dying with honor with some chance of rescue, they went like sheep to the slaughter. So the Russian soldiers also died a despicable death. That claim applies to them equally. But Russia as a nation waged war in return. Good thing there was the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.

With God’s help, 7 Adar II 5782

To Emanuel — greetings,

An uprising against a regular army equipped with powerful weapons had no chance of success. An attack on the Germans would have cost not only the rebels their lives, but also the lives of thousands and tens of thousands of other Jews.

Therefore, even in the ghettos where a revolt broke out, it was only when ‘all hope was gone’ and the Germans were about to liquidate the ghetto completely, so that in any case there was nothing left to lose. As long as they had not reached the final stage, the underground people refrained from rebelling so as not to endanger the remnant of their brethren, who tried to delay the end by providing economic benefit to the Germans.

And even in the last-minute uprisings in most ghettos, the aim was to help as many underground members as possible escape to the forests and join the partisan units organized under the auspices of the Red Army, and in this way many Jews were saved. In the Warsaw Ghetto there was nowhere to flee; there were no serious forests nearby, and the Polish partisans were unwilling to accept Jews into their ranks.

When the choice is between ‘dying with honor’ and saving many lives, there is an advantage to choosing life.

Regards, Ami’oz Yaron Schnitzler

With God’s help, 7 Adar II 5782

The reason racism arouses special horror is that it creates a ‘system’ that provides justification for murdering masses of innocent people. When one builds a ‘system,’ allegedly based on science, claiming that members of a certain people or race are like cockroaches deserving extermination—one can cause masses of people to become murderers. Then even people who in their ordinary lives are not murderers will see it as a great mitzvah to pursue and murder masses of innocent people. After all, these are dangerous cockroaches, not human beings.

Regards, see there

In my opinion, the moral norms in whose name you speak are empty of content. Not because tribal or national pride is illegitimate. On the contrary: as a conservative, I actually have sympathy for them. But in this specific case they seem to me detached from reality. I of course have a hypothesis as to why you reached this mistaken conclusion, and that in itself is an important and interesting subject to discuss.

Apparently the wretchedness is still deeply embedded in us. I am not speaking about the ghettos (though I also have things to say about that), but about the extermination camps. What kind of person worthy of the name “human being” lets himself be slaughtered like a sheep? Does that seem normal to you? Do you think the inmates of the extermination camps made calculations about Jews being killed elsewhere?
They were focused on themselves and therefore also cowardly (and I am not judging them—it is the little-Jew European mentality, which, as it turns out, has not left us to this day. But it truly is unbearable). They had no sense of shared destiny, and so it did not even occur to them to cooperate in saving some of their honor. And this also applies to the ghettos. Someone who allows himself to be enslaved will in the end also allow himself to be killed. This was a pan-Jewish problem in Europe. Why should the other thousands and tens of thousands of Jews pay with their lives for a revolt? Why shouldn’t those same thousands and tens of thousands also rise up against those coming to kill them? That is precisely the pathetic mentality I am talking about. It is a mentality that itself invites extermination. On the contrary: instead of saving lives, it itself invites loss of life. It is simply a principle of nature: whoever shows weakness attracts predators. Against the Nazis one should not have made such calculations, but should have charged like madmen. That is the normal and sane thing to do.
What difference does it make that a regular army is facing you, with weapons? We are talking about the difference between dying with honor, with some chance of rescue, and dying like a sheep. Why did they even get onto the trains, or not flee from them en masse? How many soldiers were there on each such transport?

What moral norms did I talk about? I spoke about wretchedness. There is no moral value in that. It is simply a basic need. What tribal pride are you talking about? They murdered us because we were part of a nation, so that nation ought to rise up. Basic national dignity (avoiding degradation)—that is not pride, it is basic dignity. It is a need almost like the need to live. Existence without it is sub-existence. It is like basic human dignity for individuals. Why do you think there is a Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty (which I think should be repealed)?

What emptiness of content are you talking about? This is what they should have done, even if it is inconceivable how they could have done it. They did not emerge from utter disgrace and wretchedness.

With God’s help, 7 Adar II 5782

To Emanuel — greetings,

Ever heard of machine guns? Every uprising with bare hands against the Germans ended in a bloodbath. The few who managed to escape had almost no chance of surviving in a hostile environment that had suckled hatred of Jews with their mother’s milk.

And they assisted in the extermination of the Jews; it was not for nothing that the extermination camps were established in Poland, saturated with hatred of Jews. All the more so the Ukrainians, Lithuanians and Latvians, Slovaks and Croats who collaborated with the Nazis. They participated in the extermination and happily turned in the Jews who managed to escape.

Among the Germans, Poles, and the other peoples of Eastern Europe there were only a few “Righteous Among the Nations.” In Western Europe there were more gentiles who helped and saved Jews, though collaborators were not lacking there either. In Belarus too, where there were forests and partisan groups under the aegis of the Red Army, Jews had a greater chance of escaping and joining the partisans. And indeed many Jews did so.

Saving lives in the ghettos was done by individuals through escape to the “Aryan side.” Public activists could work to delay the “death sentence” by integrating Jews into work for which it was worthwhile for the Germans to keep them alive, and Jews also acted to help orphaned refugees and the needy, as Dr. Janusz Korczak and Dr. Emanuel Ringelblum did in Warsaw, for example.

Likewise, public activists worked to smuggle Jews who were in immediate danger to places that were relatively less dangerous. Thus, until the German invasion in ’44, Jews from Poland and Slovakia were smuggled to Hungary, whose Jews took them in and helped smuggle them through Romania to safety.

Great things were done by the “Rescue Group” in Slovakia, in which Jews from opposing camps cooperated—the ultra-Haredi Rabbi Weissmandel with Gisi Fleischmann of Mapai, etc.—and with bribes to the authorities they succeeded in delaying the deportation of Slovak Jewry to extermination. They also initiated the “Europe Plan” to save all the Jews of Europe by means of bribery, but did not merit fulfillment and support from world Jewish organizations.

Another example of what could be accomplished through united action by Jews from all circles is the community of Turda in Transylvania, which succeeded in saving hundreds of Jews from extermination by smuggling them to Romania. See Mrs. Malka Shankolevski’s article on the subject in the journal Moreshet of the Ghetto Fighters’ House.

In short: uprising was hopeless. Aid and rescue operations—yes.

Regards, see there

Emanuel, spare your servant… your argument is confused.
Behind your use of the concept “wretchedness” there stands a normative-moral judgment: wretchedness as opposed to, say, dignity. When you despise the “little Jews,” you are necessarily making a judgment within a scale of values. That is, this necessarily has moral value. It is not a “basic need” or anything of the sort. A need is a fact, not a norm. I believe that if you think about it a little, you will accept my opinion on this matter (as you did regarding judgment).

Your moral demand of the little Jews is empty of content because it is not reasonable and certainly not fair. Not only because you testified about yourself that you would have acted like them, but mainly because deep down you yourself do not believe that that “national dignity” could have been implemented
in the specific circumstances at issue. To me it looks like an expression of sanctimonious tendencies reminiscent of those of your much-hated progressives. On second thought, it may also be the hidden motivation behind your words—a disproportionate reaction to today’s progressive discourse (including the discourse on the Holocaust).

I already explained my words and do not understand what you do not understand. Why all these discussions about facts or norms? What was unclear in what I said? I had no moral demand of them, because they probably were not sufficiently developed to understand it or sufficiently brave to carry it out. But yes, that is what should have been done then and now, and at some point we will do it. Reality will force us. At some point we will necessarily stop being pathetic. The thing I indeed hate most is sanctimony. But I don’t know what is sanctimonious in what I said. This is not a moral demand. There is no morality here because they did not sin against someone who is not them. It is simply the understanding that this is what needs to be done and what is right to do. They neglected their own need, and reality punished them for it. I also believe it can be implemented, and this has already been done. This is Zionism and the establishment of the State of Israel and Israel’s wars. It is just the halfway point. And I also believe that I can do it. There is free choice even if the situation is difficult. There is a choice not to be pathetic. I do not judge them because I stepped into their shoes. But outside their shoes they still look pathetic. And I do not want that.

Indeed, progressives are the people I hate most. They really are servants of absolute evil. Even Hitler had a point of truth behind his activity. The point of truth behind the progressives is emptiness, or falsehood itself (postmodernism). There cannot be a disproportionate reaction to absolute evil… one cannot be tolerant of falsehood incarnate. There is indeed a connection between the little Jews of Germany and the progressives. The little Jews of Germany today are the little Jews of the U.S., who are the heads of progressivism in the world.

I hate the progressives because they are the representatives of sanctimony on earth. And sanctimony is the partner of wickedness (R. Segulah), and it truly is intolerable.

Look. I am talking about a mentality. You have people standing in line at the entrance to the gas chambers, and they go in like good children. They already know they are going to extermination. What is there to lose? A bloodbath? Can’t someone throw stones? Wood? Snatch a weapon from someone? How can it be that people are making calculations about rescue when they already know with certainty that they are going to die? Why didn’t they charge the firing squads during the actions? Wouldn’t someone have survived there? They shoot into a whole village standing over pits, and people don’t think of charging the shooters? Does no one understand what I am talking about?

I have heard much about the Germans’ psychological oppression of those Jews and the mental state they were in. And I understand. But that is wretchedness. There is no other word. What difference does it make how it was formed?

Emanuel,
everything has been explained and argued. Bottom line: your message is sanctimonious, and in that sense you are doing a disservice to the conservatism you hold dear. Not convinced? No matter. Progressives too reject the accusation that they hold sanctimonious positions.

However, ‘racism’ in itself can lead one who feels superior to ‘paternalism’ toward the ‘inferior’ and ‘undeveloped,’ which very much hurts the feelings of the one whom people want to help—but in fact benefits him, or at least they think it benefits him. The feeling of ‘paternalism’ is what brings about African-American hatred toward Jews, even though Jews fought for black rights; yet that assistance is denounced by some of the ‘beneficiaries’ as ‘paternalism.’

With the Nazis an additional element was added: transferring the evolutionary concept of ‘natural selection,’ in which the stronger species destroys the weaker and thereby improves its genetic qualities, to human society. The Nazis hated Judaism and its pupil Christianity because of the conscience these had bequeathed to the Western world—the conscience that torments the ‘blond beast of prey’ and does not let it devour every weak people that interferes with its savage rampage.

The transfer of the ‘evolutionary struggle for existence’ from the animal world to the human species also lay at the root of communism, whose believers hated religion for being the ‘opium of the masses’ that prevents them from waging a cruel ‘struggle for existence’ to eliminate the ‘capitalists’ who allegedly threaten the exploited ‘working class.’ Hence the Stalinist regime reached heights of cruelty and mass murder even without the element of ‘racism,’ and what it shares with the Nazis is the attempt to base their hatred and cruelty in a ‘scientific’ way.

And beyond the innovations of ‘racism’ and the ‘evolutionary struggle for existence’ that the Nazis and communists developed in order to ground their hatred, they continued the age-old traditions of their peoples’ hatred against Judaism: whether because of Christians’ religious hatred toward the Jews who refused to accept their ‘savior,’ or because of envy at the Jews’ cultural and economic success, whereby being a persecuted and humiliated minority increased their motivation to acquire knowledge and act diligently in economic life.

Envy of the Jews’ economic and cultural success is one of the central reasons for the hatred of some African Americans toward Jews. That envy was expressed by ‘Whoopi’ in adopting the surname ‘Goldberg’ on her mother’s advice, who explained to her that without a Jewish name she would not be able to get ahead in the film world. The idea that Jews succeed because they are willing to work hard and invest is not acceptable to Ms. ‘Whoopi Goldberg.’ Even at the height of her success she remains the ‘whining aggrieved party.’

Regards, Eliam Fish”l Workheimer

I didn’t understand Emanuel. Isn’t this part of the curse and punishment that the Holy One, blessed be He, wrote in the curses in the rebuke section: “one thousand shall flee at the threat of one… and two shall put ten thousand to flight,” etc.? Call it whatever you want—the Holy One, blessed be He, put ‘lowliness,’ ‘lack of confidence,’ wretchedness into the Jews’ hearts so that the rebuke would be fulfilled.

What difference does it make? It is still wretchedness. Whether it is a punishment or a choice. I do not want to be that pathetic, and I am very afraid lest I indeed be so. So they sinned against the Holy One, blessed be He, and He put fear into their hearts. Then their choice is to return to Him, and then He will remove that fear from them. Somewhere there is some choice.

You did not respond in the right thread. How is the bottom line sanctimonious? Sanctimony has to do with accusing someone of wickedness. I am not accusing them of wickedness. I loathe their wretchedness. What is the bottom line here? Is every loathing sanctimony? Is the Nazis’ loathing of the Jews also sanctimony?
There is no point speaking with progressives because they are made of falsehood (because there truly is no objective reality for them, whether consciously or not). Really. I have experience. I noticed that when I talk to them, they are not really talking back to me but to themselves (I am a kind of voice in their head that disturbs them). They shout what they believe more loudly, with complete disregard for any argument no matter how strong it is. In their world, truth is determined by power and shouting. Therefore I cannot do a disservice to the conservatism I hold dear (and I am not 100% conservative either. I am 20% liberal and 80% conservative. And I am more conservative out of caution and suspicion toward revolution and chaos, from the lessons of history—mainly in matters of society and public leadership. In matters of thought, that is something else). Anyone who still has doubts about progressivism (after having been exposed to all the arguments for and against—and certainly if he has not been exposed and just adopts a position) is a person with no mind of his own, and I have nothing to discuss with him. With genuine liberals I have no problem. In addition, I will not coordinate my positions in order to promote an agenda (i.e., consider whether I am doing a disservice to some ideology). There is also such a thing as truth, and it is more important than conservatism. I am not the servant of any ideology.

By the way, progressivism (I heard they call it “progres” now) is no less an enemy of liberalism than it is an enemy of conservatism (perhaps even more so).

On the phenomenon of reverse racism, which sees the white man as “the devil’s partner” who oppresses every other race—a notion that is filtering into curricula and textbooks taught in schools in the U.S.—see the article “Education Is Not Black and White” on the Arutz 7 website.

Regards, Apo”r

Even the Western world’s tolerance of ‘reverse racism,’ its willingness to accept violent racist and hateful expressions מצד blacks, Muslims, and the like, actually stems from viewing those groups as underdeveloped or as victims of prolonged oppression, and therefore as groups from whom one cannot demand the same moral standards that ‘enlightened man’ demands of his developed and civilized peers.

Regards, Apo”r

Hi,
I read the column (“Racism Part 2,” column 449). As usual, it is written nicely and clearly.
I very much accept your explanation about the new god of anti-racism.
On the other hand, I do not accept that there is no moral defect in Whoopi Goldberg’s words. In your view, it is a different definition of the concepts of race and racism, or a mistake.
In my opinion she is one of the opinion leaders of her community and of the religion of anti-racism. It seems to me that she is well aware of Nazi racial theory and of the Holocaust that followed from it.
Her statement is an attempt to diminish all the other victims of race-based discrimination and to appropriate everything to the black community, of which she is a part.
It may still be that some of the condemnations are hypocritical, but in essence her actions are wrong and not merely mistaken.
Your opinion.

It is hard for me to penetrate the depths of this Whoopi’s soul, since I do not know her. I can only address what she said. After all, my discussion is not meant to clarify her intentions and whether she is righteous or wicked. I use her words to clarify general principles that are important for each of us.
By the way, from what I read among people who do know her, the claim is that she is not antisemitic. It is also hard for me to believe that she thinks what is happening today to blacks in the U.S. is worse than the Holocaust. But as stated, her views are not my subject.

Even Haman was not a racist, for he was white, as it is written: “And the manna was like coriander seed, white.”

Regards, Whoopi G.

Maybe he was a racist, but not “socially.”

Michi, you are evading again. The main criticism is not psychological—what did Whoopi mean or not mean? The heart of the criticism is about the corrupt worldview in the background of her statement. The claim is that Whoopi expressed (whether clumsily or not) what the commenter above called the “religion of anti-racism.” In this way she indeed tried to diminish wrongs that are not considered sexy today. Given that this is the state of affairs regarding the real influence of such views (and you yourself acknowledge this and have written more than once that it is so, plus or minus), there is no room here for the somersaults you did here. Her statement is a symptom of something much broader, regardless of the degree of righteousness or wickedness of the speaker.

So the question is very simple: do you really not see a clear ideological connection between her words and the “religion of anti-racism”?

With God’s help, Memorial Day for Dalphon and his brothers, 5782

To Rabbi Michael Abraham — greetings,

Haman wasn’t “social”? Why, Haman sanctified war against the “privileged” Jews who allowed themselves to be separate from all the peoples by having “their laws differ from those of every people.” Those ‘privileged’ people allowed themselves not to be conscripted into the king’s labor service on the Sabbaths and festivals of their religion that thumbed its nose at “the whole world and his wife.” The ‘privileged’ Mordechai went further still, daring to violate the king’s order to bow to the chief minister, claiming that his Jewish religion exempted him, that it stood “above the law”!

Haman sought to bequeath to humanity the “categorical imperative.” To make clear to everyone that all are equal before the law, and even the queen must be punished when she violated the law, grounded in the “natural morality” that obligates obedience to the family sovereign. And just as he demanded punishment for the queen, so he demanded punishment for the people of ‘privileged’ ones who are arrogant and think themselves above the law!

Sadly, the ‘privileged’ ones succeeded through their cunning intrigues in bringing down Haman, and they made of his downfall a holiday sanctifying inequality. Even among themselves they insisted on inequality: not to honor the inhabitants of walled cities to celebrate with their brethren in unwalled towns! And gifts of food must be given specifically to one’s “fellow”—each person chooses his own private ‘privileged’ friend to honor with a “double portion,” thereby provoking the envy of the others.

In their festival the ‘privileged’ trample the principle of equality, and left the world desolate, until the sage of Königsberg arose and re-forged the principle of the “categorical imperative” that prevents differentiation between one person and another, the foundational principle of moral doctrine. And by its light we shall walk!

Regards, Jacob ‘Whoopi’ Goldberg-Black HaLevi

Perhaps Haman learned the principle of equality from the manna, from which everyone received equally, “an omer per head,” with no difference between the one who gathered much and the one who gathered little; all alike shall eat their share!

Regards, Shimshi Safra

More progressive than Haman were Bigthan and Teresh, the “guards of the threshold” of the kingdom, who stood ready “to lay hands on” and file an indictment even against the king himself, on the just claim that appointing a queen without a search committee was a grave “breach of trust.” Thus those two prosecutors were ahead of their time!

Haman too went through a process of progress. If at the beginning of his path he did not see woman as equal to man, and insisted on the principle that “every man should rule in his own house,” then when he saw that Esther held an egalitarian feast and taught that the queen can be an equal partner in discussion with the king and his prime minister, Haman adopted the idea and called his wife too to the discussion with his advisers—and her wise advice brought him to great heights!

Regards, Yag”sh ‘Whoopi’ HaLevi

Haman inherited the principle of equality of all human beings (except for arrogant ‘privileged’ people, of course 🙂) from his father, whose name ‘Hamedata’ in Persian means ‘the same law.’ HAM in Persian means like HOMO in Greek (both being Indo-European languages).

The Iranologist Dr. Tamar Eilam-Gindin wrote about this in her book: The Book of Esther: Behind the Mask, which explains the megillah against the background of Persian language and culture.

With the blessing of ‘delighted intoxication,’ Jacob ‘Whoopi’ HaLevi Goldberg-Black

And now seriously—

Before Kant established the “categorical imperative” as a foundational principle, Hillel the Elder had already done so by grounding the Torah on “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow,” whose source is in the Torah’s words, “And you shall love your fellow as yourself.” What is proper for you is proper for your fellow as well. Following Hillel, Maimonides ruled (chapter 11 of the Laws of Robbery) that dina de-malkhuta dina—the law of the kingdom is law—applies only when it is equal for every person.

On the basis of Maimonides’ ruling that dina de-malkhuta must be equal for all, one of the sages of Hungary said homiletically that this is why the consent of the people of Israel to accept the Torah was necessary, for even the “King of the world” is not entitled to obligate only part of humanity in the 613 commandments; therefore their consent was needed for an obligation that departs from the “categorical imperative” 🙂

The uniqueness of the people of Israel is intended to benefit all humanity. The people of Israel are the firstborn son, the “vanguard corps” that brings all humanity the faith of the Torah and its values: the seven commandments in which are embodied the basic moral values to which all human beings are called. This is Israel’s mission, as explained by Maimonides in the Laws of Kings—to teach all humanity the way of God.

Moreover, anyone in the world who truly desires it can convert and become an inseparable part of the people of Israel. Thus even descendants of Israel’s greatest enemies—Sisera, Sennacherib, and Haman—became sages who enlightened Israel through their Torah: Shemaiah and Avtalyon, Rabbi Akiva, and Rav Shmuel bar Shilat. And those who destroyed the Temple—Nebuzaradan and Nero Caesar—merited to repent and convert themselves!

Thus the service of Purim begins with the sharp distinction between “Cursed is Haman” and “Blessed is Mordechai”—a distinction that paves the way for revealing the inner spark of good even in the most degraded of the wicked. When the wine enters, the secret comes out: that in the innermost being of every person there is a longing for truth and goodness, which will eventually break through and overcome all the dross and filth that obscured the good, and Haman will come to faithfulness and become pure myrrh.

With the blessing of ‘delighted intoxication,’ Jacob ‘Whoopi’ HaLevi Goldberg-Black

And perhaps it is precisely for this reason that the sages used the expression “to become intoxicated on Purim.” Intoxication is “blending,” as Onkelos translated “a compound of perfumer’s work” as “perfumed perfume, the work of a perfumer.” And thus the incense, from the root ketira [= bond (in Aramaic)], symbolizes the binding together of all Israel. Even the galbanum, whose own smell is foul, becomes fragrant by being joined with the whole nation.

All flaws and negative emotions—envy, pride, anger, and the like—come from the feeling that the world is a “zero-sum game,” that every success of one comes at the expense of another. When we understand that we are all limbs of one organism, we understand that we are not competitors with one another but “partners with one another”: one for all and all for one.

With the blessing of ‘delighted intoxication,’ Yag”sh ‘Whoopi’ HaLevi

Absolutely not. I do not examine kidneys as you do. I am not worthy. So I will go on evading.

See the article by Prof. Yaakov Yehuda Roth on the differences between Kant and Rabbi Akiva, in his book on religion and Judaism (I don’t remember the title). Others have already pointed this out.

It seems it should read:

See the article by Prof. Chaim Yehuda Roth on the differences between Kant and Rabbi Akiva, in his book Religion and Human Values; others have already pointed this out.

The correction is courtesy of the youth movement “Bnei Emanuel,” affiliated with the association “TZDK — Kantian Religious Zionism.”

Regards, Yog”sh HaLevi

Of all 248 limbs of the human body, you chose specifically the kidneys? I said explicitly that the speaker’s intentions are irrelevant, only the worldview embedded in the background of her statement. I said “ideological connection,” not psychological. Neither kidneys nor shoes.

So you condemn her and have her fired from her job because of the conceptions embedded in her words, without her knowing it and without any intention. Best of luck to all of us.

With God’s help, Purim of the walled cities, 5782

To Rabbi Michael Abraham — greetings,

Your indignation over Doron, who condemns and dismisses Mrs. Goldberg from her employment, stems from a sincere concern for the good name and livelihood of the distinguished broadcaster.

Therefore I find it proper to reassure you. Ms. Goldberg was not dismissed at all; she was suspended for two weeks, and presumably after she apologized, her suspension was canceled. She returned to her work already a month ago, and the whole affair sank long ago into the abyss of oblivion. So there is no need to worry for her.

With the blessing of ‘go and calm him down,’ Bedan Bar-Manoach Tzellefonovsky

As for the matter itself,

Broadcasting on television is not a ‘philosophical discussion’ devoid of emotions. A broadcasting company is built on the ‘ratings’ the audience gives it. If the broadcasters gravely offend the audience’s feelings, the audience will stop watching the program, and as a result the company may collapse financially and all its broadcasters too will be thrown into the street.

So statements by an employee that seriously damage the good name and livelihood of the employing company are a punch in the employer’s face and severe economic harm also to the rest of his coworkers. An employee ‘who does not match the employer in avoiding damage’—that is a worthy ground for dismissal. Ms. Goldberg understood this and rightly hurried to apologize. America is not Israel, where employees can run wild against their employers and continue to be protected. An employee who wants freedom of speech has the right—and the duty—to find an employer willing to finance him.

Moreover, a broadcaster’s resorting to conceptions whose source is racist and antisemitic, out of not understanding the background of the matter, is a severe professional failure. Anyone who receives a high salary in the capacity of an ‘expert’ is obligated to understand the negative background of his words and the grave offense to the feelings of a significant portion of the viewers. It is the duty of one who pretends to be an ‘expert’ to take care not to cause damage through negligence. Is a teacher who negligently causes psychological harm to his students fit to serve in his role?

Ms. Goldberg merited a storm over her words, which made clear to her the duty of caution regarding the feelings of others. One may hope that she learned the lesson, and that from now on her reflections will be like “apples of gold in settings of silver,” and that from her mouth will come “a word fitly spoken.”

Regards, Chanokh Henekh Feinshmaker-Plati

Paragraph 2, line 3
…and the whole affair long ago sank…

Not condemning, not firing, nothing of the sort. Just your demagoguery. I wrote no such thing anywhere, and the practical treatment of her interests my grandmother. My concern is first and foremost with the corrupt principled position that is filtering into the minds of people less aware and perhaps less intelligent than Goldberg.
I went further and explicitly wrote (in much earlier comments) that quite a few of her critics are themselves hypocrites and opportunists.
Anyone who entrenches himself in the position that this is an innocent mistake (and according to you, from a certain point of view it is not even a mistake) is someone making every effort to shut his eyes to the ideological affinities between the anti-racist religion and people’s private opinions. There is a clear logical connection and, in all likelihood, real influence between the two. This explanation that I (and others here on the site) have provided is far more consistent and stronger than the coyness of “it’s not clear why she said what she said.”
Now you’ll probably write me again that I’m getting her fired from her job…

With God’s help, Purim of the walled cities, 5782

Whoopi Goldberg put her finger on an essential difference between white racism toward blacks and Nazi hatred of Jews. The humiliating attitude toward blacks stemmed from the European’s feeling of superiority, seeing himself as developed and civilized, whereas the Asian-African was considered by him ignorant and “primitive.”

By contrast, the Nazis (and antisemites in general) hated the Jews דווקא because of a feeling of inferiority. They envied the Jews for their success in science, culture, and economics, and hated them because of “Jewish morality,” which “emasculates the freedom of the blond beast of prey” by means of the pangs of conscience it implanted among the peoples of Europe.

‘Reverse racism,’ whose basis is a feeling of inferiority, harms its possessors no less than its victims. If the person with feelings of inferiority understands that one who succeeded—in science and economics or in the moral realm—did so not because his name is “Goldberch” but because he worked hard and invested, then he will understand that the road to success is also open to him and his like, if only he will learn to work hard and invest, as the wise saying goes: “For honor, you have to labor.”

The Jews’ starting conditions in America were no better than those of the blacks. They too began their path in poverty and destitution, and they too were victims of the hatred of the ruling society. The Jews’ advantage was their ancient culture, which developed in them several important traits: (a) belief in a better future; (b) willingness to work hard in order to be redeemed; (c) literacy—the aspiration of parents that their children study and become educated at a high level; (d) communality and solidarity. Every Jew knew that his brothers would support him, whether by encouragement, by a loan, or by helping him find employment, and would not leave him alone.

During their slavery, blacks knew how to identify with the children of Israel, who were humiliated as slaves in Egypt. To the extent that they cultivate in themselves the good traits in which the Jews excelled—faith, willingness to work hard, love of study and education, and communal solidarity—they too will succeed.

I am not a great admirer of Obama, but in one thing he followed the Jews: in his attempt to institute national health insurance in the U.S. What in our country has been considered trivial for decades was in America a revolutionary innovation. What can one do? Solidarity is a “Jewish specialty.” Instead of envying us and hating us—simply learn from us.

Regards, Ami’oz Yaron Schnitzler

A correction is needed:
There certainly is a difference between typical racism toward Jews and that directed toward blacks (and this is also connected to a distinction you did not make between modern “scientific” racism and ancient xenophobia), but in my view your description is somewhat lacking.

First, at the root of modern racism toward both Jews and blacks stands an ambivalent, neurotic attitude: the white racist not only patronizes the black person but also admires him as being more authentic, closer to nature (“the noble savage,” etc.). At the same time, the modern antisemitic racist not only feels inferiority toward the Jew but also believes that the Jew’s physical inferiority is necessarily accompanied by a spiritual and moral defect (a kind of outlook transmitted to racists by the Romantic movement, which links body to soul, blood to soil, etc.).

But the broad common denominator is not “psychological” (the ambivalence) but intellectual and evaluative: the struggle against the rationalist ethos of the Enlightenment, which makes it possible to create equality between different groups on the basis of universal “abstractions” by the power of reason. The modern racist acts out of a hysterical reaction against anyone who thinks that social groups can supposedly be integrated. It does not matter whether we are talking about blacks or Jews.

In this respect, Whoopi Goldberg’s position took racism one step further: in her view, Nazi racial theory is too “rational,” insofar as it is based on systematic science and on an attempt to identify regularities that are not visible to the eye, such as color (for example, genetic structure). In her eyes, the criterion for race, and therefore also for racism, is only what can be seen with the eyes.
There is admittedly probably also an element of deception on her part (after all, she knows there is such a thing as Nazi racial theory, even if in her distorted view this is inauthentic racism…). Nevertheless, the main thing is the intellectual and evaluative confusion by which she is influenced.