https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-02/whoopi-goldberg-apologises-for-saying-holocaust-was-not-about-ra/100798070

When she said 'the holocaust' was more about man's inhumanity to man, Whoopi Goldberg was right.
However, there was a flood of adverse opinion, apparently by those who act before they think.

At times of war or national crisis, governing bodies motivate people by using their instincts and emotions.
Useful amongst these would be hate, superstition, and fear.
Such responses, and others, can be used to strengthen determination, or create a desired level of aggression towards another person.

Hitler used an existing tenuous antipathy towards a particular group.
He amplified this to engender loathing of this group?
He encouraged and ordered those around him to destroy its members.
He didn't do the killing himself, except for one isolated instance, which he used as a kind of demonstration?

The fact that otherwise peaceful persons can be motivated to kill and harm without good reason, is an example of them showing an inhumane approach to their fellow man.
The devastation was thus brought about by a group of ordinary citizens, motivated to behave in a totally inhumane and disgraceful manner.
So Whoopi was and is right: the instinct to harm was 'amplified' by those with control, and it did the trick.
So why the onslaught of contrary opinion by a multitude of persons?
Hasn't anyone, other than Whoopi, thought this through?

Another instance of such control was demonstrated in the leadup to the Falklands War.
It is also demonstrated by the fluidity of boundaries within, and adjacent to, europe.
The map changes almost daily, as groups push and shove to gain advantage.
They do this instead of living peacefully and productively.
Are they being motivated by unscrupulous persons, who seek personal gain?
Such persons demonstrate the effectiveness of using 'man's inhumanity to man' as a weapon.

Who cares what a B grade Hollywood performer said? It's been long enough since she flapped her gums that most people have moved on to important current events.

Whoopi Goldberg said nothing out of place !

I guess it's ok for Hollywood to ridicule Christianity but they want to control what is said about "The Holocaust". It doesn't seem to be enough to say "I don't know but this is my opinion".

The ADL seems to be an Israeli front group- fronted by Jonathon Rothblatt and the ADC seems to be an Israeli front group fronted by Dvir Abramovich from the University Of Melbourne. They claim that they are secular non sectarian- I'm not sure about that-

It almost seems as if a significant number of Zionists are using Australian institutions to sponsor their special project in support of their own racial cultural dominance. All ethnicities and ideologies will try to dominate the environment in order to ensure their survival. Some perhaps have a greater validity in different contexts. It's seen as bad form to be sectarian within western government- the US seems to have made it part of it's ethos- perhaps they were wrong as it seems to enabled the descendants of the nation to be replaced in the name of secular equality.

mhaze from memory talked about racism from an Afro-American perspective in a previous post and how that was instantiated in Whoopee Goldberg's opinion. Interesting at her choice of stage name- seemingly having Hebrew influence.

Most people think that there are many other cases of ideological bigotry in the world that deserve more exposure seemingly by the Hebrew desire to keep their pet project in the spotlight. For example the death of 60 million people in Mao's China for cultural cleansing.

Everyone is bigoted- it seems to be part of group survival- I want groups cultures to survive.

Perhaps there's more to this than what I got to hear. All I heard was that the Holocaust wasn't racially motivated because it involved white people only !
Is that racist ?

I was observing a young indigenous mother this afternoon whilst i was waiting in line. Her little girl was hell-bent on having a white doll but Mom was dead against & tried to persuade her daughter to take the brown coloured doll. The girl wouldn't have it & the last I heard was mum whispering if she doesn't want the brown doll she can't have a doll.

"Hitler used an existing tenuous antipathy towards a particular group.
He amplified this to engender loathing of this group?
He encouraged and ordered those around him to destroy its members.
He didn't do the killing himself, except for one isolated instance, which he used as a kind of demonstration?"

- You mean the same as what Ukraine has done to the Donetsk and Luhansk people for the last 8 years?

Whoopi Goldberg is an African American woman with no Jewish ancestry.
She was born with the name Caryn Elaine Johnson and later adopted Whoopi Goldberg as her stage name because she identifies with Judaism.

The world needs to stop listening to anything that actors have to say.
They don't live in the same world the rest of us live in.

Thanks Individual and Armchair Critic. Kudos.

It's interesting to see the interplay of narrative and counter narrative- in the cut and thrust to dominate public opinion- often the who and why are more important than the what.

Hebrew's have become the sacred cows.

The who will give you a hint at the interlocutors angle of attack- and with a little background gives the why it's in the who's interest to promote the self serving course.

The how tells you how the tactics are implemented- given there are a limited number of patterns- and tricky people are often lazy opportunists- means that it can be easy to observe a trap.

The journalistic story being broken into the 5W's- what, who, why, how, when- is a powerful way to understand events and situations.

Also, consider the fact that racism is the sharpest, most cutting tool the racists have ! Shouldn't we be calling this stupidity attitudism because that's what's wrongly & opportunistically portrayed as racism !
People generally don't give a hoot about colour, it's the attitude of the racism bleating racists that riles people !

We all discriminate.
It is part of our survival kit.
To say otherwise is absurd.
We do it daily, in a multitude of ways.
Selecting this, or favouring that, we arrive at decisions by appraisal of significant characteristics.
We can also reject other persons because of difference.
Such rejection is also part of our survival kit.
Behaviour like this can be observed in the rest of the animal kingdom.
For humans, the observed difference could be in dress, or speech, or even skin colour.
These aspects can lead to a harmful reaction from us, when we allow our instincts to rule.
Pointless and petty conflict can result.
We should therefore use our reason to control and direct our instincts away from senseless outcomes.
Doing this is called 'growing up'?
Whatever our personal opinion of others, in a public forum we need to treat them as equals?
Whether or not we do so in private life is our own choice?
We are not required to associate with those we don't favour?
Birds of a feather will always flock together?
We might also remember that we live in a democracy.
Individuals must not make their own rules, nor should they try to enforce such rules.
The public must rely always on democratic majority decisions.

Ipso Fatso said "We might also remember that we live in a democracy.
Individuals must not make their own rules, nor should they try to enforce such rules. The public must rely always on democratic majority decisions."

Answer- It's strange that many undemocratic things are done in the name of democracy often on appeal to someones arbitrary view that some principles are universal and absolute. Arbitrary principles are considered undemocratic. It's amusing when these universal arbitrary principles lock horns with contradictory universal arbitrary principles. One of the founding documents of democracy "The Declaration... Independence" contains a section that defines when democracy and government should be suspended by the people. If democracy doesn't work people are not going to participate- they will effectively make their own rules- the system will discover at some stage that the voluntary participation of the people is required- enlightened self interest. Governments are not running a prison. How the "majority" is determined can be defined in different ways- the "majority of money" or the "majority of people" can you "manipulate the boundaries or scale so that you get a majority" can you control the agenda "to control the boundaries of the majority" can you "control the information to control the majority", "use expert psychologists to influence the feelings and thoughts of the majority", etc, etc, etc. There's many ways to subvert the majority even and perhaps especially in a consumer driven liberal democracy- it's not something that can be relied upon. Personally I've lost faith in the democratic and institutional structures because those in the power structure don't have a vested interest in the community- their survival doesn't depend on the survival of the community.

Those that would destroy our culture and our people have been used to extend it's fault lines.

Topics will 'twist and turn' as successive opinions are expressed.
I see this as a natural and eminently desirable outcome.

Mention of the Declaration of Independence reminds me...
I quote...are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...
I rather think these words from the 'declaration' get it wrong.
They refer to the presence of something which doesn't exist without human intervention?

We are born without rights.
Instead, we have needs.
Needs such as food, water, shelter, freedom, and so on.
We need these things, and many more, to be able to live easily.
The world around us might provide an abundance of opportunity to obtain them.
But we must engage with it. It won't come to us.
We work out what our needs are, and then we make them happen.
Our needs become our 'rights' when we enshrine them in laws.
And a society must be prepared to enforce and defend its laws.
Otherwise, 'rights' cannot exist.