"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.