But I hope you noticed that the outrage was from the JDL, not the
Simon Weisenthal Institute or any mainstream Jewish organization, like
B'nai Brith or the Anti Defamation League.

We trivialize the
Nazis not when, as Smith did, we address them as humans who have
labeled their evil ends as 'good', which is what they did, but when we
pretend that they did not.  It is the very fact that they were
able to rebrand Evil as Good that was their perverse success. 
1984 by Orwell was not based on a massive imagination, but experience
recent and bitter.  War is Peace.  Loyalty to the Consitution
is Treason against the USA.  Hating women is loving
families.  We see it all the time.

I agree with "Barbara." Why even bother commenting on a statement by the JDL? If you're so desperate to make your point that you'll go this far out to find someone who is actually criticizing Smith, you should at least acknowledge in the post that they're absolutely nuts. Saying that he "enraged many people" and then quoting the JDL seems a bit contradictory.

So Smith says Hitler is a nice guy...and Halle Berry goes on Leno and shows a pic of her with a big nose and says that this is her "Jewish" face....what if I..as a Jew went on Leno and showed a pic of me with big lips...and whatever other characteristics represent black stereotypes in America..and said "This is my Sambo face" Or if in an interview said..."I think all people are good, I think all the slave owners and plantation owners were good people". Assuming I was as famous as they were...what would the media and the press do to me? I would never work in Hollywood again. We live in a society where these double standards seem endless.  Not to say that Michael Richards and Smith's comments are equal, because they are not, but what one person gets "Crucified" in the media for, so should the Rest!

Here is what the ADL said about the Smith comments:

We welcome and accept Will Smith's statement that Hitler was a 'vicious killer' and that he did not mean for his remarks about the Nazi leader to be mistaken as praise. Once Smith realized that his remarks may have been misunderstood, he took immediate steps to clarify his words and unequivocally condemn Hitler as an evil person.  We would have expected no less from a celebrity of his standing in the strata of Hollywood stardom.

 

Unfortunately, in citing Hitler in what appears to be a positive context, Smith stirred up a hornet's nest on the Internet, where hate groups and anti-Semites latched on to the remark and praised it.  If anything, this episode serves as a reminder of the power of words, and how words can be twisted by those with hate and bigotry in their hearts to suit their own worldview.  This is why all celebrities bear a special responsibility to weigh their words carefully, and an obligation to speak out against racism and bigotry whenever even a whiff of it appears, as Will Smith has done in this instance.

Carl Bernstein wrote a long article in 1977 for Rolling Stone which was all about how the CIA and State Department manipulate Western media.

The CIA and State Dept are fascist bodies, created after WWII when the antisemites that work for the US government absorbed the entire Nazi apparatus into these bodies. This is why MSM attacks Israel, lies about Israel's enemies, and lies about the Serbs and Yugoslavia.

What we have here is a classic case of 'divide and conquer' straight from the fascists up above. The same influences that care so deeply about Israel that they entirely whitewash the Nazi origins of Hamas and Fatah, now care so deeply about Jews that they make a big deal out of this. This issue is merely put forth as a means of dividing blacks and Jews (as though Al Sharpton is not adequate enough).

By being outraged about something that merits no outrage, the JDL shows how utterly worthless they are, and they play right into the hands of the fascists above.

JDL? Better known as the "Jew Klux Klan".lol

People will interpret the statements of public figures in ways which further their own pre-existing notions of the world. Some will scream foul, others will excuse, and still others will twist and distort the meaning.

The question which Smith's statement raises is this, "Did Hitler believe that what he was doing was good, or was he fully aware of the inherent evil of his actions?" More importantly though, if he believed that he was doing good, does that then provide him with some semblance of a defense for otherwise indefensible actions?

If he believed his actions to be good, then that would put him in the same category as Muslim terrorists who believe in the justness of their deeds.

Whatever the case may be, when judging people and their actions, most people commit a 'fundamental attribution error.' That is, they ascribe behavior too much to underlying personality traits and too little to the particular situation. Hitler was twisted, to be sure, but it's too easy to just paint him as a sociopath and leave it at that (as is done with Saddam, Bin Laden, Stalin, etc.). As with everything in life, it is way more complicated, and Hitler's perspective on his own actions are relevant to understanding the nature of his crimes.

If this Jewish organization would have been around during the 1940's in Germany the Holocaust wouldn't have happenned.  You're a Gentile who can't stand seeing tough, courageous Jews.  You're used to seeing nerdy, wimpy Jews who run at the first sign of anti-semitism.  The JDL stands up to Jew-haters and sometimes is violent, which is a good thing, and that's why Jew-haters like yourself can't stand them.  The only KKK around here is you ChevyassholeNazi.

I agree  its an overreaction. His comment may be stupid but not anti-Semitic

YES, the JDL is somewhat close to the KKK in behavior: I been JDL for 8 years. I you can rest assured they are as racist as the black panthers, skin heads, etc etc. Ask the JDL what they think about messianic jews and christain jews and other race semetic jews that follow other religious beliefs rather then orthodox neo judaism. JDL ? yep they are one pack rats with the KKK and other in the like. A matter of fact, in Israel here well call them the TALIJEWS of the jewish world.

JDL ? go get bent.

 does tend to overreact, but to say that they resemble the KKK is a stretch. They don't have the support, the clout, nor the finances the KKK used to have and in some cases still has.

Besides, the KKK used to boast the creme of Southern society among its members while the JDL is an organization for social losers.  

The guy is an actor and not a thinker and the words of most actors should be taken with a large grain of salt.

These folks after all are the dummies, as it were, of ventriloquists. They merely mouth the words of others.

"Intellectualism may be naïve, but nonetheless characterises the vast majority of the philosophical tradition up to the 20th century, starting with Plato..."

Plato was no naive. He was after the creator of that supreme ironist Socrates.

Besides do you really think that Will Smith can be compared to Plato? He can't even be compared to a second rate high-school teacher much less to Plato.

Will Smith's comment makes me feel uneasy, however as this article points out, we should not overreact and immediately cry out "anti-semitism!" More than anything, it seems that Smith was simply pointing out that Hitler thought he was doing good, not that Hitler was doing good. 

Will Smith's comment makes me feel uneasy, however as this article points out, we should not overreact and immediately cry out "anti-semitism!" More than anything, it seems that Smith was simply pointing out that Hitler thought he was doing good, not that Hitler was doing good. 

As per Will's thoughts, obviously all the slave traders and slave owners and the KKK and of course James Earl Ray, all of these people started out in life as 'good' folks and believed they were doing the right thing. Right, Will?

I do not see how summoning Will Smith is required to support the last post but indeed slave traders, slave owners, the KKK all believed that they were doing the right thing.

They elaborated theories to support the slavery racial institution, mainly hinged around the vision they were helping blacks through slavery.

Like helping them to save their immortal souls (salvation), preventing them from bearing the  burden of political determination (blacks were immature and unable to choose by themselves), removing them from a hostile environment, enabling them to better themselves at the contact of superior races etc...

 I do not see really what Smith has to do with this stuff since not only they believed it but they wrote and elaborated around it.

That the racial slavery institution was the right thing to support was the major main stream of thought in those times, Smith or not.

of how one tells right from wrong.

Very basic.
That was pregnant in Will Smith's comments, but more a discussion for a
writer, not an actor. An actor's job is to get into the head of
the indiviual who he portrays, and what drives him.

In
the area of good portrials of villians, Smallville has the only good
portrayal of Lex Luthor since Superman first came to celulite in the
early 1940s. Lex is shown to be sympathetic, but unaware of, or
unconcerned with boundaries in reaching what are often understandable
goals. And if you think the fact that the German father of
Protestantism's name was Luthor, that Alexander the Great ("lex")
conquered the Jews, that Superman's name in Krytonian is Kal-el (Hebrew
for "All G-d) are all coincidences, then you are simply unfamiliar with
the origins of the Superman legend. He was created by a couple of
young Jewish teenage boys in Cleveland, Ohio (the original 'metropolis'
was Cleveland) as a response to German propaganda. He's an
American Jewish response to Hitler... and I suspect that somewher back
there, Lex Luther was the Furhur.

To
conclude, you have to look at Will Smith
as an actor, not a heavy thinker.  If he decided to write, direct,
produce and distribute a film which was bad for the Jews... that would
be another discussion.   

I'm not sure about the JDL, but who cares what the ADL has to say about this!  It is not fit to comment on this topic.

There is indeed a double standard with regard to African Americans. Imagine what the media reaction would be if say Don Imus or Michael Richards were to say that all slave owners were good people at heart.  One can only imagine what kind of firestorm would ensue.

You write:  "A person who believes that he is fulfilling God’s will is indeed a person who believes that his actions are ultimately good."

You are assuming here that God is good. Perhaps Hitler worshipped an evil god.   

Will Smith's statement is simply ludicrous. Roi is an excellent writer, and I am an avid reader of his articles, and hope to see more of them, but I have a question for him: Roi, ask yourself honestly, and respond accordingly - would you have used the same arguments and come to the very same conclusion, had this been an Israeli actor saying that Baruch Goldstein was essentially a good person, and the condemnation came from a Palestinian organization? Would you not say that it's an abominable comment, and that you have lost the desire to watch any his movies? I think that would have been the case, and perhaps rightly so. This is something some of us Jews share - we are harder on ourselves, and more compassionate and understanding of others - both on an individual and collective level. The Talmud states that the children of Israel are typified by 3 chief traits: they are timid, charitable and merciful. Frankly, my question for Roi, is equally valid for myself, and other Jewish intellectuals as well, me thinks....good seeing you this week.    

Taloosh, thank you for the kind words.  I appreciate it, especially form someone who disagrees with what I said.

Now to your point.  In your above comment you ask:  "Would you have used the same arguments and come to the very same conclusion, had this been an Israeli actor saying that Baruch Goldstein was essentially a good person, and the condemnation came from a Palestinian organization? Would you not say that it's an abominable comment, and that you have lost the desire to watch any his movies?"

You are correct - if someone said that Baruch Goldstein was a good person  I would be all over them. However, as I state in the article, Will Smith NEVER said Hitler was good, only that he thought himself to be doing good.  If the Israeli actor would have said that Goldstein thought he was doing good, I would have no problems with his comments.  This is a very important distinction, one that I think you missed.   

He said not that Hitler did the right thing but that he thought he was doing the right thing as directed by G-D. He should know better than to comment on such a "touchy" subject, because if he was smart he would foresee the reaction to the statement. The reaction to his statements is perhaps a little over the top.

I say that "religious fervour'' has a lot to answer for....G-D's will has been used as an excuse for a great many atrocities in this world.

Would it had been a big deal if he had said the same thing about Mao, Lenin, or Stalin? Hell, Mao alone killed more people than Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler combined.

"Which I suppose all goes back to the question

of how one tells right from wrong. "

Yes, it does.

Which is what the a biblical proverb says:

From proverb 21 #2

"Every way of a man is right in his own eyes; but the LORD weigheth the hearts."

Which is probably what Will meant to say. Hejust didn't know it.

You are correct - if someone said that Baruch Goldstein was a good person  I would be all over them. However, as I state in the article, Will Smith NEVER said Hitler was good, only that he thought himself to be doing good.  If the Israeli actor would have said that Goldstein thought he was doing good, I would have no problems with his comments.  This is a very important distinction, one that I think you missed.   

 -----------

 Clearly this is an  example of the 'dumbing down' of the Jewish people.

כָּל-דֶּרֶךְ-אִישׁ, יָשָׁר בְּעֵינָיו;    וְתֹכֵן לִבּוֹת יְהוָה.

I browsed the internet and the number of peoples shortcutting the comment:

"Hitler perceived himself as a good person ("in his own twisted logics", this bit must be added because it shows that, save Smith considers he  has twisted logics himself, that Smith does not share the same twisted logics) into "Hitler was a good person" is simply scary.

 I do not know if it is because people want to discuss and need to fuel a discussion with anything possible but how can a mere report of someone else' perception/thought can be considered as being the expression of the personal views of the reporter? It is beyond me.

People are trained though. Reporting someone'else views, opinions... is done on a daily basis. When a news anchor man reports "the president says/thinks that rising more taxes is the way to go", how many people conclude that the anchorman tells that rising more taxes is the way to go?

It scares because in Hitler's case, implicity, it means that what Hitler thought should/could have been the norm of everyone else' s way of thinking. Very scary.

In Smith's case, the question should be: does Smith have ground to report that Hilter perceived himself as a good person? Since Smith did not express a personal opinion but reported about somebody else's opinion.

<i>About the double standards</i>

There is indeed double standards going on but certainly not the ones indicted.

So the analysis starts with "what if the slaves owners were spoken as good persons at heart? What a fuss in this case!"

The analysis failed with the hypothesis that slaves owners are not laudated in the US as good persons when they are, this nearly on a daily basis.

Slaves owners were only the tip of the iceberg and the majority of the US population condoned the racial slavery institution.

In these times of election, how many  speechs containing the idea that the people who built this country were good people  at heart are going to be written? A lot.

How many people with official responsibility, influential positions tell that they are proud of the people who drove the country onwards? Many.

How many people think, say and write that the founding fathers were good persons?Many.

Here, it is not about telling something like "slave owners thought they were good persons.

People condoning the racial slavery institution thought they were good persons"

It is about telling "Slaves owners were good persons. People condoning the racial slavery institution were good persons"

The double standards show.

A guy who reported about someone else's perception("Hitler thought himself as a good person") is brought to clarify his point but people who express on a daily basis personal opinions like ("Slaves owners were good persons") create minimal fuss.

get real man,u live in bad days. the man was honest and true. grow up hitler was real and if he stoped in 38 he would of been a great leader.

Anonymous (01/04/08 6:30 pm), wrote “Imagine what the media
reaction would be if say Don Imus or Michael Richards were to say that all
slave owners were good people at heart. One can only imagine what kind of
firestorm would ensue.”

But this is what has been said (by whites and blacks) about George
Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

Anonymous (12/28/07 2:52 am) wrote “If this Jewish
organization would have been around during the 1940's in Germany the
Holocaust wouldn't have happenned.”

There were Jews that did get revenge from the Germans. John
Sack wrote about in a book called An Eye for an Eye. Learn more about here http://www.johnsack.com/an_eye_for_an_eye.htm
(This website should be viewed in Internet Explorer )