As I demonstrate at my seminars, when we get angry at people for doing things we don't like, we’re actually encouraging them to repeat those actions, because when we get angry at others, we make them win. They get so much fun driving us crazy and making us look like idiots that it’s impossible for us to get any respect. Furthermore, anger is what we feel towards an enemy, so when we get angry at people, we treat them like enemies. So how can we expect them to treat us like friends?

What do we Jews typically do when others criticize, insult, or blame us? We get angry! And that gives anti–Semites a great weapon to use against us. No matter how much power we may accumulate, no matter how intelligent or educated or talented we may be, they can easily defeat us by saying or writing things that we react to with anger and indignation. And since we’re treating them like enemies, they stay our enemies.

Step One

In combating anti–Semitism we have to stop getting angry when people express their views against us. We need to stop giving them the pleasure of enraging us and, perhaps more importantly, we need to stop treating everyone who expresses anti–Semitic sentiments as enemies. We say we’re against discrimination, but when we get angry at non–Jews for criticizing us, we’re discriminating against them. Jews can criticize Jews, but non–Jews can't? Are we not all brothers? And are any of us truly perfect? We Jews see each others' faults and we criticize one other. Jewish newspapers are full of criticism of Jews. If we can criticize ourselves, why can’t others criticize us, too? The idea that "We can criticize our own, but no one else can" is discriminatory and contrary to the Golden Rule. So is the idea that "They can't insult us for being Jews, but we can insult them for being anti–Semites."

Furthermore, we violate the Golden Rule when we get angry at verbal expressions of anti–Semitism. We believe it’s legitimate for us to express anger at other groups, but they have no right to be angry at us. Where does this double standard come from? It comes from the victim mentality. It’s the belief that since we’re victims, we’re automatically the good ones, so we’re allowed to be angry and vengeful toward our bullies. Our bullies are bad, so they’re not allowed to be angry and vengeful toward us. What brilliant moral reasoning!

Freedom of Speech

Freedom of Speech is the cornerstone of democracy, yet is so poorly understood even by citizens of democratic countries. For most people it is little more than a slogan. In my survey of four thousand mental health professionals and educators, virtually all of them answered, “Yes,” to an item asking if they support freedom of speech. Yet about half of them answered affirmatively to an item asking if they believe children should be punished for saying things that can hurt others’ feelings. I’m sorry to break the news to you, but the two don’t go together.

Freedom of Speech is possibly the single most important principle for getting rid of anger. It’s really the Constitutional version of the old "sticks and stones" adage. It recognizes the fundamental difference between physical and verbal aggression.

The results of physical aggression are objective: If you attack me physically and I get hurt, you’re the one who hurt me.

The results of verbal aggression are subjective: If you attack me with words , it’s up to me—not to you—if I feel hurt.

That's why the First Amendment protects us from being punished for verbally expressing ourselves. As long as the other person's words are not directly causing damage to our bodies or possessions, or preventing us from living or working where we choose, it’s not a crime. When we get angry at people, it’s because we believe they are violating our rights, e.g., “You have no right to talk to me that way!” When we realize that others do have the right “to talk to us that way”–it’s guaranteed by our Constitution­­–we’re less likely to get angry when people say things we don’t like. Jews need not worry that we will lose respect when we start handling criticism and insults without getting angry. On the contrary—we’ll be WINNERS and our respect will rise in the eyes of our detractors.

The Limits of Freedom of Speech

You’re not convinced? You’re resisting what I’ve said about Freedom of Speech, and you have a point. Freedom of Speech is not a simple concept to apply because words can, indeed, have very real and catastrophic results. I’m a great advocate of Freedom of Speech, but it has its limits.

Freedom of Speech applies where words have the potential of hurting people's feelings. It doesn’t apply to situations in which the words directly result in damage to bodies and possessions. Thus, it doesn’t cover the classic case of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. And it doesn’t cover threats of violence and incitement to violent. You can sue others in court for slander and libel (though these can be difficult to prove) because they can cause tangible damage to people's lives.

When Authority Speaks

Unfortunately, one area of speech that SHOULD be forbidden is largely being permitted (see 02/04 Newsletter on www.Bullies2Buddies.com): The words of authority figures have much greater power than those of ordinary people. When leaders tell people what to do, many go and do it. When leaders call for hatred and violence against other groups, they should be treated as committing acts of war.

There are numerous countries in the world in which government and/or religious leaders are currently preaching hatred and encouraging violence against Jews and others, particularly Americans. I believe the official policy of any country that calls itself a democracy should be to refuse to conduct business with countries whose leaders preach hatred.

We’re so concerned about fighting terrorism. Yet our government continues to foster friendly relationships with countries like Saudi Arabia that officially expresses anti–Semitic ideas and funds religious schools that teach hatred of both Jews and Americans. How can we have friendships with people who are creating the next generation of terrorists?

While I criticize the large Jewish defense establishment for unwittingly contributing to the perpetuation of anti–Semitism, I need to qualify my criticism: I have no objection to their efforts in combating official expressions of hatred for other groups. When government officials, state–controlled newspapers, and religious leaders call for violence, that IS violence, and they deserve to be fought as forcefully as if they were bombing us.

The double standard of the victim mentality also allows some unconscionable actions to take place within our own borders. We occasionally hear of minority leaders calling for hatred and violence against the majority. We let them get away with this criminal behavior because we don’t want to offend members of a “victimized” group. It is no more ethical for minority leaders to incite violence against the majority than the other way around.