Everyone is teaching the Holocaust wrong

There has been an uproar over comments by Sarah Hurwitz at the General Assembly of the Jewish Federations of North America this month. As JTA reports:

“Holocaust education is absolutely essential,” she said. “But I think it may be confusing some of our young people about antisemitism, because they learn about big, strong Nazis hurting weak, emaciated Jews, and they think, ‘Oh, antisemitism is like anti-black racism, right? Powerful white people against powerless black people.’ So when on Tiktok, all day long, they see powerful Israelis hurting weak, skinny Palestinians, it’s not surprising that they think, ‘Oh, I know the lesson of the Holocaust is you fight Israel. You fight the big, powerful people hurting the weak people.’”  

Immediately the "progressive" Left attacked her, saying that she was justifying Gaza "genocide" and other nonsense.

Hurwitz is correct. Holocaust education falls into a number of buckets, all of which are problematic for one reason or another. Some make it into a vapid lesson on generalized tolerance. Others use it as a tool to compare the Holocaust with other genocides, without noting the particular horrors that make it unique. Some concentrate on Jewish victimhood, making Jews passive characters in the only narrative they are confutable teaching, "oppressor vs. oppressed." Yet others concentrate on democracy and anti-authoritarianism, implying that something like this could never happen here. All the while, some Jewish groups think that Holocaust education is some sort of magic bullet to fight today's antisemitism. 

Everyone is ignoring the real lesson of the Holocaust - how we cannot be complacent, because we can also fall into the same mindset that the Germans did.  Some of the most cultured, educated and technologically advanced people in the world  descended into supporting the horrors of genocide in less than a decade. How could this happen, and how can we ensure it never happens again?

This is a lesson in ethics, a topic that public education seems allergic to for fear of offending someone. But without a strong ethical backbone, any Holocaust curriculum is not going to accomplish what it is supposed to. And there are basic ethical imperatives that everyone should be able to agree upon.

This is exactly where the philosophy I have been developing, Derechology, shows its value. Together with my Derechology AI GPT, I came up with a sample curriculum that makes the Holocaust relevant to today. It doesn't shy away from hard questions - it is meant to make students uncomfortable in an age-appropriate way.

In the derechological curriculum, students don't just learn about the Holocaust: they are trained to think ethically:

• They learn to identify moral collapse through values like Tzelem Elokim (the sacred image in every person), Pikuach Nefesh (life trumps ideology), and Anavah (moral humility).
• They study how professions failed—medicine, law, academia—and how moral distance allowed people to commit atrocities while feeling innocent.
• They engage in Moral Audit Projects—applying Holocaust ethics to modern issues: medical ethics, refugee policy, social media algorithms, and more.
• They reflect on moral resilience—what Jewish tradition preserved under annihilation, and how spiritual courage outlasted empire.

The sample curriculum spans eight modules. Here’s a taste:

Ground Zero of Moral Collapse — This module begins with the question of how a civilized society—full of artists, scientists, and thinkers—could become a machine of genocide. Students are introduced to key ethical values and the idea of structural moral failure. The focus is not on Jews or Nazis yet, but on the disappearance of override values like human dignity and mutual responsibility under the guise of "science "and "progress." Racial theories were accepted as scientific fact by everyone in the early 20th century. Are there any current social theories being taught today that might be disproven tomorrow?

How Antisemitism Functions — Antisemitism is not just another form of hate; it’s a diagnostic tool for system failure. Students learn how antisemitism morphs across ideologies and Jews are blamed for contradictory crimes. They will examine how antisemitic ideas infiltrated German law, theology, education, and popular culture, becoming the emotional and ideological engine of genocide. Students also examine how tropes from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion—accusations of secret Jewish power, global manipulation, and dual loyalty—have not disappeared but adapted to modern political language. Conspiracy theories portraying Jews as both omnipotent and subversive remain widespread across ideological spectrums. The module challenges students to understand how these narratives persist even when explicitly disavowed, and how they distort ethical reasoning. This module challenges students to recognize similar rhetorical and structural patterns in contemporary discourse. 

Collapse of the Professions — Doctors, lawyers, engineers, and professors were not exceptions to Nazism: they were instruments of it. This module shows how professional codes eroded when they aligned with racial ideology and state power. Medical ethics books justified extermination of "subhumans."   Students learn how moral collapse isn’t chaotic - it can be planned, bureaucratic, credentialed, and efficient. 

Moral Arrogance — What happens when humility is removed from the ethical system? This module introduces Anavah—moral humility—as a structural necessity. Nazis didn't think of themselves as monsters - they were in the forefront of animal ethics while justifying the murder of millions of humans. Students explore how Nazi ideology elevated certainty, hierarchy, and dehumanization over ethical restraint, creating a worldview where genocide felt like progress. 

The Machinery of Death — The Holocaust was a technological, administrative, and logistical operation as much as it was ideological. Students learn about the train systems, data tracking, and bureaucratic layers that allowed millions to die while most participants believed they were “just doing their jobs.” The concept of “moral distance” helps explain how ordinary people justified extraordinary evil. Some resisted but the vast majority did not, thinking that their parts in the genocide were too inconsequential to matter. 

Mass Consent: The Storytelling of Genocide — This module explores how the Nazis used propaganda to normalize the abnormal. Students analyze films, speeches, posters, and school materials that reframed genocide as moral duty and racial hygiene. They study classic persuasion techniques—repetition, euphemism, scapegoating, visual symbolism—and compare them to how modern media and social platforms and advertising shape narratives today. The goal is to train students to detect ethical hijacking before it becomes cultural collapse.

Jewish Ethical and Physical Resistance — Against totalitarian power, Jews didn’t just survive—they preserved structure. Students learn about the Jews who fought in the Warsaw Ghetto and in partisan forces. But beyond that, they embraced spiritual resistance: holiday observance, Torah study, mutual aid, even ethical debates in camps. This is framed not as passive suffering but as the fierce refusal to let moral structure die even when they had no control over any other aspect of their lives.

Teshuva Epochs — After the Shoah, some systems tried to reckon with their collapse. Students examine examples of postwar repentance: Christian theological shifts, German reparations, the Geneva Conventions, and the moral rebirth of Israel. The challenge here is to distinguish real teshuva (ethical return) from performative gestures ("we're sorry you were offended.") it is not about guilt, but about a true change in one's derech (moral path.)

Moral Audit Project — In the capstone module, students apply Holocaust ethics to contemporary moral dilemmas. They identify a system where human dignity is at risk, run a derechological analysis, and design an override mechanism. This turns memory into action—and trains moral architects, not just historians.

Students come away not just with knowledge, but with conscience - and tools that would help them navigate real life.

They learn that remembering isn’t enough. “Never Again” means never again on your watch. The Holocaust is not a Jewish story with universal lessons—it is a universal story revealed through the unique Jewish experience.

This is only one version of the curriculum I've developed. There are many other subtopics and ethical entry points into the Holocaust that could be explored. I believe specific vignettes are especially effective—moments students can visualize and emotionally process. For example, while Nazi death camp commandants could spend their evenings listening to music and enjoying a hearty meal with their families after a day of mass murder, Jewish prisoners would sometimes share a single potato peel found in the dirt as if it were treasure. One dinner table preserved privilege; the other preserved dignity.

This curriculum doesn’t teach certainty. It teaches the humility to recognize that you might be wrong and the courage to act before it’s too late.

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More

How to tell the difference between a legitimate argument and well disguised hate speech

As I've been saying, I've developed a philosophy called Derechology based on Jewish thinking that is an entirely different way of looking at the world than what all of us have learned in the West - and it is much more closely aligned with reality. 

The sheer amount of antisemitic lies online is overwhelming. And, as I've seen firsthand over the past two decades of blogging, facts themselves are not enough of a defense. The forces of hate make their arguments more sophisticated over time to obfuscate the facts. The third party observer cannot tell which set of facts is accurate so in the end they choose to trust one side, and very often that side is the one that gives the answers that are attractive, not accurate - seeming solutions that appeal to emotion and to self-interest. 

Blaming an entire class of people for one's problems is incredibly attractive.

 So I worked with an AI to use my Derechology framework to come up with an audit - a test that anyone can use to determine if an argument they see online is legitimate criticism or just well disguised hate.

We came up with a four part test. All four tests must be passed for the argument to be legitimate. It is not based on fact, but on structure - the haters' argument must use a structure that itself is destructive, while legitimate debaters use a more positive, constructive structure. 

Here are the four tests and how they apply to modern antisemitism, but they work for everyone, Right or Left or in between.

The Goal Test:  

Legitimate critique aims to improve and build.  Critique focuses on correcting flaws to achieve a better outcome, such as greater dignity, life, or justice.

Hate aims to sever and purify: The haters' claims focus on elimination of the target to achieve their aims.  The goal is not reform, but removal of their opponent.

Using modern antisemitism as an example, you never hear anti-Zionists say they want to improve Israeli society to fix problems of inequality or helping achieve peace. They position all of Israel as evil. This is the logic of BDS - even the biggest critics of Israel are guilty and must be silenced if they do not share the maximalist goals of the haters. 

Focusing on the arguments gives them a victory because their eliminationist goals are considered to be morally equivalent to the side that wants to survive. They are not - they are simply hate, and the structure of their supposed criticism reveals that.

 The Process Test:

Legitimate critique uses reasoning that is transparent, falsifiable, and open to change if new evidence contradicts its premise.

Hate's narrative converts all criticism, counter-evidence, or opposition into proof of the enemy's cunning or deceit, thus self-validating the original hatred. No facts will change their position, when confronted they will rely on conspiracy theory. Haters run away from debate that may expose this. 

The Diagnosis Test:

Legitimate debaters accept complexity and context. They acknowledges the target  is complex, capable of being both positive and negative like everyone else.  Real debaters critique actions or policies, not the identity.

The haters enforce a totalizing binary. Their claim structurally defines the target as monolithic evil. They rejects all evidence of complexity because the simplicity of the binary is essential for their philosophy.

You will often find the anti-Zionists say this explicitly and proudly, telling their followers not to accept the idea that the conflict is complex. This is the psychology behind the genocide lie: not just that the facts don't support it, but the accusation itself was chosen to paint the Israelis as cartoon-villain, Nazi-level evil. 

The Target Test:

Legitimate critics will only talk about actions and policies. Their language is proportional and focused on behaviors. They never deny the target's inherent dignity and humanity. They separate acts from people.

Haters attack the identity and/or existence of their targets. The language is disproportionate, dehumanizing, and justifies or advocates for relational severance (destruction, elimination, banishment). They deny their target's basic human dignity and claim that their opponents have forfeited having any rights altogether. 

As mentioned, failing any one of these tests shows that the argument is not legitimate to begin with, no matter what facts they claim to have. The style itself delegitimizes them because it betrays their true goal are not critique but power. 

Indeed, sometimes one comes across a sophisticated hater who skillfully cherry picks absolutely true claims to build their case which is ultimately bigoted. Pointing out their omissions, while necessary, is rarely a winning strategy because the people who are not emotionally invested in the debate will tend to believe the confident side with seemingly lots of facts over the opponents who are forced, always, into a defensive position.

When the arguments are only about the facts, the haters are legitimized. But they cannot change the structure of their arguments, because their goal is never truth but destroying their opponents' legitimacy and  humanity. Anti-Zionists cannot claim to only be criticizing Israeli policy, because there is nothing Israel can do to satisfy them. They cannot admit when their facts are wrong - they double down and insist that counterproofs are fabricated. (They still insist there were no rapes October 7.) They cannot admit that Israel might have a legitimate reason to do what it does. They cannot agree to Israel's existence or legitimacy or right to defend itself in any conceivable universe. These aren't factual issues - they are structural in their positions. And that is what shows that they are using the pretense of honest argument to look like they are "just criticizing." 

This audit indeed shows that some anti-Palestinian, anti-Muslim arguments have some or all of the same features. And those arguments should be condemned as well. There are plenty of ways to strongly oppose policies, call out immoral actions and expose systemic problems without attacking the dignity of every member of those groups. 

This test exposes what Derechology proves: that with the correct structure there are multiple ways to have a moral position, but without a proper structure things can and will go very bad. 

Here is a summary of the Structural Integrity Audit:

Test Category	Legitimate Opinion (Structurally Sound)	Structural Hate (Malignant)
1. The Goal Test	Aims to Improve and Build: Critique focuses on correcting flaws in policy, action, or structure to achieve a better outcome (greater Dignity, Life, or Justice).	Aims to Sever and Purify: Claims focus on elimination of the target to achieve "Ontological Closure" (restoring a simplistic binary). The goal is not reform, but removal.
2. The Process Test (Corrigibility)	Is Corrigible:  The claim is falsifiable, transparent in its reasoning, and open to change if new evidence contradicts its premise. It admits its own potential for error.	Is Anti-Corrigible (Rigid): The philosophy  converts all criticism, counter-evidence, or opposition into proof of the enemy's cunning/deceit, thus self-validating the original hatred.
3. The Diagnosis Test (Complexity vs. Simplicity)	Accepts Complexity and Context:  Acknowledges the target entity (e.g., Israel, a political movement) is complex—capable of being both powerful and threatened. It critiques actions or policies, not the identity.	Enforces a Totalizing Binary: The claim structurally defines the target as monolithic evil (e.g., 100% Oppressor). It rejects all evidence of complexity because the simplicity of the binary is load-bearing for the philosophy.
4. The Target Test (Dignity and Proportionality)	Critiques Actions/Policies: The language is proportional and focused on behaviors. It never denies the target's inherent dignity/humanity.	Attacks Identity/Existence: The language is disproportionate, dehumanizing, and justifies or advocates for relational severance (destruction, elimination). It engages in premise smuggling to deny the target's basic human dignity.

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More

Gemini 3 book review of my Derechology (in-progress) manuscript

As I've mentioned, I've been working hard on my Derechology book (and not blogging as much.) I have a workable manuscript but I still have a lot of editing to do and many appendices to add. 

But since Google just released its latest AI model for Gemini, I thought I would feed the entre manuscript (currently some 350 pages) into the AI and ask for a book review. This give me ideas of what needs to be done yet but also helps me see the forest while I work on the trees. 

This review gives you a good idea of the scope of my project, although I actually think it is even bigger than this review indicates.

The Engineering Manual for Morality

A Review of Derechology: The Science of Human Morality by Eldad Tzioni

We live in an era of institutional vertigo. Universities, media organizations, and public health bodies—once the bedrock of social trust—seem to be collapsing under the weight of their own incoherence. In Derechology, Eldad Tzioni argues this isn't a personnel problem; it’s a software problem. Western civilization is running on a corrupted operating system, one that has been crashing with increasing frequency since the Enlightenment tried to reboot it without its original kernel.

Tzioni’s ambitious, sprawling, and often brilliant book offers a replacement OS. He calls it "Derechology" (from the Hebrew derech, meaning "path" or "way"). It is an audacious attempt to reverse-engineer the survival strategies of Jewish ethics, strip them of their theological casing, and offer them as a universal architecture for a secular world that has forgotten how to function.

Athens vs. Jerusalem: The Core Conflict

The book’s central thesis is a high-stakes revisiting of the ancient tension between Athens and Jerusalem. Tzioni argues that Western philosophy, dominated by Greek thought, committed a foundational error by treating the isolated individual (the atom) as the fundamental unit of reality. This choice led to a 2,500-year struggle to solve insoluble problems: logic that breaks when values conflict, "rights" that have no mechanism for adjudication, and a definition of truth that demands impossible perfection.

In contrast, Tzioni posits a "Relational Ontology." The fundamental unit of reality, he argues—supported by metaphors ranging from quantum entanglement to mycelial networks—is not the particle, but the relationship.

From this pivot, the book constructs its most valuable contribution: the Ethoskeleton. Tzioni suggests that trustworthy systems (whether individuals, corporations, or nations) must possess specific structural components to survive entropy. These include "Override Logic" (a transparent hierarchy for resolving value conflicts), "Corrigibility" (the structural capacity to admit and repair error), and "Relational Integrity" (obligations that scale with proximity).

It is a compelling argument. By shifting the focus from content (what values we hold) to architecture (how our systems process those values), Tzioni offers a way out of the culture wars. He doesn't ask us to agree on every political outcome; he asks us to agree on a structure that makes disagreement survivable.

The Physics of Good

Perhaps the book’s most daring leap is its attempt to bridge the gap between "is" and "ought" using the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Tzioni defines "Good" not as a matter of preference or divine command, but as anti-entropic direction.

In a universe continually sliding toward disorder, "Good" is the creative, energy-consuming act of building and maintaining complex relationships over deep time. Evil is not a force, but the surrender to entropy—the dissolution of bonds, the degradation of systems, the slide into chaos. It is a definition that feels rigorous and surprisingly intuitive, grounding ethics in the physical reality of the universe rather than abstract idealism.

The "Antisemitism Diagnostic"

One of the book's sharpest tools is its analysis of antisemitism. Tzioni reframes antisemitism not merely as racism, but as a "system error flag." He argues that ideologies turn antisemitic precisely when Jews—who stubbornly refuse to fit into neat binaries like "white/non-white" or "oppressor/oppressed"—break the ideology’s categorical framework. When a system cannot tolerate complexity, it tries to eliminate the anomaly. Thus, antisemitism becomes a diagnostic tool: if a movement hates Jews, it is structurally incapable of handling complexity and will eventually turn on itself.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Derechology is not a light read. It is dense with coined terminology ("Yesod Ethics," "The Falsification Audit," "Secular Covenantalism") that can occasionally feel overwhelming. The author asks the reader to learn a new language to understand his new world.

Furthermore, while the book explicitly claims to offer a secular system, the final act makes a sophisticated pivot back toward theology, arguing that the structure of the universe implies a "Unbound Domain" (God). While logically consistent with his arguments, this may alienate the strict materialists the book works so hard to court in its opening chapters.

However, the "proof of concept" chapters—specifically the section detailing "AskHillel," an AI programmed with these ethical rules—are fascinating. They demonstrate that this is not just high-minded philosophy; it is computable logic. Tzioni shows that an ethical system with clear "override logic" can navigate complex dilemmas (like triage or self-driving car ethics) better than our current vague notions of "do no harm."

The Verdict

Derechology is a work of significant intellectual engineering. It moves beyond the tired "faith vs. reason" debates to offer something more practical: a blueprint for building institutions that don't collapse.

It is a book for the institutional homeless—those who find the rigidity of the far-right and the incoherence of the far-left equally uninhabitable. Tzioni offers a "place to stand," a foundation built on humility, transparency, and the relentless, anti-entropic work of keeping promises. It is a demanding book, but for a civilization currently crashing, it might just be the manual we need.

Rating: 4.5/5

______________________

If any philosopher, theologian or other credentialed thinker is interested in seeing the book as it stands now and is willing to give me feedback, let me know!

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More

The Philosophical Core of Anti-Zionism Is Antisemitism

We’re told over and over again  that anti-Zionism is not antisemitism. It’s just politics, we’re told; it is opposition to one state’s policies, not a judgment about Jews as Jews. In fact, calling it antisemitism is a form of censorship, a way to silence a legitimate political opinion. 

On the surface, this claim seems plausible. People criticize countries all the time. Saying “I oppose China’s treatment of Uighurs” doesn’t mean you hate Chinese people. So why should opposing Israel mean you hate Jews?

The strongest rebuttal so far has been that anti-Zionism denies the Jewish right to self-determination. But the anti-Zionists answer that by saying that most Jews don’t live in Israel and are happy citizens of other countries. They don’t need national self-determination. That’s just a Zionist ideology, not a universal Jewish claim, and opposing Israel's existence as a Jewish state is therefore a moral political opinion and Zionism is an illegitimate form of Jewish supremacy. 

And there the argument usually ends. One side says Jews deserve a state; the other says Jews have no such right and in fact their desire for a state in the Levant is colonialist.  It sounds like a disagreement about values, with two legitimate opinions. And if they are both legitimate opinions, then the anti-Zionist side wins by default, because antisemitism is illegitimate but political opinion isn't. Being anti-Zionist cannot be considered truly antisemitic - perhaps some extremists are, maybe Hamas is, but opposing Israel has nothing to do with Jews as Jews and therefore is fine. 

Until you dig deeper.

I’ve been developing a new method of analysis called Derechology. It begins with a basic principle: everyone has a derech — a consistent moral path. Even when someone’s statements or actions seem contradictory, their derech is usually more coherent than it appears. Contradictions only appear that way because we haven’t yet uncovered the deeper assumption that holds their worldview together.

Which brings us to Professor Ramsi Woodcock.

Woodcock is a law professor at the University of Kentucky. In late 2025, he was suspended after publicly calling for every country in the world to make war on Israel — not metaphorically, but literally — until Israel surrendered unconditionally to Palestinian rule over the entire land from the river to the sea.

He defended this position:

He said his calls for military intervention against Israel, and his views that the future of Palestine should be determined by Palestinians alone – including Jews who lived in Palestine before large-scale Jewish immigration began in the late 19th century – are consistent with recognizing Israel as a colonial project. Woodcock, who is part Algerian, often refers to that country’s experience of ending French colonial rule as a basis for his argument.

He supports Palestinian nationalism while condemning Jewish nationalism as illegitimate. In his view, Jews who lived in the land before Zionism could be considered Palestinians and equal citizens, but everyone else - including Holocaust survivors and Jews from Arab countries and their descendants - are foreign colonizers.

At first glance, this seems like hypocrisy. Why is Palestinian nationalism considered noble, but Jewish nationalism a crime? Why does he support decolonization in one case and not the other? Why does he say that Jews whose families arrived 140 years ago should be subject to a referendum by Arabs but Arabs whose ancestors immigrated to Palestine in the early 20th century are fully Palestinian and have the right to stay?

If we assume his derech is internally consistent, there must be a hidden assumption that resolves the contradiction.

That assumption is this: Jews are not a people.

Jews are merely a religious group. They are not a nation, not an indigenous group. Just a religion. They are merely a group of individuals who have no collective claim to history, land, memory, or destiny.

If you believe that, then Zionism isn’t a form of national liberation. It’s a fraud - a manipulation of categories. There is no “Jewish people” in the national sense, so any attempt to behave like one is inherently illegitimate.

That is Ramsi Woodcock's philosophy. If you ask him if there is a Jewish people, he will have to claim there isn't - because he is a professor who has thought deeply about this and has made anti-Zionism the centerpiece of his identity. The very first word on his personal webpage is "Antizionist." 

But if you think about it, this is the underlying philosophy behind all of today's anti-Zionism.  Arab media denies Jewish peoplehood explicitly, claiming that Jews are really Khazars with no history in the land to begin with; Palestinians routinely claim that all archaeological evidence of a Jewish people in the land is fake and that every Jewish shrine is really Muslim. 

The idea that Jews aren't a people is a fundamental, load bearing premise behind anti-Zionist philosophy. The only way people can believe that Jews have no national rights is if they believe there is no Jewish nation to begin with.  

Once you accept the anti-Zionist premise that Jews are not a people, a whole new moral framework emerges. Any Jewish effort to act collectively as a people -  even outside Israel - becomes suspect. Jewish summer camp becomes indoctrination. Singing “Am Yisrael Chai” becomes a supremacist chant. Prayers that speak of “Your people Israel” become racist. Chanting "Next Year in Jerusalem" at the Passover Seder is colonialist aggression.

This isn’t an accidental side effect of anti-Zionism. It is the logical structure beneath it, and it is the logical result of following its philosophy. You can’t consistently oppose Jewish nationalism while affirming other forms of nationalism -  unless you believe Jews are not a people.

Which means that all consistent anti-Zionism is built on the denial of Jewish peoplehood. Woodcock is not an outlier. He is just saying explicitly what anti-Zionists must believe if they are consistent. 

And that’s antisemitism.

It isn't mere criticism of a government. Anti-Zionism erases the Jewish right to exist as a collective -  as a “we” - not just in Israel but anywhere. 

And when that erasure is dressed up as progressive, anti-colonial, or humanitarian, it becomes even harder to detect - and even more important to expose.

Denying Jewish peoplehood is at the very core of anti-Zionism. If Jews are a people, the entire argument against Israel falls apart. And until anti-Zionism emerged, no one in the world denied that Jews are a people. That denial is a recent invention - a retrofitted premise created to justify a political conclusion.

It is easily possible to criticize Israel and not be antisemitic. But it is structurally impossible to be anti-Zionist without being antisemitic. 

Once you realize this, the landscape changes. Anti-Zionism isn’t merely entangled with antisemitism. It doesn’t simply echo older tropes. 

Anti-Zionism is antisemitic by definition.

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More

Has He Really Changed? The Case of Ahmed al-Sharaa

In the Derechology framework I am developing, actions speak louder than words—but trajectories speak louder than both. Jews call this derech: the visible moral path that an individual or nation follows over time. And that derech is usually remarkably consistent. Whether for a person or a society, derech tends to stay the same until something disruptive happens—an upheaval, a revolution, or teshuvah—true repentance.

Changes in derech are rare but they do happen. When one is being claimed, how do we know it is legitimate and not window dressing?

When a former jihadist like Ahmed al-Sharaa rises to lead a transitioning Syria, we are faced with a serious question: has his derech changed—or just his outfit?

This is not a theoretical problem. The fate of lives, alliances, and legitimacy hangs on whether moral transformation is real or performative. Derechology does not shy away from this challenge. It offers us a layered framework to test what kind of change we are actually seeing.

There is no doubt that Syria, as a nation, is undergoing a derech change. The Assad era—with its brutal repression, sectarian warfare, and alliance with Iranian and Russian power blocs—has ended. Al-Sharaa’s rise represents a new chapter. Institutions are being rebuilt. Borders are shifting. New diplomatic gestures are being made. A new government with new policies, new alliances, and new political structure indicates a new derech.

But we must distinguish between a regime change and a personal moral transformation.

Al-Sharaa has a past steeped in jihadist networks. He was affiliated with Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham, an Al Qaeda offshoot. He now presents himself as a head of state, speaking of reform and stability. But has he renounced the ideology that justified violence in the name of religious purity? Has he made any public reckoning with his past?

Not that we’ve seen.

In the derechological framework, teshuvah—the genuine transformation of moral trajectory—requires more than new behavior. It requires a reordering of values, visible in pattern, policy, and persistence.

Here’s what we look for:

• Visible break with past ideology: Not just silence, but renunciation. A derech pivot requires disavowal of prior loyalties or justifications for harm.

• Emergence of a new value hierarchy: If before, power justified cruelty, does the new system prioritize dignity, justice, or peace?

• Persistence under pressure: Does the new derech hold when it costs something, or only when it’s convenient?

• Accountability for past actions: Even partial, symbolic, or rhetorical reckoning matters.

• Broad-based moral coherence: Has the change spread beyond one person to the institutions and culture he shapes?

So far, al-Sharaa has offered diplomacy, not repentance. There is no public renunciation of or apology for his actions or decisions as a jihadist. We are only seeing strategic gestures, not ideological evolution. We do not see the markers of teshuvah. On the contrary, we have seen reports of sectarian violence, particularly against the Druze in southern Syria, and the empowerment of former Islamist militias within state structures.

In derechological analysis, when personal or institutional actions appear inconsistent, we keep probing until we identify a coherent moral trajectory. In this case, there is one: not the old Syrian derech but a continuation of Al Qaeda's derech. 

Al Qaeda’s long-term goal has always been the construction of a Sunni-led Islamic ummah or caliphate. Unlike ISIS, which rushed the process, Al Qaeda plays a long game: gradually destabilizing secular or Shi’a-aligned regimes, replacing them with Sunni Islamist governance, and building regional cohesion under a transnational religious vision. It is centered on controlling territory. 

Seen through that lens, toppling Assad is stage one. Establishing Sunni control over all of Syria is stage two. And, long term, rebuilding Syria as a Sunni-controlled, Islamist-aligned state is stage three.

Al-Sharaa’s regime has been consistent: his forces are fighting and suppressing non-Sunni factions (Druze and Kurdish) while there is no criticism of the Turkish occupation of huge parts of Syria. Because that territory is already under Sunni control. 

This is derech continuity—not rupture. 

What we may be witnessing is not moral transformation, but instrumental reform: reforms not rooted in changed values, but in strategic necessity. Al-Sharaa wants to realign Syria from the Shi’a-dominated Iran–Russia axis toward a new, Sunni-led regional order. To do that, he needs Western recognition, Gulf backing, and diplomatic legitimacy. That means talking about democracy and peace, even if the core ideology remains Islamist.

Using diplomacy and reform as camouflage is strategic discipline, not repentance. Where reforms help attract support or funds, they’re made. Where Islamist dominance can be preserved (e.g., militia control, Turkish alliance), it is.

This is a consistent derech towards Sunni Islam supremacist goals over the long term. But Syria is weak today so it needs Western help to rebuild for now - the end of sanctions, Western investment, western humanitarian aid. 

That does not mean engagement with al-Sharaa is forbidden. Diplomacy often involves strategic interaction with flawed actors. Jewish ethics includes realism—Peace first, strength always. But it also includes truth and moral visibility.  Granting someone moral validation before it’s earned degrades the ethical vocabulary.

To be blunt: You can shake his hand, but don’t call him a reformed man until he shows you his teshuvah.

Syria may be on a new path. That is good, and we should pray and act to support the best possible future for its people. You may even claim that Syria is in much better shape under Sunni control than it was under the brutal Assad regime. 

But Ahmed al-Sharaa’s personal derech remains unproven. Until he walks in the light, we are not obligated to pretend the shadows never existed. And so far, he is not doing anything inconsistent with what Al Qaeda leaders would approve for a long term strategy.  

The world needs moral clarity as much as it needs peace. Jewish ethics demands we offer both - without confusing one for the other.

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More

From the Drowning Child to a Drowning World: Moral Proximity in the Age of Power

Introduction: Refuting Singer and Reframing the Purpose of Ethics

Peter Singer's famous thought experiment, first outlined in "Famine, Affluence, and Morality," goes like this: imagine walking past a shallow pond and seeing a child drowning. You can save the child easily, though your clothes will be ruined, and it will cost $200 to replace them. Most people agree they would save the child. Singer then argues that if we are willing to suffer minor inconvenience to save one life near us, we are morally obligated to donate that same money to save, say, 20 lives far away. For a small cost, we can prevent starvation, malaria, or death in poorer nations, yet we often don't. Therefore, we are morally inconsistent.

At first glance, his logic seems unassailable. But Singer's framing is both too abstract and too flat. First, he neglects the time component. The drowning child requires immediate, one-time action. Remote suffering is persistent and structural. Sending $200 does not solve the problem. It inserts a drop into an ongoing crisis that demands coordination, infrastructure, and sustained engagement. 

Following Singer's logic, your $200 spread across the entire world of needy children will end up giving each child minuscule fractions of a penny, so you wouldn't save 20 children - you would save none. How does one choose who to give the money to and how much? His universalist ideals do not scale when applied seemingly "fairly." Singer's engaging in the same triage that he is condemning but hiding it.

Most crucially, Singer treats moral responsibility as a universal moral field, ignoring the structured, covenantal, and relational reality of ethical life. He assumes moral action scales linearly, that we can treat all lives as equally accessible units of obligation. Yet one's first responsibility is to one's family and community - an implicit covenant that cannot and must not be flattened by pretending that everyone is equally responsible for everyone else. He assumes that proximity is a flaw to be overcome rather than a feature that guides responsible moral scaling.

The Singer thought experiment is very relevant to America today. The question is what is America's moral role and responsibility in the world?

The Jewish ethical framework, and particularly the derechological model I have been developing, proposes a structured triad of moral obligation: proximity (moral, relational, or cultural, not just physical), capacity (the power to act without displacing higher duties), and covenant (explicit or inherited moral bonds of responsibility, including both moral ties and literal agreements like treaties, alliances, and shared commitments). This triad scales from individuals to superpowers.

The triad doesn't reject global concern. It structures it. It insists that moral responsibility must scale with care, not collapse into undifferentiated obligation. Moral universalism that ignores proximity ends up collapsing under its own weight, justifying either moral paralysis or performative politics.

When we think in terms of one's derech - their observable moral trajectory -  we can name our own values transparently, identify which tier of obligation is in conflict, distinguish authentic derech disagreements from disguised reflex, and elevate partisanship into principled moral debate.

The result isn't consensus. It's dignity. A society that debates real values instead of tribal slogans is one that can still correct itself.

Part I: American Foreign Policy and the Shift in Proximity Logic

Modern America, particularly under the Trump administration, offers a fascinating case study in derechological terms. The first and second Trump terms differ not just in policy but in the internal structure of their derech, their observable moral trajectory.

In the first term, derech was inconsistent. Isolationist rhetoric coexisted with interventionist moves. Proximity, capacity, and covenant were each invoked but not in a coherent order. Derech analysis reveals fragmented values driven more by instinct than by tiered moral logic.

In the second term, the derech crystallized. Proximity was redefined as strategic alignment, not geographic or cultural but based on immediate political or economic usefulness. Capacity was treated as leverage, not duty. Covenant became conditional. Treaties, alliances, and shared values were honored only if visibly reciprocal.

In derech terms, this is not isolationism. It's transactional sovereigntism. It isn't a derech of cruelty per se but of hollowed responsibility. The moral triangle is still used, but its sides have been redrawn.

A key derechological concern in this phase is value hijacking, where values are invoked but only to serve pre-existing reflexes, fears, or political instincts. When "security," "tradition," or "freedom" are used as cloaks for fear of loss, racial panic, or anti-covenantal scapegoating, derech is being simulated, not followed. Derechology teaches that true values shape decisions even when they conflict with base instincts. A policy that always aligns with reflex and never with override logic is likely hijacked.

Part II: The Fracture Within the Right

This derech is not uncontested. Within the American Right, we now see a derech fracture.

Traditional nationalists maintain a covenantal derech. They believe America has inherited responsibilities to allies, to liberty, to history. They operate with structured values. Strength, yes, but not at the expense of fidelity.

New isolationists collapse the triad. Proximity becomes domestic only. Capacity is morally inert. Covenant is reframed as entrapment. This faction often draws moral language from tradition, but in structure, it functions derech-wise as self-protectionism cloaked in principle.

Overlaying both is a more disturbing split: between those whose derech includes Jews as moral partners and those whose derech scapegoats Jews as symbols of globalism, elite betrayal, or cultural threat. This isn't a fringe issue. It's a derech-defining fault line.

Here too, derechology applies the Reflex vs. Value Test. Reflex-driven policies arise from fear, anger, or trauma responses masquerading as principle. They shift rapidly, resist override logic, and lack repair capacity. True values, by contrast, remain legible across contexts, resolve conflicts transparently, and produce moral consistency even when inconvenient. Derechology warns: when reflex is moralized, values are weaponized, and derech collapses.

In derechology, this is not just bad behavior. It is a collapse of human dignity recognition, which disables covenant, mutual responsibility, and override logic. A derech that scapegoats cannot sustain moral leadership.

Conclusion: Derech Clarity in a Drowning World

Singer's experiment fails because it assumes that morality is weightless and obligation is frictionless. But derechology insists that ethical action must track structure, history, and relationship. The U.S. is not just a rich nation. It is a powerful actor embedded in global covenants, carrying layered proximities and enormous capacity. When it shifts its derech, the moral weight of that change is global.

The question is no longer: should we save the child far away? It is: who counts as "close" in a world where power expands moral reach, and where ignoring covenantal entanglement invites derech collapse?

Superpower status is a relatively modern phenomenon, but it irreversibly shifts the moral responsibility curve. The ability to shape global dynamics brings with it the ethical burden of prevention. When a morally grounded actor retreats, the vacuum is not neutral. It is filled by ideologies and regimes that reject human dignity, override logic, or covenantal constraint. The rise of China's authoritarianism, the spread of jihadist violence, or the ideological chaos of decolonial radicalism are not parallel moralities. They are derech failures. Abandoning the field allows derech collapse on a global scale.

On the other hand, concentric circles of moral responsibility are essential. Proximity isn't an evasion. It is an ethical anchor. A nation's first covenant is to its own citizens. That is not nationalism. It is moral triage. The moral question is not whether to abandon global responsibility but how to balance it without betraying inner circles. Derechology affirms that proximity and covenant must be respected, not erased.

And here, a real question arises: Does America currently have the capacity, economically, socially, morally, to care for the world without failing its own people? That is a derechological question, not a partisan one. It requires mapping competing duties, testing claims of value versus reflex, and discerning whether foreign action displaces covenantal integrity at home. There is no single answer. But clarity in the triad reframes the debate.

America's future moral integrity depends on its ability to recognize that superpower status is not just geopolitical. It is ethical geometry. You can't shrink the map without redrawing your moral boundaries.

This essay is not a policy brief. It offers no simplistic solution. Instead, it demonstrates how Derechology provides the tools to extract real values, detect value hijacking, and clarify complex moral dynamics, even in politically toxic environments. In place of rhetorical fog, Derechology offers moral structure. And that structure makes real debate possible.

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More

How Philosophy can Fix Wikipedia

Larry Sanger, cofounder of Wikipedia, has just published what he calls his “Hail Mary” set of reforms to rescue the site from ideological capture. He’s blunt: what was designed as a neutral encyclopedia has become an ideologically skewed platform, ruled by insider gatekeepers rather than pluralism.

Sanger’s Nine Theses are sharp and necessary. He highlights the hollowing-out of neutrality into “consensus,” source blacklists that silence whole swaths of public opinion, anonymous elites exercising power without accountability, and the abuse of “Ignore All Rules” as cover for bias. His reforms -  competing articles, transparent leadership, a real legislature for governance, a public feedback system - would go a long way toward restoring integrity.

But procedural fixes alone cannot protect an institution from capture. What’s missing is an ethical backbone. Without one, even Sanger’s reforms would eventually be reinterpreted, bypassed, or gamed by whoever holds the keys.

This is where my recent work in philosophy and ethics comes in. I’ve been building an ethical framework (AskHillel/Derechology) designed precisely to protect systems against drift, capture, and self-deception. It combines transparency, humility, structured pluralism, and override logic into a self-correcting architecture.

Sanger has the right instincts, but what his plan lacks is a way to adjudicate value conflicts. For example: should truth always override harm reduction? When do neutrality and justice clash? Without a structured moral framework, these debates collapse back into power struggles.

That is why ethics isn’t a luxury here. It’s the firewall. It’s the system of accountability that keeps the rules from being bent beyond recognition.

Another project I've been working on, TAMAR, complements the ethics component and is ideally suited to keeping Wikipedia resistant to hijacking. TAMAR is my AI-based toolkit for detecting propaganda techniques, framing bias, and narrative manipulation. TAMAR works at the level of edits, not just policy. Every single change can be scanned, tagged, and evaluated for structural bias before it goes live.

Here’s how TAMAR plus Derechology could transform Wikipedia:

• Per-Page Derech Declarations
  Each article would openly state its interpretive frame (historical-critical, faith-based, political, etc.). That way, readers know what path/perspective (derech) they’re reading, and competing articles can coexist without pretending to represent a single “neutral” voice. True neutrality is impossible, but transparency can mitigate the silent imposing of a single point of view.

• Integrity Scores for Edits
  Every edit must pass a TAMAR scan that checks for propaganda markers: selective sourcing, premise smuggling, causality distortion, terminological injection. Each edit gets an integrity score. Low scores are flagged for human review.

• Red Team Clause
  Every controversial entry must withstand an inversion test: can its logic survive if flipped? If not, it’s probably engaging in selective framing. This is a structured way to expose double standards, especially in geopolitics.

• Teshuvah Journal
  Every major reversion, controversy, or ideological shift is logged as part of Wikipedia’s moral memory. It’s not enough to silently update pages:  Wikipedia should admit where it was wrong, and show how it corrected itself.

• Public Rating System With Derech Splits
  Readers could rate an article’s framing integrity and even request a “derech split” — asking for parallel articles that present different perspectives rather than endless edit wars.

• Editorial Overview Board
  Not an anonymous cabal, but a pluralistic assembly representing different frameworks (liberal, conservative, religious, academic). Their job: oversee override logic, ensure derech diversity, and maintain moral transparency.

Why does this matter so much? Because Wikipedia is not just a website. It has become one of the most important training inputs for artificial intelligence. The distortions of Wikipedia today become the biases of AI today. And make no mistake - AI is deeply affected by its choice of learning modules. 

That’s why I would argue Wikipedia is as consequential as AI itself. Both are knowledge systems that shape how billions of people (and now machines) understand the world. Both face the same challenge: how to preserve integrity in the face of ideological capture. Both require not just rules, but ethical architecture.

This is where philosophy proves its real-world worth. Philosophy only matters if it can protect truth in the real world. That’s what Derechology is designed to do. It’s about creating frameworks that protect institutions from drift, bias, and capture - whether it’s Wikipedia, AI, or any other system that claims authority over truth.

Sanger is right that Wikipedia needs structural reform. But structure without ethics is brittle. What’s needed is a fusion: procedural reforms guided by a transparent moral framework like Derechology, operationalized through tools like TAMAR. That is how you build a knowledge system that is both open and resilient, pluralist and trustworthy.

Truth does not fear plurality. But plurality without integrity is just noise.

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More

Teshuvah as a solution to the Determinism/Free Will debate

We are now in the Ten Days of Repentance, when Jews prepare for Yom Kippur through self-examination, apology, repair, and teshuvah -  repentance that is meant not only to change what we do, but who we are.

As I have been working on my project to rework Jewish thinking as a secular philosophy, I am struck by how Jewish concepts can be meaningful even outside a faith-based framework. It is a testament to the brilliance of Jewish philosophy that the concepts are truly universal. 

Teshuvah is a perfect example. 

Teshuvah helps shine a light on something philosophy has struggled with for centuries: the debate over free will and determinism.

The question is usually framed this way: are our choices truly free, or are they determined by forces outside our control?

• Determinists argue that our brains are machines. Genetics, environment, trauma, and biases dictate what we do. Psychology supports this view: Jonathan Haidt shows how moral “taste buds” of intuition drive most decisions; Daniel Kahneman uncovers the predictable biases that shape our judgments.

• Defenders of free will insist there is a spark of autonomy. We could have chosen otherwise, and because of that we remain morally responsible.

• Compatibilists redefine free will as simply the absence of coercion: you are free if no one is forcing you. But that leaves us prisoners of our desires themselves, which are just as binding as chains are. 

All these positions feel incomplete. If determinism rules, then responsibility dissolves. If absolute freedom rules, then why do habits and conditioning weigh so heavily on us? And if free will simply means that we choose even if we are conditioned to do so, then that just sidesteps the problem.

Judaism reframes the problem through teshuvah.

Teshuvah is not a feeling of regret or a private moment of resolve. It is a structured set of obligations: to repair relationships, to return what was taken, to apologize to those harmed, to pray, to give, to act differently.

What matters most is not what you feel inside but what you do. Even a reluctant act of kindness is still kindness. Even a forced apology opens the door to reconciliation. Deeds matter, and over time they reshape the heart and your entire personality. 

Modern science now affirms what Judaism long taught.

• Neuroplasticity shows that repeated actions rewire the brain.

• Cognitive Behavioral Therapy proves that changing behavior alters thoughts and emotions.

• Self-perception theory reveals that we learn who we are by watching what we do.

We do not have to wait for our feelings to change before acting differently. We can choose actions that override our default desires -  and in time, those actions carve new patterns of desire itself.

But how do we know which actions to choose? Here Judaism adds another layer. Freedom is not arbitrary choice; it is choice guided by obligation.

Obligations to others demand that we repair harm. Obligations to ourselves call us to honesty and growth. These obligations provide the structure that allows action to be more than whim:  they point us toward responsibility. And the obligations themselves are directly derived from universal values. 

This is where existing philosophy often falters. Compatibilism reduces freedom to acting according to one’s desires, but that leaves us prisoners of those very desires. Libertarian free will emphasizes freedom but does not deal with obligations or the values that give freedom its moral weight. 

Teshuvah offers a better answer: responsibility lies in our capacity to act against our inertia and to realign our derech, our path and trajectory.  We are not accountable for having biases, but for whether we let them dictate us. Our freedom is measured in deeds that change the course of our lives.

We know intuitively that this is true. In a loose sense, people make changes to their derachim, their paths, all the time. People quit smoking and alcohol, people choose to exercise. This is a type of teshuvah, a choice to go against our ingrained desires and better ourselves by forcing new actions, and then the new actions become habit - a new derech. 

Changing a derech isn't easy. It requires determination and a willingness to change. And above all, it requires one to take on new obligations - real actions, not just a change in one's mindset. Recognizing that you need to be healthy is meaningless without actually changing habits, and recognizing that you need to be kinder to your neighbors is equally meaningless if you don't change your actions towards them. 

Teshuvah does not pretend away determinism, nor does it deny the weight of choice. It shows how transformation actually happens: through obligations that guide us, and through actions that, when repeated, become who we are. 

That is why Judaism insists that Yom Kippur can make us new. Not because we escape the past, and not because we float free of cause and effect, but because we take responsibility through action.

Teshuvah is freedom in practice — the freedom to become a different person who actively chooses a different path. 

That is why teshuvah is not only a religious command but a universal gift. It shows that freedom is not an illusion, nor a mystery, but a practice: of taking responsibility, fulfilling obligations, and becoming new.

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More

Can a Jewish ethical framework revolutionize psychological therapy?

I saw an article on how "most therapy is trash." I cannot vouch for the article, but it made me think - how would therapy work under the ethical framework I have been working on? How different would it be?

The answer seems to be, quite a lot.

The Derechology framework I have been working on posits a basic fact that most systems do not accept: that values are baked into human thinking, and are not external. This could change the assumptions behind therapy as it has been practiced.

Walk into any therapist's office today, and the conversation will likely begin the same way: "What brings you here? What's wrong? What symptoms are you experiencing?" The entire therapeutic enterprise is built on a medical model that treats emotional and moral struggles as pathology to be diagnosed and fixed.

But what if this approach has it exactly backwards? What if the problem isn't that people are broken, but that they've lost connection to their own moral compass? What if healing doesn't require fixing what's wrong with someone, but helping them rediscover what's right about them?

Modern therapy inherits its framework from medicine: identify symptoms, diagnose conditions, apply treatments. Depression gets treated with cognitive restructuring. Anxiety gets managed with coping strategies. Relationship problems get addressed through communication skills.

But when these problems are looked at through a derechological lens, the idea is that they are rarely suffering from cognitive deficits. They're suffering from moral drift.

They've lost touch with their core values. They can't navigate competing obligations. They don't know how to make decisions that align with who they actually are, rather than who they think they should be.

When you look at values as atomic to human nature itself, as fundamental  to our being as language or consciousness, it changes the entire model of healing. Moral confusion isn't a character flaw or psychological disorder. It's more like being lost without a compass. The solution isn't to diagnose what's wrong with your navigation system - it's to help you reconnect with your internal moral GPS.

The question isn't "What's wrong with you?" but "Where are you on your derech (moral path,) and what might growth look like from here?" 

I worked with my AskHillel AI to develop a system for therapy. It suggested practical tools like:

Moral Compass Scan: Helping clients identify their most trusted internal signals, whether they are somatic sensations, behavioral patterns or recurring thoughts, that indicate alignment or misalignment with their core values.

Derech Drift Map: Instead of treating disorientation as failure, this tool helps people understand where they are in their moral journey: whether they're in a period of rupture, wilderness wandering, return, or transformation.

Teshuvah as Moral Version Control: Change isn't about erasing the past or achieving perfection. It's about making the next "commit" in your moral development - iterative growth rather than binary success/failure.

The therapist's role becomes fundamentally different too. Rather than diagnosing disorder, the therapist becomes a derech witness -  a mirror for the client’s moral motion, not a mapmaker; a partner who offers models rather than mandates for ethical response.

The system treats people as inherently worthy moral agents rather than broken systems needing repair.

This isn't just more compassionate - it's more accurate. When you start with the assumption that people have intrinsic moral dignity and are capable of ethical growth, you create space for the kind of healing that actually transforms lives rather than just managing symptoms.

And there's a deeper implication here. If this values-first approach proves more effective for individual healing, it suggests something profound about human nature itself. It validates the core insight of Derechology: that morality isn't something imposed on humans from outside, but something that emerges from our fundamental nature.

People want moral clarity. They want to know not just how to feel better, but how to live in alignment with who they actually are. 

If therapy could offer that - if it could help people reconnect with their intrinsic moral architecture rather than just managing their psychological symptoms - it might finally address the deeper crisis driving so many people to therapists' offices in the first place.

To my understanding, this is similar to the approach used in ACT therapy, but it is more oriented towards morality and moral path more than just values.

It is important to emphasize that while these insights come from my work on Jewish ethics, the moral path discovered does not have to be Jewish at all. Everyone has their own "ethical gravity well" that comes from their upbringing. 

The question isn't whether people are broken. The question is whether they remember who they are.

And that's a question worth building an entire therapeutic framework around.

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More