There was a time when it was thought that everything pertaining to
our human character was determined in the brain. And then it was shown that
some of our behavioral traits were produced at a more fundamental level: that
of the gene itself.
This knowledge was acquired when the “selfish gene” was
discovered. It turned out to be responsible for keeping us out of trouble and
for motivating us to reproduce ourselves by conceiving as many offspring as we
can. And then it occurred to researchers that for the gene to succeed at
fulfilling those selfish goals, it must lack any kind of principle and must
also be cowardly –– among the collection of other traits (positive ones and
negative ones) that make each of us who we are.
When we look at the character of a number of individuals, we see
that they are different from one another. Despite this reality, however, we
notice that individuals of the same ethnic group exhibit some similarities
among themselves and that they differ from those of other ethnic groups. Put
together, these observations say that whereas the human character is determined
at the level of the gene, the culture of each group plays a role in giving the
behavior its final form.
And the way that the culture plays its role, is not by creating
something new, but by modulating what is already there: what the gene is
producing. That is, the culture encourages some traits produced by the gene while
suppressing some other traits. In addition, the experiences that each of us
goes through as we move on through life, adds another layer of modulation to
what the gene is producing. Thus, it can be said that whereas all humans are
the same at the genetic level, they differ at the superficial level, as determined
by the culture to which the individual belongs and the life experiences to
which he was subjected.
When a society is monolithic –– which means everybody adheres to
the same culture –– the only reason why someone may be shocked by the behavior
of another person, would be that each individual had gone through a different
life experience. Protected by a relatively high level of tolerance for such
differences, the encounters of this kind among individuals, usually result in
frictions of small significance.
On the other hand, severe frictions can result when the encounter
happens between individuals of different cultures. If friction does happen under
such circumstances, the reason will most likely be traced to the traits that
pertain to cowardice and lack of principles. Each individual will see himself
as perfectly normal, and see the other as deficient in those traits. Thus, each
will develop resentment and contempt for the other, believing that he is
cowardly and lacking in principles.
You can see an example of that in the article which came under the
title: “US should rethink Middle East policy to avoid war with Iran,” written
by Daniel DePetris and published on August 4, 2019 in The Washington Examiner.
What makes this article outstanding in its own right, is that the author is
known for his desire to see peace in the Middle East. In fact, on several
occasions, DePetris wrote criticism of the Israeli policies that had the
potential to drag the United States into a Middle East war, most notably with
Iran.
The difference this time is that Daniel DePetris was motivated by
the urgency of what he sees as a deteriorating situation. For this reason, he
wanted to write a strongly worded article. But he knew that an article
containing serious criticism of Israel, will not sit well with any of the
publishers that regularly use his work. Fearing that the article may not be
published, DePetris used Saudi Arabia as a punching bag hoping that the readers
will see through his trick and visualize Israel where he says Saudi Arabia.
In fact, Saudi Arabia will not lead America into a war with Iran
or anyone else. The truth is that Saudi Arabia has a hard time convincing the
Congress that its proxy war in Yemen is legitimate enough to be fought with
weapons bought and paid for from America. On the other hand, the prospect of
America getting involved in another Middle East war at the behest of Jews who
constantly plead for the protection of Israel, is made real day in and day out
by Jewish pundits and politicians in America, in Israel and in Europe.
And so, the latest article by Daniel DePetris in which he blasts
Saudi Arabia, accusing it of doing what Israel and the Jews are doing, without
mentioning Israel or the Jews, is a testament to the weakness of character
that's peculiar to the English-speaking cultures –– more specifically the
culture of North America.