When it comes to the social graces and to popular culture,
there seems to be two ways by which people learn and retain knowledge. Most
interesting is that the method by which learning is done is itself shaped by
the culture that spawned it. In turn, the culture is affected most profoundly
by the method of learning. Thus, culture and learning have a relationship that
goes in both directions, making the two a symbiotic sort of living organism
that has the ability to change with the passage of time.
Even though both methods are absorbed by osmosis, one may be
called linear because it depends very much on rote and very little on the
individual analyzing the lessons learned, even less on him adding value to what
he has learned. When the same circumstances present themselves, he responds in
the way that he saw others respond at the time that he was absorbing the social
graces and the culture of his society.
The other method of learning may be called holistic because
it depends very little on rote and very much on the individual analyzing the
lessons learned, by adding valued to them and by integrating the whole into a
single concept. When the same circumstances present themselves, he treats them
as something he never saw before, and responds in a way that may not put what
he learned into use, but a way that suggests innate creativity.
As to the difference between the two methods in terms of
their impact on the individual, learning by rote makes him pick a word from all
that is said to him. He associates that word with a learned response and reacts
almost instantaneously to the situation at hand based on that one word ...
which is why he appears thoughtless and disconnected. On the other hand,
learning by holistic approach makes the individual mull over the entire
situation before responding to it, an exercise that takes time and makes him
look thoughtful, which he would be.
The American population had been a holistic and thoughtful
one till it began to change some four decades ago to one that is linear and
thoughtless. This happened because a newcomer injected into it what may be
called anti-social and counter-cultural concepts. You can see an example of
this when you study the article written by David French under the title:
“Secretary Kerry's Hot-Mic Critique: He has No excuse,” published on July 21,
2014 in National Review Online.
This is what the Jews brought to America . It is that a trivial
remark caused David French and his cohorts – Jews and gentiles alike – to explode
in rage. This time it happened to John Kerry who spoke of the current situation
in the Middle East , describing it as “hell of
a pinpoint operation.” Before that it happened to Chuck Hagel who spoke of the
Jewish lobby; before that it happened to Jimmy Carter who wrote a book about
Israeli apartheid in Palestine .
And the list continues. Each time it was a word or an expression that set off
the ire of the Jews and their mouthpieces regardless of what else was contained
in the message. They came out almost instantly and barked a refrain in unison
as if they were robots that received a signal at the same time from Central
Command.
And this is the approach to life that spread throughout the
American society, pushing out and replacing the existing popular culture and
the social graces that used to dominate the scene, such as we had known them in
the 1960s and early 1970s. And the people of America
– all of North America – gradually changed
from approaching life and responding to its challenges in a holistic and
thoughtful manner to a linear thoughtless one.
Taking an example to see where this might lead, we consider
what happened in occupied Palestine .
As in every occupation, the people under it were unhappy about some things.
They let the Israelis know but instead of addressing the Palestinian concerns,
the Israelis reacted as if to say to them they should love the Jews not dislike
what they do. The Palestinians began to stage peaceful demonstrations, and the
Israelis responded with tear gas and rubber bullets. The Palestinians learned
to throw stones at the soldiers and did so, only to see the Israelis
escalate with the use of armored carriers, tanks and live ammunition. In turn,
the Palestinians escalated to the point where they now lob rockets at the Israelis.
Now look to see how far David French took his
mechanical-like rhetoric in response to John Kerry's private but open-mic
remark, and ask yourself a simple question: What kind of mental disease is that
which prompts someone to react with such ferocity to a remark that is as
harmless as that?