If you've been a teacher that has dealt with students in their late teen years, or students just starting the life of young adults, you can see the difference between those who grew up in a household where the parents knew there was a demarcation line between teaching and criticizing, and the parents who didn't know.
The natural order of things is
that babies––born in a tabula rasa state, which means that except for what's
written in their DNA regarding how to suckle nourishment and cry when they feel
discomfort––begin the process of learning about the world surrounding them
almost instantly after birth. A great deal of what they absorb is passed on to
them by their parents, a situation that lasts a number of years.
After 5 or 6 years or just
about, children would have learned some of what's permissible and what's not,
but learn very little or none of what continues to stir their curiosity ... and
so they experiment. They try things they suspect are forbidden, just to see how
their parents will react to such behavior. And this is where the reaction of
the parents becomes crucial because it will determine what kind of a teenager
or young adult, the child will grow up and become.
If the parents are of the
short-tempered kind, and they react by leveling destructive criticism at the
child, the latter will grow up to be a difficult teenager and young adult. But
if the parents continue the teaching process by explaining why what's bad is
considered bad, and letting the child know that unpleasant consequences may
follow a repetition of bad behavior, the child will grow up to be a curious
student who will ask questions to learn something new. And when you give them a
comprehensive explanation, they'll thank you for it.
What happened lately in
America is that the election of a new government has caused two writers, among
many others, to tackle the subject in different ways. They seem to reflect a
difference in their upbringing. Commenting on President-elect Joe Biden's
choice of members for his cabinet, the two stood at opposite sides of the
spectrum, thus begged for a comparison to be drawn between their approaches.
One of the writers is Matthew
Continetti who wrote: “Obama III,” an article that was published on December
12, 2020 in National Review Online. The other writer is Mark Episkopos who
wrote: “Joe Biden's Picks Show Washington Establishment is back,” an article
that was published on November 29, 2020 in The National Interest. Here is how
Continetti, a Republican leaning author, started his article:
“Biden's recent moves provide
little comfort for Americans looking for a way out of the polarization,
acrimony, catastrophism and hysteria that have characterized politics for many
years. Biden is filling his administration with people who made a hash of
things from 2009 to 2017. He selected progressive ideologues who believe it is
the bureaucracy's job to pick new fights in the culture war. You are right to
feel anxious”.
And here is how Episkopos, a
Democratic leaning author, started his article:
“Joe Biden is forging ahead
with key national security picks. He tapped Antony Blinken whose policy
approach is tightly integrated with his own. From the Iran Deal to the Paris
Climate Agreement, Blinken seeks a negotiated return to most Obama-era
politics. He sees international politics through the prism of multilateralism.
Biden and his team have stated that their first order of business is to repair
the damage that has been inflicted by the Trump administration on US alliance
structures. America is back”.
The difference between the two
quotes is clear and pronounced. But does that have to do with the personality
of the writers, or is it that they belong to different schools of thought? The
answer is that it does not matter; the question is moot because we can imagine
that if the president-elect were a Republican instead of a Democrat, the
reactions of the two authors would be reversed.
What matters here is that
human beings never cease to learn. Even as adults going about our daily lives,
the culture that's practiced by society becomes the alma mater (i.e., the
parent) that teaches us what's right and what's wrong. Thus, to each of
Continetti and Episkopos, the other is behaving badly. To a disinterested
observer, however, it is the American culture as a whole that leaves much to be
desired. But does it not look like America is made, not of one culture but of
two cultures, opposite in orientation and constantly going against each other?
Yes, this is how things appear
on the surface and yes, it is true that a society must have one overarching
culture to be considered the home of that culture. But this, in fact, is what's
happening in America. You see, my friend, America has adopted the singular culture
of the “forked tongue” in that it advances two opposite discourses at the same
time as if they were driven by one and the same screwed-up Jewish logic.
The only unifying force that
brings the two sides together is the interest of the Jews and Israel. This is
where you see an agreement between the Republicans and the Democrats, which
tempts you to call this artificial concoction, the bipartisan Yankee-Yiddish
culture of self-destruction.
It is the fusion of the ancient Hebrew savagery with the Yiddish subculture that took roots during the European Dark Ages. It is now taking America into a graveyard marked, “RIP – shortest-lived superpower in history.” In other words, to future historians, America like the Minoan Civilization of Crete, will look like a flash in the pan, killed by the Yiddish parasite.