posted on May, 7 2013 @ 11:37 PM
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
Where did I link religion? Its the law of precedence. Do not your previous actions somewhat determine future actions? Of course they do. For example:
If I always see myself as an afraid, unsure, weak minded person, when someone talks to me, my instinct to his mold myself to that self-image, and so
respond in a manner consistent with earlier patterns of behaviour.
Take this in. It is crucial that you understand this basic psychological fact for you to understand that my reference to Judaism was not for
"religious purposes" but to point out the historical manner in which Christians thought of Jews: in terms of Judaism. This is how their psychology
functioned. This way of thinking then seeped into their future thought about Jews and banking. Even though they were forced into that profession by
bigoted Christian workers guilds and a racist Christian government, this fact somehow fell under the radar, and so again, the peoples of 18th, 19th
and 20th century Europe often thought of the evils in the world as attributable to the contemptible "Jews". This is obviously a psychological
leitmotif from Christian times. It occurred unconsciously, perhaps, or maybe it was exploited by people with philosophical prejudices. In any case,
future behaviour is by some degree influenced by past behaviour. Historically, we have thought this way about Judaism and Jews. Why isn't it relevant
to point out that the same thing seems to be occurring today, this time towards the Jewish state?
I'm sorry you don't like it, but its a perfectly reasonable thesis. Only you don't like it, because you yourself have become egoistically
identified with the Israel-Palestine conflict, taking the side of the Palestinians.
You know you are wrong, when you ignore facts, under-weigh facts, or interpret them in a manner which doesn't properly weigh the issues in question.
This is what psychologists and sociologists call the "moral gap". Because were emphasizing different things, we each come to a different
understanding. But that does not mean that were both right. One side is often being misled by an incorrect view or stubborn refusal to accede.
It takes great maturity to take part in political discourse. Unfortunately, thats not how things typically work.