Right here in the USA are very many Jean-Pierre’s. None of them think for themselves, nor do they have an instinct for survival.
They prefer legacy media (propaganda) to listening to truth tellers, who everyone knows are troublesome right-wing conspiracy theorists, white supremacists and racists.
So the Jean Pierre’s blindly, but placidly, follow after the herd that follows after the lead cow. And none of them will wake up until they find they’ve followed the lead cow into a slaughter house as the French Jean Pierre is only now discovering to his horror. @SpiritedIrish
Daniel Foubert on X, French-Polish editorialist. Geoeconomics and anthropology
At first, Jean-Pierre did not understand.
He watched the evening news, paid his taxes, voted responsibly and believed what respectable people told him.
- France needed immigration because the economy needed workers.
- Diversity was an opportunity.
- Public services were under pressure because they lacked funding.
- Disorder at school was caused by inequality.
- Crime statistics required context.
- Anyone who connected these things too quickly was probably an extremist.
Then his children started coming home from school saying they could barely hear the teacher.
Half the lesson was spent restoring order.
Teachers changed constantly.
Some simply disappeared for weeks.
Jean-Pierre complained once, politely.
The administration explained that the situation was “challenging” and that the school was developing an “inclusive pedagogical response.”
Jean-Pierre went home reassured.
There were professionals dealing with it.
His neighbourhood changed too.
Shops closed.
Others appeared.
Groups of men occupied the same corners every evening.
His wife stopped taking one street after dark.
Jean-Pierre noticed all of this, but he had also learned that noticing patterns was dangerous.
So every event remained an isolated event.
One closed shop meant nothing.
One assault meant nothing.
Ten incidents meant ten unrelated incidents.
Only a racist would connect dots.
Then his daughter was sexually assaulted by a man who had recently arrived in France.
Jean-Pierre was devastated.
But almost immediately he began policing his own thoughts.
The attacker was an individual. Of course.
One must never generalise.
The television explained that exploiting such crimes politically was irresponsible.
A minister warned against “stigmatisation.”
Jean-Pierre found himself nodding through tears.
What had happened to his daughter was monstrous, but the truly frightening possibility, apparently, was that somebody somewhere might vote for the wrong party because of it.
Nothing changed.
His son’s school became worse.
His daughter stopped going out alone.
His wife wanted to move.
The police were exhausted.
The teachers were exhausted.
The hospitals were exhausted.
Jean-Pierre was exhausted.
Yet every explanation he had been given required him to believe that each deterioration was temporary, accidental, exaggerated or caused by something entirely unrelated to the deterioration immediately beside it.
And whenever somebody proposed that perhaps the country had made serious mistakes — about migration, authority, education, policing, integration, punishment or borders — Jean-Pierre knew the correct answer.
“Careful. That sounds like the far right.”
So he remained reasonable.
He remained moderate.
He remained informed.
He remained completely incapable of drawing a conclusion from his own life.
So at first, Jean-Pierre did not understand.
And he still does not understand.
Jean Pierre does not understand that France has fallen and he and his family will be slaughtered :