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 :
This shows how well the gaslighting technique works, which is to blame harmful events on the victim rather than on the perpetrator(s). The victim is unjustly cast as the (right wing) extremist for rightfully reacting to Moslem terrorist thuggery.
Apparently the gaslighters are those (Westerners) called Globalists who speak and act in unison.
But then the question arises as to what formed the Globalist worldview? Is it what secularism leads to? Is it secularism combined with Socialism, since it seeks world domination? Whatever it is, it spews lies, such as gaslighting, profusely to establish itself. It goes by the standard which says, “never give a sucker an even break”.
That’s what the sucker Jean-Pierre Westerners have not been getting: an even break: while the perpetrators get themselves off handily to do as they please.
Globalism aka totalitarianism has its beginnings in the preflood world when angels left their heavenly estate and came down into the world of mankind. The idea that they would seize control of the world for themselves and their sons–the monstrous Nephilim–is where the concept of a ‘new’ world order derives.
I found a good answer to my question at World Net Daily in an article by Hanne Nabintu Herland which describes the forces behind Globalism that oppose national sovereignty.
Islam is another national security threat which hosts terrorism, equal to Marxism, which Americans must become aware of and eradicate before they eradicate the USA. The Moslems would have their Islamic republic and the Marxists their Socialist republic to replace our God-given rights.
Before we can apprehend the destructive, murderous nature of both communism and Islam we need to understand that these two movements are totalitarian in their religious and political intentions and apocalyptic by nature because the perfect NWO must be built upon the ashes of existing orders and deaths of evil humans. Both movements are satanic apes of God’s restored Paradise where His sheep dwell for eternity.
Coincidentally, I found an article written by another French writer while visiting the Brownstone Institute website. There were many fascinating articles there which I haven’t read yet, mostly medical, but Renaud Beauchard’s title “The Commodified Self and the Designed Collapse of Generation Z” intrigued me and so I read it.
It had many complicated, I’d say unproven and ephemeral, explanations for the purported demise of Generation Z owing to an overdependence on ‘smart’ phones. But I’d still maintain that replacing those phones with a solid Christian education plus a solid acquaintance with classic novels would solve that – that’s what helped me.
There’s that plus insuring kids get a sound education, not the ‘social’/’justice’ DEI agenda that’s in vogue throughout academe.