Everywhere in public or in private
life, an operator that fails repeatedly is made to step down so that someone
else may take over and salvage the situation that was messed up by the outgoing
operator. This applies to an individual, a team or a group of people assigned
to the same project.
This is not the case with the
Jews, however, whose failures over the ages would require the surface area of a
field to list them all. Despite that, the Jews repeatedly present themselves to
take charge of the next phase in the projects where they messed up, offering to
fix the mistakes they do not admit they made but promising to do better next
time. This is gall that goes beyond human comprehension, but when it happens in
the so-called liberal democracies, nothing seems to interfere with it. And
that's because apathy has become the dead engine powering the democratic
political system.
You can see how this works not
only in North America but also in France where a self-described
philosopher with gall the size of a mountain, likes to make his presence
felt. He is Bernard-Henri Levy who wrote: “A France United Against Radical
Islam,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “It's time to break,
finally, from the Leninist reasoning about the sociology of poverty and
frustration behind terrorism.” It was published on January 9, 2015 in the Wall
Street Journal.
Jumping in front of and taking
charge of the liberal movement that sprung up in nineteenth century Europe , the Jews thought that – at long last – they had a
vehicle by which to conquer the world as promised to them by false prophets.
They turned the movement into the Marxism-Leninism that proved to be a
monumental failure where it was applied. There is also the fact that the movement
never took roots in the United States
despite the prophesy that industrial America will be the first nation to
go communist.
Instead, America
stubbornly retained its religious and conservative character. The Jews who had
brought liberalism to it decided it was time to jump in front of the American
conservative movement and take charge of it. They became the new conservatives
or neocons where they revived the old Jewish dream of conquering the world ...
seeing that they had a military machine that was second to none. At the same
time, the country also seemed to develop a burgeoning appetite for implementing
a Pax Americana that would cover the globe.
The people of Europe were
impressed by the success they saw come to America under the presidency of the
conservative Ronald Reagan. They began to turn conservative, a move that
prompted people like Bernard-Henry Levy to do likewise but with a Jewish twist.
They turned conservative in a militaristic sense, having placed Islam in their
cross-hairs. They agitated in Europe to have America join the Judeo-Christian
assault on Islam, and succeeded in dragging the superpower into the fight. But
they failed to deliver the success that has eluded them since the beginning of
time.
Worse, the conservative movement
they encouraged in Europe got out of hand and
began to menace them in the same way that the right wing of the twentieth
century had done. This is why you see Levy write this: “It is time for us to
break, once and for all, with the Leninist reasoning.” And later write this:
“It is essential that the democratic union of people continue to mount a
response to the 'France
for the French' of Marine the Pen and her far-right ilk.”
What this means is that Bernard
Levy must now adopt a moderate course which embraces the Muslims. Not only
that, he must seek to bring them into his middle-of-the-road movement so as to
stand together to a far right that is rising the way it did in the twentieth
century. Thus, you see Levy write: “the French have understood that the Charlie
Hebdo killers are not 'the Muslims,' but rather the small fraction of Muslims
who confuse the Quran with a death warrant.”
This done, he now tells the
Muslims what to do. (1) “[They] must proclaim their rejection of the theocratic
passion.” (2) “They should feel called upon to express their brotherhood with
their massacred fellow citizens.” (3) They have the responsibility to echo the
'Not in our name' with which the British Muslims dissociated themselves from
the killers of James Foley.” (4) “Islam must be freed from radical Islam.”