Everything in the universe decays. It is calculated that a
hundred trillion years from now nothing will be left but the relic of a
universe that has died a “heat death.” This is because everything – including
all that is matter and all that is energy – will have been reduced to heat
waves. Even these waves will continue to get cooler and cooler, approaching the
absolute zero temperature while the remnant of the universe continues to
expand.
Abstract systems such as the idea of democracy also come and
go. They start to decay the moment that they are conceived, and they keep
decaying till nothing is left of them. The question to ask is how does a
democracy die? Well, we have an example of this in the article that was written
by Andrew C. McCarthy under the title: “The Lone-Wolf Canard” and the subtitle:
“The violence in 'violent extremism' is terrorism even if it's performed
alone.” It was published on October 25, 2014 in National Review Online.
America, like the rest of the world, is facing a movement
that has come to be called many names, two being “terrorism” which is used by
some people such as Andrew McCarthy; and “violent extremism” which is used by
other people. Whatever it is called, everyone agrees that the movement must not
be allowed to remain or allowed to grow and impose itself because it threatens
what civilized living stands for. And most everyone has ideas as to how we must
confront the movement to vanquish it or at least neutralize it for good.
When democracy was at the height of its glory, and something
like this happened to concern the majority of people, the leaders of the
community, whatever its size or composition, got together in a “collegial”
manner to exchange ideas. When done, they picked the nuggets from all that was
said and synthesized them into a plan of action. Putting the plan into effect,
they dealt with whatever was threatening the community; and they often
succeeded at ending the threat in a definitive way.
And then, signs of decay began to appear in the system of
democracy because the people who got together to exchange ideas could not get
off the talking phase and go to the picking of nuggets phase. They kept talking
without agreeing on anything substantial, behaving in a manner that was not
“collegial” but one that was more like “confrontational.” And even when they
agreed on a small point, as they sometimes did, they could not go on to the
next phase because the atmosphere was so badly poisoned, the people viewed each
other as enemies.
Was that a natural decay that could not be avoided? Or was
it a decay precipitated by an outside agent – one that is alien to the natural
evolution of democratic movements? Well, anyone that is old enough to remember
what happened during the past fifty years already knows what will take future
historians a long time to establish. It is that the Jewish lawyers gave
supremacy to the idea of confrontational justice, even confrontational debates.
They took the concept into the courts, and took it from there to every place
where they went, such as the Congress, the bureaucracy, the cultural
institutions and of course, the media.
This has had the effect of paralyzing America … which was
the goal of the Jews from the start. But paralyzing America meant paralyzing it
only in what concerns the business of the American people. This being one half
of the story, the other half was that the energy that would have gone into
doing America's business was diverted to doing the business of Israel and the
Jews. And this is why you now see legislators of both parties express
indifference, disdain and loathing when asked to do something for the American
people. But they rush to fill the needs of Israel and the Jews with the
restless dedication you see in the zoo at feeding time.
What you see in the Andrew McCarthy article, who happens to
be a lawyer, is not an analysis that can lead to ideas as to how terrorism, as
he calls it, must be handled. Instead, he engages in a hair-splitting
discussion as to the wisdom in calling the phenomenon violent extremism instead
of terrorism. 1600 words to do that, and not one word suggesting how to solve
the problem.
But what difference does it make calling it one thing or the
other? The answer to this question should be viewed as further proof that this
whole thing has been the work of Jews from the start. It is that calling the
phenomenon violent extremism will make it an American problem that must be
solved for the benefit of Americans. But calling it terrorism will make it a
Jewish problem that can only be solved in a manner that serves Israel and the
Jews.