Political movements the world over, evolve and get altered
if and when it is necessary for them to do so because they need to harmonize
with the time and the places where they are adopted. The alterations, however,
are usually minor, and take place gradually.
But that's not the impression you would have gotten if you
lived in North America during the past decade
or so. That's because you would have seen the group that calls itself Liberal,
and the one that calls itself Conservative go at each other like cats and dogs,
each accusing the other of being dangerous to the nation, and beyond it to the
entire human race.
And if you are familiar with the way that people interact
with each other in the Jewish tradition, you would have realized that you were
not witnessing a struggle between traditional Liberalism and traditional
Conservatism, but a struggle between a Jew and a Jew. This phenomenon started
when the Jews who used to be Liberal, split into a faction that remained
Liberal and one that became Conservative, also referred to as Neocon.
It is these two factions which are now fighting what is
really a Jewish civil war. They do not call it by that name, however, but refer
to each other by what is supposed to be their respective political bent,
whether or not a recognizable Liberal or a Conservative bent is displayed by
either of them. What you see and hear, instead, is the tribal celebration of
diatribes that each faction throws at the other while both continue to drink
from the same cup of spite they inherited from their insult ridden Yiddish
tradition.
And that's exactly what you detect in the article that was
written by “Conservative” Bret Stephens. It came under the title: “Liberalism's
Imaginary Enemies” and the subtitle: “In Paris ,
it's easier to battle a climate crisis than confront Jihadists on the streets.”
It was published on December 1, 2015 in the Wall Street Journal.
Stephens is not hinting that the Conservatives have no
enemies or that the Liberals should have none. He simply says that the Liberals
have the wrong kind of enemies – or at least imaginary trivial notions like
hunger, campus-rape, institutionalized racism and climate change. And while
they fear these things, says Stephens, they neglect to be terrified by the real
enemies: the barbarians of Mosul
and Molenbeek as well as global jihad.
To articulate his point of view, he sets out to debunk,
minimize or otherwise dismiss each of the threats that the Liberals see in the
imaginary enemies which he says they chose to have. He does that in the context
of the world leaders meeting in Paris to discuss
climate change ... Paris
being “the same place where a real enemy just inflicted so much mortal damage.”
But what Bret Stephens neglects to do is demonstrate why the
threat posed by his barbarians is long lasting and more serious than climate
change – assuming this change is real and has the potential to turn Planet
Earth into another Venus as predicted by the work of the late Carl Sagan who concluded
that carbon dioxide has the potential to cause a greenhouse effect, thus lead
to the destruction of all life forms on Earth. Surely, if this were true, it
would be long lasting and more serious than what happened in Paris a few days before the gathering of
world leaders in that city.
Instead of debunking climate change on its own merit, he
mocked what he says were bogus studies done on the notions of hunger,
campus-rape and institutionalized racism, and then argued that by the same
token, the supposed scientific studies that were conducted on climate change
must also be bogus. And this is where his argument collapses … I might add,
unfortunately.
But something worthwhile came out of his effort. It is that
in describing what he says are the methods of persuasion used by the Liberals,
he described the methods which are used by all Jews – be they Liberal or
Conservative – not by the traditional Liberals or the traditional
Conservatives. Thus, when he says: “crises for which evidence tends to be
anecdotal, subjective, invisible, tendentious and fabricated...” he is
describing the methods that allowed the Jews to take control of the American
Congress and through it the American
Republic
He goes on with a few more paragraphs which can be condensed
as follows: “Bogus studies and statistics survive because mindless repetition
has a way of making things nearly true. Besides, falsehood and exaggeration can
serve a purpose if they induce virtuous
behavior … Since reality-substitution is how political business is
conducted … the hysteria generated … the belief that even if the crisis isn't
what it's cracked up to be, it does us all good to be more mindful about the
[crisis]”.