Carl Lexow is a retired journalist and author from Norway who lived in France during the 1960s. Inspired by Fjordman’s most recent post, Mr. Lexow wrote this guest essay about the current Islamization of Europe and the history of the French colonization of Algeria. Although not a participant in the attempted coup of 1961, he was present in France at the time it happened.
by Carl Lexow
In a recent article Fjordman criticized Western leaders who say that violent bearded men who yell “Allahu akbar” while bombing and shooting Jews and random others, are without exception “terrorists”, never Islamists, and that their evil deeds “have nothing to do with Islam”. Even if the culprits without exception are Muslims. Fjordman concludes:
I become more and more hardened in my long-standing conviction that Problem Number 1 is the lying, cheating Globalist Western ruling elites and their open borders ideology. Problem Number 2 is Muslim Jihadists and other hostile aliens. I remain convinced that the West has the intellectual, economic and military capability to deal with the Islamic threat, if we do so in a sensible manner. We are currently prevented from doing so due to our ruling elites.
We cannot deal properly with the Islamic threat until the useless elites and their damaging Multicultural, Globalist ideology have been removed from power throughout the Western world.
Fjordman is right. Our elites are betraying us. They do it slowly, one small step at a time, but eventually, the world as we now know it will be lost to us.
In the general picture, what makes it difficult for each and every one of us to understand is that we are facing two different threats simultaneously:
|1.||The global, multicultural idea, organized and run by international capital and supported by international socialists, and|
|2.||The Muslim desire to create a caliphate based on shari’a law.
These two very powerful movements take place simultaneously and so far help and nourish each other. But in the end, they are not compatible and have to clash somehow.
Most of us will probably agree with Fjordman that in order to solve a problem, we have to acknowledge its existence. But that’s not so obvious. Our globalist ruling elites, in the EU, US and everywhere else, are uniformly of the opinion that immigration of Muslims to Europe isn’t a bad idea at all. On the contrary, it’s a blessing, and we can’t do without it. So, from the globalist perspective, where’s the problem?
But our elites take a great risk voicing such an opinion. If they’re wrong, our Western societies are facing radical changes, on a magnitude that happens no more than once or twice in a millennium. It’s like the fall of the Roman Empire, or similar events. The impact of the coming changes will be felt very heavily. Many of us will certainly survive whatever happens; life will go on somehow, but it will be a different life. And like all major shake-ups, changes will happen very quickly.
Muslims quite openly say that they are at war with us. It’s no secret. What we must bear in mind is that every Muslim is under an obligation to participate in such a war as Jihadists, which translates as “holy strife”. Jihad may be committed on several levels and in many ways. Apart from being “terrorists”, joining IS, or killing one’s fellow soldiers as in the Fort Hood massacre, each individual must contribute according to his means. Muslim women in Europe, for example, can contribute by giving birth to children. Which they do.
“We shall conquer Europe through our women’s wombs”, Moammar Gadaffi once said, “and we shall succeed in doing it without firing a single shot.” Well, a few shots have been fired here and there, but so far the war has been a low tension conflict. This phase is nevertheless important. Muslims in Western countries are strategically positioning themselves by joining existing political parties, by demanding favors according to what is laid down in the Koran, organizing themselves and building mosques and alliances with the liberal Left, i.e. media, politicians, the Christian Church (believe it or not), professionals, and so on.
But don’t be fooled, these preliminary steps are not taken in order to integrate peacefully, submitting to our culture. Islam, by nature, can never consent to that. At best, before Islam has accumulated sufficient strength to deliver battle, they can content themselves to be living in parallel societies, making good use of what the welfare states have to offer. Strategically, they will make use of our weak spot, our democratic institutions, which in most Western countries no longer function as they should, since legal opposition is either too weak to influence on decisions in Parliament (as in Sweden), or doesn’t exist at all, as in Fjordman’s country of origin, Norway.
Because of their small ethnic populations, such states are likely to be taken over easily in a not-too-distant future. But I am a “Fjordfellow” — Norway happens to be my country also, and I care about it, as does Fjordman. Being also a distant relative of the state senator Clarence Lexow, of the “Lexow Committee” in New York in the 1890s, who opposed social injustice and elitist political abuse of power, I’m like Fjordman, fighting the ideological bastards wherever I see them. Actually, we are many who are doing this, but we have to act now, before it’s too late and events have gone too far.
Apart from this, an important factor is what happens in the Middle East. For the time being the various factions of Islam are fighting each other, but should Israel fall (God forbid), their attention will immediately turn towards Europe. Certainly, they might do this anyway, since Israel is a hard nut to crack, even if the Israelis are opposed by both the EU and President Obama. But if they turn around, things might happen quickly, one way or another.
Let’s hope for the best, because if you participate in a war, only one thing matters. To win. Without doubt, Europe has the military and material means to do so, as Fjordman says. It will thus come as an unpleasant surprise to the Muslims, but they will then have to face the choice of either submitting to our culture, or leaving our lands.
Alternative 1 is that we use our might to settle the matter once and for all, and at the same time rearranging a little bit of some of the articles of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international conventions in order to make them up-to-date, as they indeed were supposed to be when they were adopted for quite different purposes than for allowing “women’s wombs” to conquer other people’s countries.
Let’s look at a two of the comments left on Fjordman’s article:
I think the French had the right idea when they responded to Muslim piracy in the nineteenth century by conquering and colonizing Algeria. Ultimately, the project was abandoned and colonialism is now considered taboo by Western elites … To control a country you have to settle it and control its land. Muslims know this: Islam is based on conquest and domination of land (dar el Harb vs. dar el Islam).
Fjordman’s wrong: Our patriotism has been hijacked; it’s been ignored, demonized and redefined into meaning quiet submission.
Both commenters are undoubtedly right, each in his own way. Throughout history, very few conquerors have managed to hold on to conquered land. We all remember how it went for the Soviet Union and their vassals, and not forgetting the British Empire, which once controlled a quarter of the globe, and was even on the winning side of the two world wars of the last century. Both empires vanished in thin air.
The thing is, we all want to decide ourselves concerning matters on our own soil. Our present Western World Order dates back to the Westphalian Peace Treaty of 1684 which divided Europe into autonomous national states. Therefore we don’t like artificial parallel constructions on our territories, if they can be prevented. Nor do we like people who want to turn us into subjects of an International Global Order, whatever that is, and with no mention of who shall be running it, how and why.
Alternative 2 is to conserve our ethnic homogeneity as it is, in our own various national states, not mixing them to fifty shades of grey, blended to porridge in the EU mill.
The above commenter also mentioned Algeria. For our purposes, what happened there is interesting. Charles de Gaulle gave Algeria its independence in 1962, after a period of 130 years when the French had considered it as an integral part of France itself. All inhabitants — one million Europeans, mostly French, called “pieds-noirs” (black feet), and nine million Muslim Arabs, Berbers and Kabyls — had French passports and elected their own representatives to the National Assembly in Paris. Charles de Gaulle went to Algeria in 1958, and there, from the balcony of the Governor’s Palace of Algiers, with both arms in the air, he cried out his infamous words,
Je vous ai compris. Je sais ce qui c’est passé ici. La France considère que en tout l’Algérie il n’y qu’un seul categorie des habitants. Il n’y a que des Français … Vive l’Algérie française.
[I understand you. I know what has happened here. France considers that in the whole of Algeria there is only one category of people. Only the French … Long live French Algeria.]
They were pure lies, of course, of the kind you expect from politicians, but those words put him in power, climbing over the ruins of the Fourth Republic. After being elected president, supported by the Army and the French population of Algeria, de Gaulle created the Fifth Republic.
A low-level conflict had begun in 1945. In 1954 a full war broke out between the French Army and the rebellious Muslim organization FNL (Front National de Libération). The conflict soon became extremely violent, with massacres taking place on both sides. The war also became very costly. By 1962 France had deployed half a million soldiers, and even if the Army to a certain degree had the upper hand in the fighting, de Gaulle realized that France could not hold on to Algeria in perpetuity. It’s very similar to the later American experience in Vietnam.
However, this meant abandoning the interests not only of the pieds-noirs, but also of a million or so “harkis”, Muslims, who had fought with the French in both world wars in addition to the present conflict. They and their families ended up having their throats slit if they couldn’t escape to France in time. For many in the military, de Gaulle’s decision was therefore considered to be both traitorous and without honour. The pieds-noirs set up a militant organization known as OAS (Organisation Armée Secrète) to resist de Gaulle, led by General Raoul Salan, France’s most highly decorated officer. Salan had seen action in WW1 and WW2, as well as Indochina, another important French debacle.
In April 1961, four well-known generals lead by Salan staged a coup (putsch) in order to keep Algeria French and, presumably, to get rid of Charles de Gaulle.
1er REP (1st parachute regiment of the Foreign Legion) occupied the Algerian capital of Alger on 22 April 1961. They were joined in the insurgency by two other crack parachute regiments, the 14e and 18e RCP (régiment de chasseurs parachutists) and a few independent commando companies, all units belonging to the elite of the professional French Army.
At the same time, rumors spread that the paras would jump on Paris. The rumors were true, but the orders to jump never came. The putsch was badly organized and many things that were taken for granted by the generals didn’t materialize. The insurgency received little support both from the general French population, and worse, from the Army. Besides, the insurgents had counted on international support, which also failed. President John Kennedy, for one, supported Algerian independence.
The picture shows 18e RCP on the runway of Blida in Algeria, awaiting orders that never came, to jump on Paris.
Realizing their failure, and in order to avoid unnecessary bloodshed, the putsch collapsed by the 25th when the generals either fled the country or were arrested. We must give them that, to their honour, for it cost them dearly. Many were condemned to death, and several death sentences were carried out in the aftermath of the putsch. The participating regiments were disbanded on the 30th. That’s why 2e REP is today the only parachute regiment in the Legion.
But still, the putsch was supported by many. The well-known singer Edith Piaf dedicated her song “Je ne regrette rien” to the Legion. It was sung by the ranks and officers of 1er REP while in prison. A tape was smuggled out of Fort Nogent, where the officers were imprisoned. The words are their own, a little different from Piaf’s.
Strategically, instead of occupying the administrative city of Algiers, the generals should have let the 1er REP take possession of the nuclear installations of Reggane in Sahara. At that point a bomb of five megatons, five times the explosive force of the Hiroshima atomic bomb, was lying ready to be detonated.
Needless to say, controlling the bomb would have been a formidable position of strength in a negotiation. Charles de Gaulle must have laughed his head off and mocking the strategic intelligence of his generals while running to the phone and ordering to detonate the bomb immediately, which happened on the 25th of April. The bomb, codenamed “Gerboise verte”, was even detonated above ground. It could just as well have been dropped by plane over Paris.
But such a move was never the intention of the insurgents. They loved France. To them, this was all about military honour. They felt that they had won the war militarily, but lost it politically. Charles de Gaulle had betrayed the very basis of their values by sacrificing the pieds-noirs and the harkis. Even though the French and the harkis could escape to the French heartland, where French values were still valid. They could go home, so to speak.
Well, the future has shown us otherwise. It wasn’t that simple; France is today worse off facing the Islamists than ever. But where can one retire from Europe? We Europeans have no other place to go, and our civilization is up against the wall.
What can we learn from all this?
First of all — no state built on humanitarian values and democracy can suppress a rebellion if it is just and has its roots in a majority of the population. To remember that is important. The French saw it both in Indochina and Algeria. So did the Americans in Vietnam. At the same time, to rebel against the same kind of state is very difficult, even for crack soldiers, if they do not have the support of the people. The nation must wish for a change. To sum it up, if you have the guts to try, an armed rebellion is Alternative 3.
So, none of the alternatives are very tempting. But if you come to the conclusion that our societies are in danger and that our elites do not wish to act in order to stop the disaster, what do you do?
Obviously, you want to make use of your freedom to speak up. To convince people and to convert them over to your opinion, is the only option, and Alternative 4. You will wish to debate the matter. You want to achieve victory at the polls. You want to elect new leaders, enact new laws and regulations because you see that the old ones are no longer valid.
That’s why your freedom of expression is now constantly under attack. The elites want to limit your possibilities to put forward ideas and views. Bu t even retaining the freedom of speech, no media will print what you have to say. On the contrary, the press suppresses important and accurate knowledge of what is happening. Nor are there new leaders worthy to elect, and nobody wants to discuss matters impartially. Instead, if you try, you are called a racist, just because you love your country. All the while two things are growing rapidly: the immigration rate and frustration.
|[On 22nd April 1966 some paras and ex-military came together somewhere in Southern France to commemorate that it was five years since the putsch had taken place in April 1961. The old two-decker Fokker flew many sorties that day. The author is standing second from the right.
The last person to be executed for attempting to assassinate Charles de Gaulle was lieutenant-colonel Jean-Marie Bastien-Thiry, shot at Fort Ivry on March 11th 1963. Bastien-Thiry was the organizer of the incident at Petit-Clamart, just outside Paris, one of about 30 attempts in all to assassinate the President. For Bastien-Thiry it was also a matter of restoring military honour. His and others graves are even today covered with flowers on important memorial days. Apart from what happened in France during the revolution in 1789, France has never been closer to a civil war than at the period we are discussing here.]
We are probably going to experience terror in Norway. That’s Alternative 5. The authorities know this. They are themselves an obvious target. Ethnic Norwegians are therefore restrained and made defenseless. The army has been reduced to almost nothing, apart from very small professional units meant to be used in connection with international operations, and is no longer made up of conscripts. Few young Norwegians now know how to handle a gun. Strict weapons-control laws are implemented, but at the same time, illegal weapons are quite common amongst Muslims. Shooting incidents between rival drug-pushing immigrant gangs are common in Oslo.
But terror is the worst of the alternatives. All bridges are then being burnt, but many don’t voluntarily accept being dhimmified, and will resist as best as they can, at least when it comes to survival, when one is pushed to the edge with nowhere to escape to. It should not be necessary to describe what is then going to happen, because we all know the way the Muslims fight and the methods they — and our elites — use to suppress people in the countries they occupy.
At least, they are both acting without honour.
|1.||www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfdQDgRg9qU, www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbH8qlG-3_0. 1er REP is probably one of the finest regiments that ever existed in the French Army, made up of men from all over the world. They had their own music, the Legion marching 85 steps per minute, against 120 normally. It’s an honour for me to play their regimental march. During the Algerian war, 1er REP was the most decorated regiment in the French Army. At the battle of Dien Bien Phu in Indochina, then a battalion (BEP), they were wiped out twice, but each time reorganized. They will always be remembered and respected by soldiers of virtue. When the regiment marched out of the barracks for the last time, they were 1,200 men; 500 had been wounded in Algeria and 300 killed.|
|3.||À la suite immédiate du putsch des Généraux (23 avril 1961) (ou “ putsch d’Alger “), le gouvernement français a ordonné la détonation du 25 avril 1961 (Gerboise verte) afin que l’engin nucléaire ne puisse tomber dans les mains des généraux du putch. (www.piedsnoirs-aujourdhui.com/realisa13.html)