The Alternatives

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.

The Alternatives
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.[1]

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.[2]

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.[3]

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., 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. (

31 thoughts on “The Alternatives

  1. ==QUOTE==
    “We shall conquer Europe through our women’s wombs”, Mohammed Gadaffi once said, “and we shall succeed doing it without firing a single shot.”
    I have seen many spelling of this man’s surname, but this is my first time learning that he has a Muhammad Coefficient of 100%.
    Sorry, but this is where I stopped reading this article.

      • While it was indeed an error, to be so touchy as to stop reading an excellent post due to a typo sounds a bit like OCD. Or some other disorder, perhaps.

        • Hello, Reg T; you raise a good point. But OCD readers get tetchy when the essayist keeps making basic factual errors, like getting people’s forenames and bombs’ megatonnage wrong. Here, the essayist says that the Hiroshima atomic bomb was the equivalent of one megaton of TNT.

          says it was the equivalent of only 20 kilotons of TNT, which is only 20/1000= 2% of a megaton.
          Factual errors tend to discredit an essay.

          And Nemesis, your note raises the possibility that those who control the interwebs (hello, NSA!) could insert errors to discredit essayists who need to be disbelieved.

          • Hmmm. You discontinue reading an essay because:

            1) Mouamar Gaddafi’s forename is spelt/stated as Muhammed. Not Mohamed, Muhamar, Mohamud …perhaps you are unfamiliar with the term/concept of transliteration? The Lebanese chick-pea paste is spelt in English, through the process of transliteration from Arabic variously: homous, hummus, hummos, hommos, hoummous, etc. Leading to a famous written riposte to a grafitto “God hates homos” on the pedestrian footbridge crossing Parramatta Road at Sydney University: “OK, but does he like tabouley?” [Taboulie/Tabulie/Tabouley/Tabule-y is a Lebanese salad]

            2) The author refers to a 5 megaton nuclear bomb in Algeria and erroneously underestimates its explosive power relative to that dropped on Hiroshima. You don’t contradict the power of the French bomb in Algeria, just the error on the 20 kiloton bomb on Hiroshima. Has it occurred to you that the author knew that the French bomb at Reggane was much more powerful than that dropped on Hiroshima, but unlike you didn’t feel compelled to check the order of magnitude by checking Wiki? Petty stuff.

  2. To deal with the ruling elites, it is unrealistic to target the political/media class as a whole. Rather select one individual at a time and persecute them. Label them traitors, on predetermined grounds, repeat the charge constantly. E.g. an editor of a respected mainstream newspaper which skews the immigration debate is a prime target. Perverting the course of debate on an important issue is an attack on democracy and the constitutional order. Doing so in favor of foreign influences is treason.

    Meanwhile, prepare for the day of reckoning. Let the word go out that everyone who opposes islamization is to form cells with like-minded people that train in arts relevant to urban warfare: movement, stealth, coordination, paintball etc – importantly without breaking any laws at all. When the day comes, an entire underground army can be ready to mobilize.

  3. A 5 megaton device is far far far more than 5 times the size of the Hiroshima bomb…

  4. Civil war could come to Europe when frustrated natives feel that the democratic process does not give them the opportunity to secure their rights. That could occur when the burgeoning Muslim population becomes numerous enough to control the composition of the government. The election of Hollande in France is a harbinger, as the socialists relied heavily on the Muslim vote. This grim scenario can be avoided by restricting Muslim immigration and through deportation.
    The Muslim threat abroad can be handled by establishing Muslim-free enclaves in Muslim countries that are now beset by anarchy. Such “countries” as Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen no longer exist by virtue of their anarchy. There’s no reason that Europeans couldn’t simply establish large, heavily defended settlements in those lands, as the Israelis do. This would avoid the mistake of the French in Algeria in trying to rule over a large Muslim population.
    Listen to the words of Paul Weston: Islam and the West are like oil and water. The strategy then becomes clear.

    • That has been something similar I have thought also.

      That where the West has sent troops, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Africa that enclaves for refugees should be set up, that takes in enough land for food, water and essentials, ports airports power plants.
      If more refugees, then increase the area, arbitrarily.

      Sure in parts it will seem unfair and against human rights, but just what is human rights when we see what is being practised in these areas.

      Rule 1 No mosques, No islam. You leave your religion.
      Rule 2 Education as per secular Buddhist Hindi Christian Western concepts. Some parts of cultural practices to be reviled, mocked and ridiculed such as fgm
      Rule 3 The koran and hadiths and sira to be combed through revealing who and what Mohammad said and did. Full exposure of how he used his power. Cartoons etc all to be published in all religious places and education systems.
      Rule 4 Any objection or practice and you and family are exiled.
      Rule 5 Work, even if basic is to be done, no work and target not completed, then no food. After all in the New Deli slums no one starves. They all do something to obtain a crust for the day.
      Rule 6 Basic medicine and health would be supplied, for a small fee though the people should be looking to take over this.
      Contraception would be available.
      Rule 7 All decisions and justice done swiftly by military tribunal, with no appeal (there is a minor problem as I know already infiltrated with social justice human rights concepts).
      Still if no death penalty then exile.
      It is the military who put their lives on the line, so it should be their justice.

      Yes life will not be easy, but from there it will be something for those people to build on. Bottom line then, there is a choice, like it or lump it. You can leave, and stay away from all of us.

      It will be decried with do-gooders, UN saying it is unfair and they should be made welcome in the West’s countries.

      What is happening now is the West’s soldiers are being used and sacrificed for no long term solution.

      Corruption may become a problem, so it must be faced head on, and all things done openly and transparently. Taxes to be figured simply, (not onerous) may be “working bees” and enforced. Yes arguably you can say I may be more communist/socialist in pushing this, though there would always be a choice, leave.

      Aid to be avoided like the plague, or at least minimized and then phased out. I have in mind the concept of Lessons from Sodo 1 by Sam Lebongo, and then Sodo 2 in Ethopia, though there are interesting problems as the system got larger.

      Other wise I do not see the point of sending soldiers to fight, for what?
      Nor do I see the point of accepting refugees, that will just bring all their same problems and issues.
      Hopefully the military part should in time be phased down and then out. Even if on going this way should be much cheaper.

      We need a change, to name the problem, the enemy, and directly confront that issue, and the people caught up in this fray to have a choice, to make a decision, and to live by it. Maybe not a perfect solution, but we need to change what we are doing.

      I am sure others can add more concepts, and details.
      Undoubtedly there will be pitfalls, and mistakes, but surely and opportunity and choice to sift what is important for a person and his family so look ahead and step in that direction.

      • Thanks for the constructive ideas, Simpleton. It’s good to imagine what the parameters of the enclave should be. The other two alternatives are much worse: Invade and then get out leaving behind the same Islamic pathologies, or Invade and try to administer a huge Muslim population, which is worse than trying to herd cats.

  5. For those interested in the future, don’t waste effort on the state – they are dying across Europe and corrupt beyond repair often by American and Arab money and threats. The people running the state don’t want it to be reformed, they love it the way it is and don’t think the party will ever end(it will sooner than they think). Look at the response to Rotherham from the main political parties or lack thereof. It’s evil made manifest.

    Instead put effort into building up and protecting family, clan, local communities and church.

    • Yes, family, local community, and organizations of like mind are important.

      I could be wrong, but I do not think – in spite of how we have allowed the elite to take over our government – that we in America would stand by and permit the horror that is Rotherham to occur here. There would be an in-explicably high number of muslim fatal accidents here, if not an actual open season on the [epithets].

      Yes, I understand that many of the victims were from poorly run, un-monitored government agencies where the girls had no one who really cared what happened to them, but that is no excuse. Men with any sense of decency whatsoever, in the police force, community agencies, or simply fathers in the neighborhood with children of their own, should have [intemperate suggestion concerning the epithets] who preyed upon those girls. I know I would do it, and I am not anyone special. Just an old man whose remaining years are less valuable than my desire to protect the innocent.

      • Rotherham is, as yet, an unfinished story. It is also about the 7th or 8th time that such a story has emerged at various places in the UK. Tips of icebergs, all of them. The huge bulk may soon come to the surface.
        Back to Rotherham. What perplexes me is that Rotherham was a coal mining area. I was born and brought up in a coal mining area. I can say with certainty that, back in the day, if such vile creatures had predated on underage girls then they would have been dealt with by the mining community without any prior recourse to law. What happened?
        In the last week 20 obviously muslim men have appeared in court near Newcastle for similar offences. This brings to 31 the number so far charged out of 155 who have been arrested in “Operation Sanctuary”. All but one of the latest 20 have been released on bail pending County Court appearances starting this week. The local newspaper has published their names and addresses. Now then. Newcastle and its environs was a coal mining area until recently. I wonder what might happen if any of the 19 break cover. We shall see.

  6. This article has much thought put into it and while it may contain some ‘errors’ it nevertheless presents some clear options that the author has obviously given much consideration to.

    However, the political process is still active for suitable redress action at the ballot box if enough of the natives can only be persuaded to mark their X for the appropriate political party that are generally still not on the majority voter’s radar.

    And I admit that the possibility of the masses suddenly awakening to what is really going down is probably now more wishful thinking than a prognosis based on hard evidence. But, that awakening is still a possibility given an event of such magnitude occurring that no one worth the brain cells that keep them thinking could ignore for too long.

    Once the internet becomes the preserve of the Globalists who will restrict its influence into the masses, in this undeclared war on humanity, information of any kind will slow to a trickle and whatever is able to somehow circumvent the ‘controls’ put in place by those who do not want us to have individual liberty will become information unable to be verified without taking days or weeks to do so, and in this fast world of instant communications slow information will become a distinct disadvantage to those who will remain in the struggle against the 1% who control the world.

    So, we must prepare for that eventuality and begin looking at alternative ways of getting information out to those who would wish to stay in the fight.

    Extreme acts against extreme elites of the Traitor Class will only drive public opinion against the actors who decide to carry out such things as political assassinations, because the Traitor Class control the collective media that is always eager to propagate whatever the elite tell them are the ‘facts’ to give out to the ‘controlled’ citizenry. No media outlet today would champion true patriots and their acts of patriotism carried out against the Traitor Class and its lackeys. So, there must also be given thought as to how an alternative media outlet could be grown and be operated without the interference it could expect from those the Traitor Class controls.

  7. It was not Gaddafi who said that but Boumedienne who was president of Algeria in a speech at the UN.

    Boumedienne’s UN Speech: “The wombs of our women will give us victory”
    “One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.”

    • Qaddafi said it, too. I don’t have the link, but I remember seeing a subtitled video of his speech.

      It’s a widespread viewpoint in the Muslim world. Their leaders are not shy about expressing their intentions.

    • Boumedienne wasn’t long on geography, was he?

      While it’s only my opinion, many people grossly underestimate the number of firearms in any given country. The author says Norwegians are virtually defenceless, while if my wife’s family and relations and friends in Norway are anything to go by–not so! Most of them are armed.

      Years ago when I worked in Calgary about a dozen of us discussed handguns during a lunch-break, I was the only one who didn’t have one, some owned several, and more interesting was the fact ALL those handguns were unregistered and in working order.

      A sailing friend of mine says a Vancouver city cop he knows told him police estimate there are between 4–6 million UNregistered firearms in Canada.

  8. A very good article Carl, Frederick Forsyth’s excellent novel “The Day of the Jackal” is based on events in France, subsequent to the loss of Algeria.
    That was interesting to read about the degree to which the Foreign Legion was involved in the coup against De Gaulle; perhaps that is why, to this day, its headquarters are never on the French mainland?

  9. At the risk of driving Mark Spahn to total distraction, the ‘plane in the second pic ain’t a Fokker; De Havilland Dragon Six or Dragon Rapide, I believe.

    • Dragon Rapide it is – did my free fall basic from one in Germany way back in the mists of time. Used to climb out onto the wing holding on to one of the vertical struts and then just let go and spread and the slipstream takes you.

      • I envy you, Seneca (though maybe not the parachute jump!) A company at Duxford airfield, south of Cambridge (not Mass.) does pleasure flights over London in Rapides in the summer; here near Elephant and Castle, I look out of the window when I hear the distinctive engine note.

        (I’m “anonymous” above; ongoing computer glitches).

      • Yes – I remember, one had to climb out and onto the wing in order to get clear of the tail. On the plane in the picture, it was even painted footsteps on the wing where you could place your feet. Nice, Seneca, as you are saying, it was quite airy.

        • Yes, Carl, it was indeed quite ‘hairy’ but a lot of fun non the less. I have just remembered that the Strip we flew from was at Bad Lippspringe near Paderborn – was that where you did your jumps?
          Rgds, S III.

          P.S. Are you ex-LE by any chance? I knew quite a few in my time although mostly in D’jibouti when passing through to all points south, although on one occasion another unit did haul my [fundament] out of the fire, so to speak, in Chad 🙂 Halcyon days! S III.

          • Dear Seneca, I don’t want to seem rude, but I don’t want to discuss personal matters, just let me say that – like you – I’ve done my small bit for King and Country in my time. Today, however, je m’en fou du Roi, but would still fight for my Country.

            Thanks for commenting, though, and best regards, Carl

  10. For Canada, here is my take on these alternatives:

    Alternative 1: use our might to settle the matter once and for all:
    — totally impossible, as a large number of Muslim immigrants are already Canadian citizens – and more and more are on the fast track to obtain one. You can’t expel a part of your own population without causing a civil war.

    Alternative 2: conserve our ethnic homogeneity:
    — too late as well.

    Alternative 3: armed rebellion:
    — too unlikely to even consider, as there are no immediate motives to take up arms. Besides, Canadians do not own firearms in large cities.

    Alternative 4: elect new leaders:
    — unlikely as well. No party who seriously wants to reach power will put in its platform that it wants to expel Muslims (who are Canadians), and no voter wants to vote for a “racist” platform. I know Islam is not a race, but people imply that if you don’t want Islam in Canada, it is because you don’t like brown skinned-people. If I wince when I see native French-Canadians wearing burqas in supermarkets or being bus drivers, it must be because I am a racist.

    Nowadays, people vote to feel good about themselves, and this has nothing to do about the actual leader getting elected. Two words as proofs: Obama (twice) – Hillary (next in line). Besides, you risk being sued (like Mark Steyn) in Canada if you say anything bad about that great Religion of Peace.

    Alternative 5: experience terror:
    — the only alternative that will be realized, and we have seen absolutely nothing, because Muslims have not yet reached a sufficient part of the population.

    In conclusion, we will all become Muslims. Perhaps Russia and China still have a chance, because they are not democratic and ruthless. But there is no hope left for democracies.

  11. Thank you all for commenting my article and pointing out some mistakes, much to my embarrassment. Sorry. I think perhaps that the worst mistake is about the explosive force of the French bomb. As for the plane, many years have since passed, but I recall distinctly that it was referred to at the time as a Fokker. However, I’m not going to argue with an obvious expert in this field, and will thus refer to it as a De Havilland should the matter pop up again, which I doubt.

    Concerning arms and handguns in Norway, the point made by Peter35, needs, I think, some further clarification. You are correct in stating that many Norwegians are legally owners of hunting rifles and shotguns. Hunting is popular among all social classes and the rifle density is high, among the highest in Europe. We are then talking about bolt rifles equipped with modern telescopic sights, and not automatic or semi-automatic weapons which are not allowed for hunting. Nor is modern military weapons allowed, but you can own up to six different arms provided you have the need for them. Many Norwegians practice regularly on a shooting range, participate in competitions, and would in theory be excellent snipers. In order to hunt big game like elk, deer and reindeer, all hunters must pass a yearly qualification test. Probably, there are some illegal weapons left over from WW2, mostly German Mausers, but most such weapons have probably now been handed in to the police. What I meant to say in my article, is that since the Army is almost no longer made up of conscripts, young people in general have little weapon experience and no military training.

    In Norway there is also a Home Guard, but members do not keep their arms at home any more, which they used to do.

Comments are closed.