EU Open Letter from French Ex-Military Officers Denouncing 'Islamism' Disintegrating the Country

[Zachowon]

The second one is from currently serving and anonymous

 

[Terthna]

Honestly they shouldn't have sent anymore warnings. As it is, they're being watched, and I don't doubt for a second that their government will go gestapo on them and try to quietly lock them all up a few at a time before putting on some big show trial. And given the reaction that there was to the first warning, I doubt the second is going to garner any better of a response. If anything it will probably just escalate things. It would have been better for them to just put a plan together and just act.

These aren't the sorts of people who would ever act though; they're the sort who end up as martyrs that inspire those who will.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

The last time anyone in France had the stomach to actually do anything against the disintegration of France was in 1961, and non je ne regret rien.

 

[Zachowon]

The last time anyone in France had the stomach to actually do anything against the disintegration of France was in 1961, and non je ne regret rien.

Le Pen is someone willing to change France for the better

 

[Navarro]

The last time anyone in France had the stomach to actually do anything against the disintegration of France was in 1961, and non je ne regret rien.

"Buncha randos w/ zero popular support even amongst the military try to overthrow the government because they want to keep fighting a forever war in the middle east while the rest of the country doesn't and fail pathetically as noone listens to them" isn't really anything that could be considered impressive or remotely sensible.

Not to mention that ... had said attempted putsch succeeded (it had a snowball's chance in Hell) and France held on to Algeria, the country would have an even greater Islamist problem and far more Arabs within its borders. This from a guy who's a fan of Catholic ethnostates. Lol.

 

[Cherico]

Le Pen is someone willing to change France for the better

It would be nice to have France change with out having a civil war.

 

[Aldarion]

If they weren't 'former', I can only imagine they'd shortly become so for thoughtcrime.

Look at Croatia. A bunch of generals signed a similar letter (about Communists taking power in Croatia and villifying the Homeland War)... they were then almost immediately forcibly retired, and quite a few ended up in Hague - based on trumped-up charges which were produced partly by Croatian political elites.

 

[ATP]

It would be nice to have France change with out having a civil war.

France have Foreign Legion,which is fanatically loyal to France.If there would be cyvil war,muslim would lost.I am more concerned about rest of Western Europe,which have muslim but not Foreign Legion.

 

[Cherico]

France have Foreign Legion,which is fanatically loyal to France.If there would be cyvil war,muslim would lost.I am more concerned about rest of Western Europe,which have muslim but not Foreign Legion.

Is poland prepared to save an ungrateful europe again?

 

[ATP]

Is poland prepared to save an ungrateful europe again?

Depends,which part.Certainly not Germany/well,maybe Bavaria and Saxony.../ The same goes for England.

 

[JagerIV]

I think, for all we've talked about the letter, it would be good to have an translation of it, at least the second, to see what is actually being said. I believe below is the second letter, so people can see exactly what this is about.

Mr. President of the Republic,
Ladies and Gentlemen, Ministers, Members of Parliament, General Officers, in your ranks and qualities,

We no longer sing the seventh verse of the Marseillaise, known as the “children's verse”. Yet it is rich in lessons. Let us leave it to him to lavish them on us:


“We will enter the quarry when our elders are gone. We will find their dust there, and the traces of their virtues. Much less jealous of surviving them than of sharing their coffin, we will have the sublime pride of avenging them or of following them ”

Our seniors are fighters who deserve to be respected. These are for example the old soldiers whose honor you have trampled on in recent weeks. It is these thousands of servants of France, signatories of a platform of common sense, soldiers who gave their best years to defend our freedom, obeying your orders, to wage your wars or to implement your budget restrictions. , which you soiled while the people of France supported them.
These people who fought against all the enemies of France, you have treated them as factious when their only fault is to love their country and to mourn its visible downfall.

Under these conditions, it is up to us, who have recently entered the career, to enter the arena simply to have the honor of telling the truth.

We are what the newspapers have called “the fire generation”. Men and women, active soldiers, of all armies and of all ranks, of all sensibilities, we love our country. These are our only claims to fame. And if we cannot, by law, express ourselves with our face uncovered, it is just as impossible for us to be silent.

Afghanistan, Mali, Central African Republic or elsewhere, a number of us have experienced enemy fire. Some have left comrades there. They offered their skin to destroy the Islamism to which you are making concessions on our soil.

Almost all of us have known Operation Sentinel. We saw with our own eyes the abandoned suburbs, the accommodation with delinquency. We have undergone the attempts to instrumentalize several religious communities, for whom France means nothing - nothing but an object of sarcasm, contempt or even hatred.

We marched on July 14th. And this benevolent and diverse crowd, which acclaimed us because we are the emanation of it, we were asked to beware of it for months, by forbidding us to circulate in uniform, by making us potential victims, on a soil that we are nevertheless capable of defending.

Yes, our elders are right about the substance of their text, in its entirety. We see violence in our towns and villages. We see communitarianism taking hold in public space, in public debate. We see hatred for France and its history becoming the norm.

It may not be for the military to say that, you will argue. Quite the contrary: because we are apolitical in our assessments of the situation, it is a professional observation that we deliver. Because this decline, we have seen it in many countries in crisis. It precedes the collapse. It announces chaos and violence, and contrary to what you are asserting here or there, this chaos and this violence will not come from a "military pronunciamento" but from a civil insurrection.

To quibble about the shape of the forum of our elders instead of acknowledging the obviousness of their findings, we have to be quite cowardly. To invoke a duty of reserve badly interpreted in order to silence French citizens, one must be very deceitful. To encourage the leading army officers to take a stand and expose themselves, before fiercely sanctioning them as soon as they write anything other than battle stories, you have to be very perverse.

Cowardice, deceit, perversion: such is not our vision of the hierarchy.
On the contrary, the army is, par excellence, the place where we speak truthfully to each other because we commit our lives. It is this confidence in the military institution that we call for.

Yes, if a civil war breaks out, the army will maintain order on its own soil, because it will be asked to. It is even the definition of civil war. No one can want such a terrible situation, our elders no more than us, but yes, again, civil war is brewing in France and you know it perfectly well.

The cry of alarm from our Elders finally refers to more distant echoes. Our elders are the resistance fighters of 1940, whom people like you very often treated as factious, and who continued the fight while the legalists, transfixed with fear, were already betting on concessions with evil to limit the damage. ; these are the hairy 14, who died for a few meters of land, while you abandon, without reacting, entire districts of our country to the law of the strongest; they are all the dead, famous or anonymous, fallen at the front or after a lifetime of service.

All our elders, those who made our country what it is, who designed its territory, defended its culture, gave or received orders in its language, did they fight for you to let France become a failed state? , who replaces his increasingly obvious sovereign powerlessness with a brutal tyranny against those of his servants who still want to warn him?

Take action, ladies and gentlemen. This time, it is not about custom emotion, ready-made formulas or media coverage. It is not a question of extending your mandates or conquering others. It is about the survival of our country, of your country.

 

[Navarro]

Interesting analysis of the gen. context behind France's decline:

Immigrants Didn’t Destroy France; the Welfare State Did - The American Conservative

The pervasive culture of mediocrity egged on by the government deserves blame for France's issues.

www.theamericanconservative.com

Nevertheless, there are still important differences between France and the U.S. Just as the yellow jacket protests were about more than high gas prices, the French frustration in this open letter is about more than immigration. It is about what France has become: an otherwise small and insignificant nation haunted by a glorious past. While there have been rises in violent crime and social unrest that correlate with the increase of mostly North African Muslim immigrants, this is often exaggerated and doesn’t actually account for country’s current woes.

Rather, France’s problem is, and always has been, its bloated welfare system, which is listed as the most generous in the world. The French pay high taxes and expect a wide array of public services in return. Unsurprisingly, this system has led to the government going into massive debt to continue funding these entitlements and has greatly hindered the country’s economy. Meanwhile, the population continues to grow older and retire while birthrates fall well below replacement level.


Less measurable but more profound is the effect that France’s welfare state has had on its culture. “Entrepreneur” may be a French word, but it’s an utterly foreign concept to most Frenchmen. Most of them now depend heavily on the state for everything, including comfortable employment. And if they don’t receive a certain benefit from the state, they will strike and protest at a moment’s notice. Most of them couldn’t care less that this attitude ruins their economy, bankrupts their government, and makes everyone poorer in the long run. If it’s a choice between social benefits and their country’s well-being, the former always wins.

 

[Arlos]

I agree about the Welfare state, the Immigrants part is completely out of touch with reality tough, I guess it’s forgivable since it’s an american paper.

 

[JagerIV]

Yeah. Unfortunately, Reason at this point is not a particularly reliable source for anything these days. Getting any sort of reliable info I think is difficult, since there really is no truly neutral info and everything is super spin at this point. For example, all the information I could find on these kinds of issues all dated back to 2016, with newer info being hard to find.

However, looking on the wiki on the subject, something like 16% of French muslims were willing to admit to regular support of suicide bombing, and about 35% put as at some point justifiable. The no go zones do seem to, in fact, exist. There were about 10,000 people on the French Fiche S, a sort of watch list, suspected of being Islamic radicals who were a risk to national security in 2005, and I've heard in a podcast that its risen to some 50,000 now.

If they're right about things spiraling to civil war, dismissing the "low level" violence at this stage is like looking at bleeding Kansas, saying that only some 200 ish people have died, and thus declaring fears of a civil war in the 1860s is overblown. Or, for a more recent example, looking at Antifia and seeing only some 10-20 dead and thus declaring nothing of much significant happened with the setting up of Chad and other "no go" zones.

Such anaysis misses the forest for the trees, often deliberately.

 

[Zachowon]

Yeah. Unfortunately, Reason at this point is not a particularly reliable source for anything these days. Getting any sort of reliable info I think is difficult, since there really is no truly neutral info and everything is super spin at this point. For example, all the information I could find on these kinds of issues all dated back to 2016, with newer info being hard to find.

However, looking on the wiki on the subject, something like 16% of French muslims were willing to admit to regular support of suicide bombing, and about 35% put as at some point justifiable. The no go zones do seem to, in fact, exist. There were about 10,000 people on the French Fiche S, a sort of watch list, suspected of being Islamic radicals who were a risk to national security in 2005, and I've heard in a podcast that its risen to some 50,000 now.

If they're right about things spiraling to civil war, dismissing the "low level" violence at this stage is like looking at bleeding Kansas, saying that only some 200 ish people have died, and thus declaring fears of a civil war in the 1860s is overblown. Or, for a more recent example, looking at Antifia and seeing only some 10-20 dead and thus declaring nothing of much significant happened with the setting up of Chad and other "no go" zones.

Such anaysis misses the forest for the trees, often deliberately.

Basically Le Pen is the best chance has at avoiding a civil war if they can make to next year

 

[Captain X]

And I doubt she'll win. Wouldn't be surprised if fraud was involved with that election, too.

 

[Bassoe]

Interesting analysis of the gen. context behind France's decline:

Immigrants Didn’t Destroy France; the Welfare State Did - The American Conservative

The pervasive culture of mediocrity egged on by the government deserves blame for France's issues.

www.theamericanconservative.com

Yeah, that's neolib nonsense. Let me guess, the proposed solution would be to drive down the cost of labor by importing even more foreigners, stripping our own citizen's welfare state for funding to do so and worship at the altar of the Invisible Hand a bit more so we'll be blessed by some wealth Trickling Down. All the prior failures of said philosophy were just the results of insufficient faith, surely it'll work this time.

There's nothing wrong with a welfare state so long as any money it transfers from the wealthiest to the poorest rapidly goes back into the economy as a whole. Mass migration and globalist race-to-the-bottom competition with foreign slave labor is to blame for that not working as well, insofar as it means more potential employees than job openings and consequentially, lowered wages which people can't sustain themselves off, therefore, more unemployed people stuck on welfare since they either couldn't get a job even if they wanted to or the difference between the wages of a minimum-wage job and welfare parasitism are too low to be sufficiently motivational.

Basically, cheaper to pay danegeld to keep Fell from becoming a criminal so he can survive than to subsidize the megacorp's ability to outsource their own need to pay their employees sufficiently that they can survive onto the taxpayer. And after a couple decades of billionaires and megacorps funding every single movement we all hate, can't say I really feel like defending them. Fell may be a parasite, but the nationwide symptoms of having a bunch of Fells running around are a lot less catastrophic than those of more malignant parasites like billionaire ideologues and their megacorps.

 

[LordsFire]

There's nothing wrong with a welfare state so long as any money it transfers from the wealthiest to the poorest rapidly goes back into the economy as a whole.

Whatever other valid points you do or do not have in your post, this sentence shows that you do not understand a core element of human psychology.

Welfare is cancerous.

 

[JagerIV]

Thinking of an analogy, a town having 10 murders a year when its Andy Griffith and his deputy, vs having 10 murders a year with a policeman on every street. Or 10 violent deaths now in the age of tasers and advanced medical treatments than 10 violent deaths in the past. There a lot of things that can hide the true scale of violence involved.

For a concrete example, it seems about 90 people were killed in London from knife crimes. This does not, out of a city of its size, seem a particularly terrible number of people, and doesn't seem particularly indicative of any sort of crisis. However, there were about 1,300 stabbings. Its just that modern policing and medicine means only some 5-10% of stabbing results in a death, and with how heavily policed London is, who knows what the "natural" for lack of a better word stabbing rate is. But, if medical techology was simply less good and 1/3 of the stabbing resulted in death rather than 5% ish, then London's homicide rate would jump up something like 1.2 per 100,000 to 4.8 per 100,000. Now, still not as bad as somewhere like Chicago where its something like 15-20, but going from being 1/20 the murder rate of a notoriously violent city to being merely 1/4 the murder rate of a notoriouly violent city is quite a change.

Its my understanding that in Europe a lot of such things are, for now, keeping thing much more in control than they otherwise would be. Like, the anti terror programs are keeping it to more like an annual big terror attack that gets through, rather than a weekly terror attack.

But, of course, such things are very hard to definately quantify.

 

[Bassoe]

Whatever other valid points you do or do not have in your post, this sentence shows that you do not understand a core element of human psychology.

Welfare is cancerous.

Possibly true, but it's also cheaper than the alternative. Fell wants enough money for a tiny apartment pod, food, water, medical care and internet connection. The billionaires and their megacorps want to literally recreate feudalism by way of company towns at best, have us all permanently rendered unemployed and unemployable once automation becomes cheaper than human labor no matter how mistreated the laborer, then shot by security drones if we violate their sacred Non-Aggression Principle by rioting or stealing to survive rather than starving in peace at worst. Sure in an ideal world neither of them would exist, but if it's a choice between the two...