I would even say that, on the contrary, a French military man (and even more so an officer) has an infinitely clearer and more realistic view of the country's situation than many civilians. The military see very well the slope on which our country is going. And the letter sums it up very well: we are heading straight for a violent break-up of the country. Any honest military man can see this; but no military man is allowed to say so.

Is this letter extreme? I don't think so. On the contrary, I think it is very lukewarm. With all due respect to our Elders, it seems to me that age has made them gentle and wise, perhaps too much so.

The situation is, I think, infinitely more serious than our Elders let on.

I would say that the vast majority of military personnel agree with the statement in this letter. From soldiers, to NCOs, to officers, I think everyone agrees.
There are inevitably debates on the substance, some are more radical, others less so, others find that it was clumsy to write a public letter. But on the whole, all the soldiers share the observation that France is falling apart.

There is no survey, so you will have to take my word for it. But to give you an example: we discussed this letter a lot with some of my former classmates at EMIA, and the entirety of my classmates agree with this letter. Not 51%, or 60%. 100 %. 100%... Same thing at Cyr. The same is true of the last graduating class at Saint Maix [NCO school].

What I am trying to make you understand is that almost all the young cadres of our army, the future sergeants, lieutenants, colonels and generals, are aware that France is certainly falling apart. But above all, they are aware that it is heading for war. This is a subject that we talk about very freely among ourselves, that we talk about very often.

A few days before this interview I was in my regiment and I went to my company's popote [mess hall]. The TV was on and they were talking about the letter.

A young corporal from my company was laughing and saying to his sergeant: "Damn, our families think we're going to fight against [ISIS] in the desert, but in fact we're going to end up in a VBCI [APC] in the Yvelines, the battle of our lives is going to be the battle of France...". It's anecdotal, but I think it represents well the feeling of a large part of the French soldiers: the battle of our life, it will be the battle of France...

You are bound to find people, soldiers and officers who disagree with this letter. In an army of 300,000 men, it is statistically obvious. But I repeat my point: for the vast majority of soldiers in our armies, the question of France's decline does not even arise. The decline of our country is obvious to almost all of us.

Their analysis is both very accurate and very wrong, because it is fragmented. It is correct in the sense that the problems cited [Islam, immigration, anti-racism] do represent a threat. But it is wrong in the sense that the generals have not identified what is threatened in the end.

What is threatened is not "our republican values", or our laws, or our parliamentary system, or our "living-all-together". What is threatened is France. It's the right of the French to have a territory to live in. Or to rephrase in terms that are certainly polemical but more precise: what is threatened in the medium and long term is the native French.

The threats of which the generals speak are the very concrete expressions of an absolutely unprecedented shift in the history of our country: a strong and dominating nation, undefeated and invincible, finds itself tired of its overpowering status and decides to invent problems to keep itself busy.

Thus, it soon finds itself weakened and made to feel guilty to the point of committing demographic suicide. France is not under attack, she is not dying killed by a stronger enemy. She is committing suicide.

But the suicidal nature of our current situation does not take away the responsibility of the elites or the newly arrived populations. Someone who hits a man in the back deserves the rope. Someone who hits a man already on the ground deserves the rope. The elites and the lobbies are guilty of betraying and striking France in the back ; the colonizing populations are guilty of beating down a country already on the ground.

This definition has the merit of being simple and exhaustive. But it is absolutely useless, forgive me. What you describe is obviously obvious. No need for a 100 words definition to realize it... Simply calling this observation a "theory" is nonsense. It is not a theory, demographic replacement is a basic empirical observation.

One can be happy about it, deplore it, want to accelerate it, slow it down, manage it, stop it, reverse it... It doesn't matter in the end. This fact exists, all the statistics show it: I no longer have in mind the figures of sickle cell anemia [note : 40% of non European births in 2016], but they are, it seems to me, an undeniable proof that the ethnic structure of our country is changing. The babies who populate our maternity wards are not the great-grandchildren of the French of the 16th century. The one who dares to say the contrary is a negationist.

The French live their lives quietly, they don't understand that on a daily basis, their elites are negotiating their future. The left-wing bloc is trying to obtain the total erasure of Whites in order to satisfy their sick need for forgiveness and their feeling of wounded injustice. And the right-wing bloc is trying to negotiate the terms of surrender, based on "yes, whites are a just minority among others that must be protected to some extent, please".

For both blocks, as I said, the evidence is already there: France has disappeared, the native French are vestiges. The only difference is that on the one hand, they want to bulldoze the vestiges definitively, and on the other hand, they want to place the vestiges in a museum.

I am not talking about a science fiction scenario. I'm talking about France in 2050, the country in which your children will live when they are 25. In 2050, this is the year your son or daughter will have their first child. This child will be born in a France where more than 65% of the other children will be of African origin.

This is an inescapable dynamic, because demography is inescapable and the tribal or racial instincts that demography awakens are violent.

So am I optimistic? In the long term, yes. In the short to medium term, no.

The military say "sweat spares the blood". That is to say that you have to face all situations beforehand, in training, to be able to advance later on without losses.

"Sweat spares blood", the French have refused for several years to truly and definitively confront the problem, so they will have the blood.

Today this balance of power is shifting to the political arena, this is the crucial phase, the penultimate phase. When politics will fail to solve the problem, we will enter the military phase.

I say "When politics will fail to solve the problem" in the future tense, because believe me, politics will fail. Look at Yugoslavia, Lebanon, South Africa, Palestine... The political phase will necessarily fail to pacify the situation, because at the end of the political phase, no matter what agreement is reached, there will inevitably be one side that feels aggrieved: either the minority-majority, disappointed at not obtaining more power; or the majority-minority, furious at having been dispossessed.

GD : In the letter, the generals call for action to avoid this war. How much time do you think we have before it is too late to react? What is the time window of opportunity to act?

The time window was 1990-2000. It has already passed. Now it is too late. Some speak of "Remigration", others dream of "reversing migration flows"... The truth that no one dares to affirm is that we can no longer deal with the problem peacefully.

The foreign mass on our soil is too deeply implanted; the crazy ideas of guilt are too deeply rooted in the brain of our abused people. It is too late. Much too late. I was 5 years old when it was already too late to act upstream. Our current situation is only the logical extension of these choices (or non choices). Today, it is too late to make the choices we should have made 30 years ago.

So the question is no longer "how can we act to avoid the breakup of the country / the division / the partition / the civil war?". The only question is, "When will this breakup come and how will we triumph?"

I must point out that this is my biggest disagreement with the generals: they think that civil war must be avoided. I do not, as the vast majority of my fellow soldiers.

If there were a way to avoid war AND to solve the problem peacefully without concessions, I would of course support it. But I have explained why, in my eyes, the solution can no longer have a peaceful solution [ too many, for too long, with the help of too many 'traitors'].

From there, wanting to avoid civil war at all costs, even though there is no peaceful solution, is de facto a capitulation a priori. That is to say that we are going to ask the French people to submit to the demands of the other side in order to try to satisfy our antagonists and avoid war...

Contrary to what your Anglo-Saxon readers may think, no Frenchman can accept to capitulate without fighting.

The traitor is worse than the enemy, and the coward is worse than the traitor. The coward is the most foul creature that God could have put on this earth. Cowardice is the most terrible inclination of the soul, it is that which, in the face of the ardor of the task and the brutality of life, makes men fall even before the fight.

The French, those who remain French, are not cowards. I am not a coward. My wife is not a coward. Our children are not cowards. My men are not cowards. My leaders are not cowards.

So, not only should we not try to avoid civil war. But ironically, it is rather virtuous that it should happen. If it did not happen, it would mean that the French have definitively abandoned all ideals and that they have accepted to capitulate in order to preserve the peace, even if it means enjoying this peace as a slave.

But he is a fool who is ready to sacrifice his freedom as an offering in the hope of a sweet and quiet peace. The only thing he will get is the contempt of the eyes that look at him, the blow of the hand that feeds him and the spit of the mouth that has straddled him.

Freedom cannot be negotiated, our genocide does not deserve to be "arranged" or "adapted". The French have an inalienable and exclusive right to the land of their ancestors and as long as they carry this certainty like a flame in their hearts, they will be invincible.

I think that the term "civil war" is very problematic. It certainly covers part of the problem, since ethnic French will necessarily be opposed to other ethnic French, for example the left to the right. But this term blurs the lines, since this conflict, when it takes place, will not only see ethnic French opposed to each other. As I have explained at length, they will also and above all be fighting forces foreign to our country, regardless of whether they have French nationality or not. I am thinking, of course, primarily of the communities originating from Africa and established on our territory.

As such, it is inappropriate to speak of a "civil war" when a people rises up and fights the invader.

The term "race war" is inappropriate for the same reasons. First, because it focuses on the racial (or ethnic) aspect of the conflict. This term implies that Whites will be all united against the blacks who will themselves be all united against Whites. This term ignores the tribal, religious and cultural dimensions. On the side of foreign forces, Malians and Congolese will probably not get along well... Neither will Moroccans and Algerians... And conversely, this term implies that all "whites" will be united in the struggle, which is another imbecility: Turkish, Kabyle or Jewish populations are sometimes considered as "white", but these people are still foreigners in France and in Europe... In the same way, within the native French, we will see internal struggles, struggles between factions, between native French of the left and of the right, of the extreme right and of the right, between religious and secular French, etc etc.

Neither of the two terms suits me. The war that we will know will be halfway between these two things. But if I had to choose, I would still choose to call it a "race war" for the simple reason that, as I said earlier, the war goal of this conflict will be the control of the territory by one "race" (the French) or another (the foreigners).

It is truly a tribal conflict, of two groups for the control of a territory. It is the very definition of a race war, with both groups fighting for their respective interests as a population.

The big challenge will be this one, and it is not a military challenge.

The military challenge will be won in a few days. If the army had a free hand, the entire country would be "liberated" in ten days. If the army had its hands free, the entire country and its institutions would be purged in a month. Literally.

It takes a company of infantry to hold a no-go-zone ; it takes 15 sailors to man a container ship; it takes only 3 judges to judge a thousand traitors. This great historical cleaning would be very easy to set up, even if one is attached to the forms of legality. The difficulty lies elsewhere.

The question that will arise is indeed the following: how far is the French population ready to go to guarantee its survival and the future of its children? This is where the country will be divided, between those who are ready for anything, and those who want to set more or less strict limits. It is this debate that will drag out the conflict.

GD : In concrete terms then, if this conflict were to take place on French soil, can we try to imagine what it would be like, precisely?

It's a difficult exercise but one that we engage in regularly with some of my comrades and subordinates. Since the 2016 attacks, we have forged a small, friendly, informal foresight group on this topic. Our goal is to try to use our military background and adapt our analytical tools to the French situation to see what scenarios would be realistic. I know that other officers in other regiments are doing the same thing and whenever possible we share RETEX [debriefing], we try to exchange our conclusions and thoughts.

As a result of these riots, the political situation is extremely complicated, with at least three distinct camps:

the "Left Bloc": representing racial minorities, those who want the riots to be only a beginning to bring down the old system and go even further; they use this argument to demand reforms with a speech that consists in saying "you have seen what we are capable of, if you don't give us what we want, it will start again".

the "Center Bloc", representing the status quo, whose political line consists essentially in saying "never again", in promoting even more the "living-all-together" diversity doctrine, in talking about renewing the 'social contract', in calming down the situation... The avowed goal being to avoid a new conflict.

the "Right Bloc" : which gathers the most radical French, who call for not giving in to the rioters or to the Left, which tries to lead the self-defense groups.

In the scenario we have studied, it is in this phase that the essence of our future will be played out. This is where the patriots will have the most crucial role to play, first to gain the most influence within the right-wing bloc itself, to ensure that the main narrative is warlike and militaristic. Second, to ensure that within the broader political game, the right-wing bloc is the strongest, the most enterprising, the most prepared.

I repeat that this is one scenario among others, a thousand different things can happen, the outcomes are also uncertain. But it doesn't matter, what matters in this little presentation is to understand the structure of our reasoning for the triggering: there will be 3 phases.

First the phase of riots or quasi war.

Then the transition phase.

Finally, the final phase, which corresponds either to a definitive appeasement, or to a political solution of apartheid, or to a total war.

In all the scenarios we have studied over the last 5 years, we have always found these different phases and this particular model: ultra-violent riots, a transition phase, a final phase.

It is the transition phase that is the most crucial in this pattern, because it is during this phase that everything will be played out.

GD : So you seem to have thought about the problem. You also state that other military personnel are doing similar thinking. There is a rumor among the far right that the government or the General Staff has an "Operation RONCES" in the works, a plan to take over the no-go-zones in case of war or riots. Do you know if such a plan exists?

It exists. That is a certainty. I am not saying that the CEMA (General Staff) has a box with a detailed "Operation Ronces" [Ronces means brambles] file in it. But it is obvious that the General Staff has thought about these questions, that the Elysée [Presidential Office] has thought about these questions.

Our leaders may be hypocrites but they are not ignorant. The French intelligence network is very efficient. The Prefets [Governors], successive ministers and presidents are aware of absolutely everything that is going on. They know very well that the war situation we are talking about is realistic. And they have necessarily prepared it, no matter what the name of this plan is or what form it will take.

You can imagine that if 30 or so officers and NCOs can think about these issues, as my comrades and I have, then the command does as well. I think they are not only thinking about it informally, but I think they are thinking about it formally and weekly.

That's the view of most of the officers I talk to about these things as well. There is no doubt in their minds that our leaders are far less naïve and candid than one might think.

I think that in people's imagination a war necessarily involves hundreds of thousands of soldiers. In my opinion, we will be very far from that in the French case.

The total number of real combatants (professional soldiers) will probably be well below 100,000.

But to this must be added armed civilians.

On the one hand, criminal or political gangs, disorganized, which will probably represent the largest number of armed civilians.

And on the other side, isolated armed civilians. Or civilians organized in the self-defense groups I was talking about.

These groups will probably be supported directly by the army, or organized by former policemen and soldiers, perhaps on the model of the SAS in French Algeria, that is to say, for example, a professional soldier supervising 7 to 10 civilian 'auxiliaries' on a given territory. The civilians will then have the opportunity to help the regular army, at least to hold the territory.

Survivalism [preppers] is also a complicated subject, there are as many survivalisms as there are survivalists... It is a milieu with its codes, but where people are quite free with their opinions. It's hard to imagine what their role could be as a community. But I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that most survivalists have a strong patriotic bent and that it's likely that a small number of them could join or create the so-called vigilante groups.

Concerning European or expatriate volunteers, I am personally very much in favor of the establishment of foreign units supervised by French people in case of conflict. It is a logistical, legal and human challenge. But from what I have seen while studying other conflicts, it would be a worthwhile effort.

So yes, I am very much in favor of welcoming foreign volunteers. But I am also quite lucid, it will concern a very small number of people. I don't see why thousands of Germans, Americans or Spaniards would absolutely want to come and die in combat in France. In the same way, I don't see why French expatriates abroad, who have made the difficult choice of leaving their country, would decide to come back at a time when this country is probably the most unlivable...

The time range seems to me very difficult to evaluate, I prefer not to risk it. But let's say that it will necessarily be in our lifetime.

The tension does not seem to me to be important enough to imagine a conflict before 2030. And if nothing has happened by 2050, it's probably too late and the situation is definitely lost.

So that leaves us with 10 years to prepare for that 20-year window.

Regarding the health situation, this is obviously a very significant event that will certainly help to fuel the fire. It is not impossible that a national-populist movement similar to the Yellow Vests will appear as early as the end of 2021 or during 2022. This seems to me quite realistic and our friends in the Police Nationale can confirm that these scenarios are taken seriously at the moment.

Nevertheless, I doubt that such a movement can lead to a change in the situation. Still these events are always historically important because they contribute to the divorce between the French and their political elite.

GD : A word to conclude?

A word of advice: don't give up hope.

Nothing is lost yet, everything is just beginning. Be active, be lucid, be upright, be uncompromising, be proud to be French, be certain of your legitimacy on this land. It is your duty.

Keep a cool head, don't fall into the electoral traps or into the false polemics of the TV sets, into the fake opposition. Don't succumb to easy temptations, don't let yourself be convinced that it will be easy, that you just have to wait, that others will do the work for you...

The French people are faced with a heroic challenge, that of defying the direction of History and re-imposing the sovereignty of the people at the center of all things. The challenge of recalling what the people is: a thousand-year-old lineage to be protected like a treasure, not a mass of fungible and corruptible individuals.

It is an absolutely colossal challenge, that of answering the question asked since 1945, and to which we have refused to answer until now: "Does a people have the right to have a nation that is at its exclusive service?"

The sad events of the Second World War wanted to offer a negative answer to this question. Today, everything pushes us to offer a positive answer. In any case, it is a question that must be answered. And the answer will be definitive, totally definitive.

And History has decided that it will be the French people who will be the first to answer this question... Because we will be the first to be confronted with this existential questioning, that of choosing to be or not to be as a people.

I think any nation would tremble with fear at such a challenge. Any nation would tremble even before entering the arena. Other nations would tremble with fear: the fear of being alone against all, of being misjudged, unloved, ill-regarded...

But France is different, we are not afraid of solitude, we are not afraid of fighting one against ten. Our entire history has prepared us to fulfill this task, to accomplish this role, to be the people through whom paradigm shifts come.

So don't despair. As this corporal of my unit said: "the fight of our life is the Battle of France". These words are harsh and chilling, I know. You have the right to be sad, you have the right to be angry, you even have the right to be afraid. It is normal, the time has chosen you for a difficult task, you would have probably liked a little peace...

But be happy, because you are the generation in which one cycle will end and another will begin. These things happen only once in History. And not only will it happen in your lifetime, but you will have a role to play.

Prepare yourself, educate yourself, train yourself, toughen yourself, learn skills, marry someone, educate your children well, take care of your friends, act to become an example to the weakest and act to follow the example of the strongest.

Your blood boils with power, genius, glory and honor. And there is no greater honor for a man or a woman than to defend his or her blood by defending his or her territory. Be strong, be proud, be French.



Gallia Daily is a 100% independent, free and non-partisan media. We cover French news in English.

Our media is based in Wilmington, DE and is protected under the 1st Amendment of the American Constitution.

Na Telegram grupi Gallia Daily ima razgovor sa nekim francuskim bojnikom koji im je lijepo objasnio sve stvari. Jako zanimljiv razgovor isplati se pročitat.

Ja se dam okladit u bilo što da nikakvog rata biti neće i da će Francuska pasti bez ispaljenog metka.

Mirno će izumrijeti i raselit se i to je to.

Map of the Invasion of France as Revealed to Marie-Julie Jahenny (Coyault, Blain, February 12, 1850 – La Fraudais, March 4, 1941)

Ti su sukobi opisani u knjizi koju sam preporučio "Total War 2006" (napisana 1999.). No, uvijek se precijeni organizacijska sposobnost tih terorista, a otkad se o tome piše 70ih, baš se uvijek sukobi očekuju u sljedećih 10ak godina.

Migranti su previše heterogeni, a ni ne postoji mogućnost da ih ujedini jedna osoba u nešto što bi se moglo operativno nositi sa državnim organima.

Nepoznanica najveća je o tome o kakvom se broju (i postotku) radi kad se govori o ljudima koji bi mogli ratovati protiv Francuske i Francuza.

1. Imaš muslimane/arape u drugoj i trećoj generaciji koji se kroz brak ili sekularizaciju približavaju onoj dominantnoj ideji toga što je Francuz
2. Imaš muslimane/arape u drugoj i trećoj generaciji koji postaju veći vjernici i ekstremi od svojih roditelja
3. Imaš priljev novih imigranata, koji će vremenom završiti u kategoriji 1 ili 2

Uglavnom bit će neka utrka između modernizacije i ekstremizma. Broj muslimana/arapa koji bi bili kontra Francuza/Francuske nije brojka koja mora nužno rasti. Samo napominjem da se o ovim stvarima govori već 50ak godina, i da se uvijek neka točka bez povratka procjenjuje na nekih 10ak godina. To bi se možda dogodilo da u onim postavkama gore nema opcije 1. (ljudi poput Zinedine Zidanea npr).

Nemoj biti da fatalistički nastrojen , može biti i ovaj scenario:
Na poziv preostalih odmetnih francuskih snaga rusko-poljsko-srpsko-hrvatske hrišćanske snage uz velike borbe ulaze u Pariz i ostale gradove , dok komunističko-džihadističke snage se povlače ka jugu i beže preko Mediterana u svoje štabove u Tunisu i Maroku.
Dok sa druge strane nemačke trupe oslobađaju Brisel i celu Švajcarsku , dok Slovenci trijmfalno ulaze u Beč zajedno sa austrijskim snagama.

Ne otpisuj Evropu tek tako Divizija , nisu nas sve komunistički gejevi i feministkinje uškopili.

Ti su sukobi opisani u knjizi koju sam preporučio "Total War 2006" (napisana 1999.). No, uvijek se precijeni organizacijska sposobnost tih terorista, a otkad se o tome piše 70ih, baš se uvijek sukobi očekuju u sljedećih 10ak godina.

Migranti su previše heterogeni, a ni ne postoji mogućnost da ih ujedini jedna osoba u nešto što bi se moglo operativno nositi sa državnim organima.

Nepoznanica najveća je o tome o kakvom se broju (i postotku) radi kad se govori o ljudima koji bi mogli ratovati protiv Francuske i Francuza.

1. Imaš muslimane/arape u drugoj i trećoj generaciji koji se kroz brak ili sekularizaciju približavaju onoj dominantnoj ideji toga što je Francuz
2. Imaš muslimane/arape u drugoj i trećoj generaciji koji postaju veći vjernici i ekstremi od svojih roditelja
3. Imaš priljev novih imigranata, koji će vremenom završiti u kategoriji 1 ili 2

Uglavnom bit će neka utrka između modernizacije i ekstremizma. Broj muslimana/arapa koji bi bili kontra Francuza/Francuske nije brojka koja mora nužno rasti. Samo napominjem da se o ovim stvarima govori već 50ak godina, i da se uvijek neka točka bez povratka procjenjuje na nekih 10ak godina. To bi se možda dogodilo da u onim postavkama gore nema opcije 1. (ljudi poput Zinedine Zidanea npr).

Đavo došao po svoje, ništa čudno, potpuno uobičajen fenomen.

Ti su sukobi opisani u knjizi koju sam preporučio "Total War 2006" (napisana 1999.). No, uvijek se precijeni organizacijska sposobnost tih terorista, a otkad se o tome piše 70ih, baš se uvijek sukobi očekuju u sljedećih 10ak godina.

Migranti su previše heterogeni, a ni ne postoji mogućnost da ih ujedini jedna osoba u nešto što bi se moglo operativno nositi sa državnim organima.

Nepoznanica najveća je o tome o kakvom se broju (i postotku) radi kad se govori o ljudima koji bi mogli ratovati protiv Francuske i Francuza.

1. Imaš muslimane/arape u drugoj i trećoj generaciji koji se kroz brak ili sekularizaciju približavaju onoj dominantnoj ideji toga što je Francuz
2. Imaš muslimane/arape u drugoj i trećoj generaciji koji postaju veći vjernici i ekstremi od svojih roditelja
3. Imaš priljev novih imigranata, koji će vremenom završiti u kategoriji 1 ili 2

Uglavnom bit će neka utrka između modernizacije i ekstremizma. Broj muslimana/arapa koji bi bili kontra Francuza/Francuske nije brojka koja mora nužno rasti. Samo napominjem da se o ovim stvarima govori već 50ak godina, i da se uvijek neka točka bez povratka procjenjuje na nekih 10ak godina. To bi se možda dogodilo da u onim postavkama gore nema opcije 1. (ljudi poput Zinedine Zidanea npr).

Dvije slabe točke u ovom razmišljanju su:

1. Migranti su previše heterogeni, a ni ne postoji mogućnost da ih ujedini jedna osoba u nešto što bi se moglo operativno nositi sa državnim organima.



Samim svojim postojanjem i jačanjem, migranti slabe i gase državna tijela. Ako u jednom Parizu svake godine imamo porast od 1% nefrancuza u tijelima vlasti, ta tijela će prosto uvenuti (barem u smislu konkretne snage koja se može suprostaviti migrantskoj agresiji). Kao u nekim USA gradovima gdje su nekoć velika većina policajaca bili bjelci a danas su to Meksikanci.
Dakle, nakon određenog vremena tog državnog aparata neće biti, ili će postati neučinkovit.


2. Samo napominjem da se o ovim stvarima govori već 50ak godina, i da se uvijek neka točka bez povratka procjenjuje na nekih 10ak godina.


Moguće da je ta brojka od 10 godina proizvoljna ali to ne mjenja na stvari. Velika zamka je negiranje opasnosti samo zato jer se nije desilo već u prošlosti. Podsjeća pomalo na neke stvari u stilu:
a)Mostar 2019 - Aluminij se neće zatvoriti jer svake godine kruže priče da će se baš zatvoriti te godine.
b) Bugojno srpanj 1993 - Muslimani neće napasti Hrvate, jer su glasine o napadu bile i u lipnju i svibnju.

Takav stav ima za posljedicu samo banaliziranje i zanemarivanje opasnosti te umrtvljavanje i pasivizaciju mjera protiv iste. Moguće da to netko namjerno i s tim ciljem čini i protura takve ideje o "idućih 10 godina".

Neće to dobiti završnicu na takav način. Neće biti muslimanskog marša kroz institucije. Teoretski i kad bi ih bilo 80% u Europi neće ništa odlučivati u tajnim službama, armiji, policiji, ministarstvima.
Ali hoće doći do oružane pobune i rata.

Eto ti primjer Švedske. Muslimani kitu odlučuju, baš ništa. Na svim imalo bitnim funkcijama su Šveđani. Oni stvarni izvori moći ne odražavaju porast muslimana kroz migraciju.

Na Telegram grupi Gallia Daily ima razgovor sa nekim francuskim bojnikom koji im je lijepo objasnio sve stvari. Jako zanimljiv razgovor isplati se pročitat.

Na kojem jeziku razglabaju ?

Ne znam zašto, ali kao da se neobičnim spletom okolnosti cijela Europa pretvara u bivšu državu/BiH 90-ih.

Nije to toliko neobično. Rezultat na kraju procesa je razumljiv. Umjesto jednog naroda stvori "narode i narodnosti" unutar svoje države i ti narodi i narodnosti će se voljeti kao narodi i narodnosti u SFRJ.

Zašto je taj proces započeo i dalo mu se da se razmaše je misterij.

I to u svim zemljama Zapada. Od "neutralne" Austrije, zaista neutralne Švicarske, poražene Njemačke opterećene ispiranjem mozga i krivnjom, ne bi se štel mešat do 45' Švedske, pobjedničke Francuske, Amerike nedotaknute ratom, Kanade koja je osvojila jackpot, a opet sama entuzijastično radi na svom uništenju.

Svugdje ista gruda se kotlja niz brijeg.

Valjak ludila i ideološkog slijepila koji melje. Razum, normalnost, civilizaciju.

I još jedna potvrda da nisu ludi Balkanci Balkanci bezveze nego zbog uvjeta u kojima se nalaze.

Stvori "balkansko okruženje" / multikulti u prethodno dominantno jednonarodnim državama Zapada i jugoslavenski scenarij se odmotava.

I umjesto da mi Hrvati s tim našim iskustvom budemo sigurni u sebe i gledamo s pozicije superiornosti jedne zavedene Zapadnjake koji trkeljaju o nekim građanima i kako etnos nema veze i da je to sve anakrono i nadvladano mi pomalo gutamo gluposti koje nam prodaju budale.

Etnički homogena država nema cijenu. Hrvatsku od 90%+ Hrvata treba čuvati kao najveću vrijednost koja postoji.

Kad bi im htjeli vratiti milo za drago mogli bi slati hrvatske snage UN-a u predgrađa Pariza da razdvajaju Francuze katolike od Francuza muslimana i osnivati NVO da im propovijedaju da se ne trebaju mrziti da su svi Francuzi i jednaki...

Demografija je sudbina.

Velike sile Zapada su mogle odgađati scenarij koji pogađa sve na kraju samo zbog svoje velike početne snage. Ali ništa suštinski nisu riješili. Samo su mogli ignorirati problem duže od nas.