Philippe de Villiers is a French author, historian, and former MEP. He is an anomaly in today’s France: an intellectual who is also a conservative Catholic. He’s been featured here a number of times in the past.

Many thanks to Gary Fouse for translating this article from Le Figaro:

Philippe de Villiers: “It is the Islamic virus that we must make war against”

FigaroVox/Tribune— Philippe de Villiers deplores the differential treatment between the coronavirus and the Islamic virus. To fight against the first, the government does not hesitate to put in place questionable exceptional measures, while concerning the second, which according to him is an actual invasive aggression, it refuses to take measures of war on the grounds it might kill liberty.

Both are out of control: The Covid and terrorism. Emmanuel Macron is lagging behind. He runs after the words, after the deaths, martial, powerless. The lexical field used since spring, “We are at war,” today seems like an utterance and an inappropriate term: The epidemic is still operating, and the terrorists as well. The idea that the country is not being governed and that the State is in the hands of a bunch of amateurs emerges in the heads of the distraught French people.

Failing to secure the national borders, we reinstitute the domestic border

The ineptitude of the authorities, forced to conduct two wars at the same time, emerges in the differential treatment of the two viruses. There is one that raises health security. To protect the population from this viral enemy, we have chosen to lock ourselves up, to make ourselves stay home. Failing to secure the national borders, we reinstitute the domestic border. We take freedom-killing measures, we flatten the economy, we tear away the connective tissue of industrial France, because we think that health protection is more important than all freedoms: Then we announce, in 15 days, by using the same war-like panoply, first the curfew— which is a nighttime confinement — then the confinement which is a daytime curfew, never used even in the 1940s.

Faced with the other virus, which for once, is a true invasive aggression, we refuse to implement measures of war on the grounds that they might be freedom-killing, and so, to the legal maniacs, subject to legal censure. Thus, we refrain from touching family reunification or the 500 Islamist mosques. We don’t recognize the fatal chain: Immigration is the breeding ground of terrorism. We refuse to respond to war with war, and allow the population to have their throats slit. In other words, on the one hand, without being encumbered by scruples, we take away our freedoms, in the name of health security. On the other hand, we dare not give ourselves the means of guaranteeing ourselves physical safety.

France has become the planetary crossroads of the assassins of civilization

The audacity of the government, when it is a matter of silencing us in the streets and inflicting boundaries on our daily lives, contrasts with the laxity practiced concerning the Islamists. We don’t touch our borders; we safeguard the right of asylum: France has become the planetary crossroads of the assassins of civilization.

Where does this differential treatment come from? Having had serious conversations with Emmanuel Macron on this subject, I can answer this question: The globalist culture of our elites — which permeates Macronia — has blossomed into a hedonism and individualism that have destroyed our immune defenses.

Hedonism, the absolute commodification of the divine market, has mutated into a hygiene of the State. We put health above life, above affection, creation, work, emotions: The distancing barriers make parents and neighbors enemies who could afflict you with contagion. We put biological survival above life; of every other form of life — social, creative, spiritual, cultural — avoid the risk — the risk of life — we cajole ourselves in the hope that the GAFAM (Google-Amazon, Facebook, Apple and Microsoft) will give us, thanks to the prostheses of a post-humanist eternity, a definitive life insurance policy.

The hygiene of the State, which is, therefore, the diamond-point of materialistic hedonism, we convince ourselves that the only worth in life is health — we can kill embryos and put the old to death to shield our eyes from the end of health. This global hygiene is the Siamese twin of individualism, which, by the absolute proclamation of the “legal State”, only aims to protect individual rights in their most eccentric varieties. This legalism disintegrates the nation. Formerly, the supreme court was the people. Today the people can no longer decide. There are supreme courts above a person which decide for him.

We should reserve war for those who wage it against us

We will not wage two wars at the same time: One against the French and the other against the enemies of France. We must reserve war to those who wage it against us. Today, we lock up the French people on the grounds they are virtually the carriers of the virus, and we let foreigners who have declared war against our civilization circulate across our borders.

Everything is upside down. We have to put everything back in its place. Coming out of the confusion between two emergencies: One is an organization of public health, and the other is a war. First, we must liberate the French people, let them live. We speak a lot about the Middle Ages, but we practice the reverse of the quarantine station and the quarantine: in the time of leprosy, they confined the sick and allowed the healthy to remain free. Today, we do the reverse: We deprive the healthy of their freedom. The urgency is to increase the number of hospital beds. Wasn’t that done earlier? For the rest, nothing will replace Swedish-style collective immunity, which today is showing undeniable results.

As for the other war — the one that is not allegorical — it must be waged as a country at war does — we declare war, and in this war, there is a fifth column at home. We don’t respond to war with candles, exhortations or even laws. We respond to war by a state of war. Our Constitution calls for this situation, in article 36: That is “the state of siege”. It can be decreed in the council of ministers “in case of imminent peril resulting from a foreign war or an armed insurrection.”

The enemy is not in separatism. It does not want to separate from us, it wants to conquer us

So the military authorities have the right to conduct searches, remove suspect individuals, and search for arms. And we can punish high treason.

We speak of “separatism”. That is new. But this is still nothing more than a pretense. The enemy is not in separatism, it does not want to separate from us. It wants to conquer us. The idea of a “de-colonized France” is the idea of a France disenfranchised by the efforts of new colonizers. What do they want? To subjugate us.

We are living, perhaps, in the final hours of peace. A poor start-up nation at the end of the cycle, which debates, to the rhythm of a nightmarish horizon, declining in a fatal trilogy: the gag, the curfew, the beheading. This semantics of disaster signals the failure of the politics of Utopians here, for 50 years, in their little world of a lack of culture and Playmobil. They have simply forgotten that history is tragic.