Le Guay slammed responses by European leaders to the continued terror attacks on the continent, saying that these acts were not committed by madmen. “They are political before being psychiatric,” Le Guay said.
Writing in La Figaro, Le Guay says: “When we see that such attacks are repeated regularly in our territory and are perpetrated by nationals, are we bound to recognise ourselves as in a sort of civil war that does not mention its name? When victims are tricked at random and all murderers act in the name of Islam, are we not in a state of war on our territory?”
“Not to recognise this ‘civil war’ against us, between us, rather than improve the situation, only aggravates it. The euphemism also kills. Our policies, by naivety, lack of courage or lack of lucidity, refuse the evidence. Consequently, in order not to take stock of the situation, they are procrastinating. Rather than healing our national fabric, they let the problems escalate. The rejection of Islam continues to increase in Europe.”
Le Guay also lambasted the weak response to terrorism by authorities, saying: “Each time [there is a terror attack] our authorities ‘deplore’ these attacks, show their ‘compassion’ towards the victims, indicate their ‘indignation” and denounce such attacks [as did yesterday the Minister of the Interior] as “an odious attack”.
He accused the French government of relativising the attacks, by stating that such atrocities are committed by mad people. “No, Mister Prime Minister,” he says, “there is no ‘madness’ in a political terrorism which aims, in the name of an Islamist ideology, to fight against the West, against the ‘infidels’, against the ‘impure’, the kuffar that we all are”.
The philosopher also added that French Muslims were not the enemy, but that some individuals were waging war against the French nation and more must be done to prevent “hundreds of Molenbeeks” springing up across France.
French MPs voted on controversial anti-terror legislation, which passed this week to allow authorities greater powers to clamp down on terror suspects.
In France, Fondapol’s inquiry recently indicated that increased rejection is felt by 60 percent ofFrench citizens who, in the same proportions, consider that Islam is a threat to the Republic. On the other hand, the signs of radicalization of the Muslim population, even those born in France, are increasing.
One third of Muslims, according to the Montaigne report of a year ago, believe the laws of Islam prevail over those of the Republic. And a survey by the CNRS indicated, in March, that 15 percent of Muslim high school students in France think it acceptable to use “arms to fight for religion”.
A triple fear exists to paralyze French policies, Le Guay said. On the one hand, that of “playing the game of the National Front”.
Secondly, immigration, unlike the leitmotif proclaimed by everyone, is not “an opportunity for France” and is generating “cultural insecurity”, as highlighted by Laurent Bouvet.
The fear of being suspected of “Islamophobia” – an indiscriminate concept which is making it impossible to discuss Islam or Muslims.
“This weapon of mass destruction,” said Le Guay, is a kind of “imaginary racism” also denounced by Pascal Bruckner, because it “stifles all intellectual debates and quickly ranks those who, like Alain Finkielkraut, dare to discuss the situation frankly in the ‘fachosphere'[fascist spehere]”.
Le Guay added: “The CCIF (the Collective against Islamophobia in France), drags individuals before the courts who question certain drifts in the Muslim community – as was the case for Georges Bensoussan or Pascal Bruckner.”
There is also a third fear: that of attacking “the religion of the poor”, the “damned of the earth”, the victims of colonisation, Le Guay said. “Cultural leftism, with its many associations and powerful media and academic institutions, ends up considering today’s victims as historical culprits and the culprits of today as victims of ancient segregation.” The narrative wants to settle old accounts “on the backs of today’s innocent with racial apologies on one side and masking guilt on the other”.
Le Guay has also critised Pope Francis for his attitude towards migrants. “He is well within his role when he appeals for universal generosity. But in this appeal, he puts forward ways of taking action, which undermines the responsibility of politicians.”
The philosopher noted his unpleasant surprise at how little reflection the Pope seems to accord to the history and ingenuity of countries which have welcomed migrants in the past, insisting on the need to preserve the culture and traditions of migrants.
“Should we allow our countries to become vast airports where the rest of the world can just come and go?” asks Le Guay, adding that, “humanity would be left without land, without history, and without identity.”