“It becomes obvious that the ‘founding fathers’ do not correspond to the sacred image presented by the mythological narrative. They were people in the hands of the Americans, weakened and dependent.”
The flaccid Europe we are suffering from today is not a misguided development in comparison with what the founders of the Treaty of Rome [which established the European Economic Community] intended, but rather the consistent implementation of their project, emphasises the former presidential candidate for the Elysee, Phillipe de Villiers, accusingly.
Le Figaro: Your latest book on the “founding fathers of Europe” is under fire from all sides. Did you expect a controversy of this kind?
Philippe de Villiers: Yes, of course. For decades, the Union has been moving ahead covertly. It is a being of the underground; what it fears is the light. The sudden beam of light directed at the founding lie has panicked the small world of accredited “histrionic actors”. Too late. The book is in circulation. It is selling like hot cakes.
According to you, why is that so?
Because it is not a book with half-truths that could be wiped away with a knowing gesture of the hand. It is a book based on research, with 111 pages of exhibits, newly released archival documents that speak for themselves. The counter-attack of the panic-stricken representatives of official opinion, who are trying to establish a buffer zone, cannot ignore the disturbing truth supplied by the evidence. Everything begins to sway.
It becomes obvious that the “founding fathers” do not correspond to the sacred image presented by the mythological narrative. They were people in the hands of the Americans, weakened and dependent. As for the project for the initial Europe, this was by no means that of a “European power”. The Americans wanted an ancillary market with an executive commission, i.e. a technical, post-political authority, led by officials and independent of state control. People tell me about the Cold War and the support of anti-communism. But I have found out that on 13 November 1934, Monnet was married in Moscow with Stalin’s blessing. Anticommunism was not at all his cup of tea.
What is your answer to those who call you a “conspirator”?
Conspiracies are about theories, rumours, or fantasies. I am concerned with the opposite: I publish documents. My book is even the answer to the real conspiratism. I found out that Monnet, in order to escape the influence of Quai d’Orsay, called his team a “command of conspirators”. The “European construct” has always surrounded itself with secrecy. Opaqueness was the rule. The “Monnet method” is conspiratorial, directed against the people. He does not hide it. This “construct” is in reality a serial murderer of the democracies in Europe.
Some historians claim that it has long been known that Monnet was close to the Americans…
But we have waited in vain to learn from them that this closeness was in connivance: This president of the “Action Committee for the United States of Europe” received secret payments from CIA circles via the “Ford Foundation” and an account at Chase Manhattan Bank. Many biographers repeat Monnet’s words, claiming that he “ruled out any state subsidies”. However, I provide proof that this is a lie, by publishing all the documents establishing the secret transfer of proud sums, as well as the lobbying operations that were the quid pro quo. There are other documents showing that Monnet was a State Department agent. These historians have made some omissions!
“The deconstructive gene undermining the European Union can be found in the DNA of the ‘founding fathers’. The programme was set from the outset. They knew what they were doing and what they wanted: brainless governance to move towards a global mass market. We are a long way from an independent Europe.”
What do you have to tell those who say, “We already knew that…”?
Then why didn’t they say anything? I did not know. My readers apparently did not either. I did not know that Schuman had spent the First World War in German uniform, and the Second in monasteries, after he had held a ministerial post under Pétain and voted for full power. I did not know that the architect of the Treaty of Rome and first President of the Commission [Walter Hallstein] had been a National Socialist lawyer and charged with setting the framework for “The New Europe” before becoming a senior officer for National Socialist training, and was then re-educated by the Americans in order to be proposed for leading European positions by them.
What did you want to demonstrate?
That today’s Europe, without a body or a head, without roots, without borders, is not the result of drifting off the right track. The opened archives provide the proof: the deconstructive gene undermining the European Union can be found in the DNA of the “founding fathers”. The programme was set from the outset. They knew what they were doing and what they wanted: brainless governance to move towards a global mass market. We are a long way from an independent Europe.
The two active principles that have existed since the beginning, freedom of movement and non-discrimination, have acted as radium levels that have brought about the two fundamental changes of civilisation that lie before us, Soros-Europe and the Marrakech Pact: the first principle – the freedom of movement of persons – was the precursor to the abolition of physical frontiers which produced the interchangeable, multi-uncultivated human being. And the second, non-discrimination, has prepared the end of the anthropological border that produces a “sandman” without humus and without offspring.
One chapter is dedicated to Orban. Why did you meet him?
I wanted to know the truth. I was very impressed by this unshakable, mature man whose words are so well-advised, and who has no other ambition than to serve his country. He was re-elected three times in a row. Brussels says he is not a democrat. He protects his border, which is a Schengen border, and he does not want mass immigration, which Brussels is trying to impose on the Visegrad Group. I perceived the division of Europe into two parts: one that does not want to be Islamised and another that is already at the mercy of mutual accommodations. This is the contrast between the elites of the East, who have retained their national identity and their familiar homelands, and those of the West, immersed in their neurosis of those formerly defeated, suspicious of every exuberance, every enthusiasm, every national feeling. For them, Monnet’s Europe is ultimately nothing more than the story of an ever-increasing trauma.
Is this book a way to stand up for “populist parties”?
No, I am not giving instructions, I am sounding the alarm. I am ringing and ringing. Before the muezzin comes. Populism is the cry of those peoples who do not want to die.
Can Europe that you describe be reformed?
You ask me whether Le Corbusier could become a Viollet-le-Duc?1 The answer is no. The fundamental flaw lies in a post-political, disembodied, undemocratic architecture equipped with a federative exterior. With a globalist and multiculturalist tropism generated by a “union” that is destroying the inner life of our civilisation. There is no chance of reform for this.
Are you not afraid of the chaos that its fall might bring about?
We already have chaos. The gap between the ideological and the physical Europe will widen. The Maastricht wall will fall, because the dream of the great fusion of nations – the dream of the post-national elites – has disappeared from the hearts of the peoples. It has disintegrated because it was woven from a web of lies. The world of tomorrow, which is already appearing on the horizon, outside Europe, is the world of de-globalisation and thus of the sovereignty of the peoples’ right to historical continuity and of borders which will become the peace filters of the future. •
* Philippe de Villiers, born in 1949 in the Vendée (Western France), is a French politician and publicist. He was a member of the French National Assembly from 1987 to 2004, with a three-year break. He was a member of the European Parliament from 2004 to 2014. As an author, he has published numerous historical books. In 2005, he advocated the retention of French sovereignty and rejected the Constitutional Treaty for the EU in the referendum. He is the founder of “Puy du Fou”, a historic theme park that is one of France’s most popular destinations and attracts some 2 million visitors every year.
Source: © Alexandre Devecchio/Le Figaro of 26 March 2019 (Translation Current Concerns)
1 Eugène Viollet-le-Duc was one of the most celebrated French architects of the 19th Century, a curator of monuments and art historian. He became famous for his restoration of medieval buildings and his scientific work on the history of architecture. He lived from 1814 to 1879. Le Corbusier lived from 1887 to 1965
Unsere Website verwendet Cookies, damit wir die Page fortlaufend verbessern und Ihnen ein optimiertes Besucher-Erlebnis ermöglichen können. Wenn Sie auf dieser Webseite weiterlesen, erklären Sie sich mit der Verwendung von Cookies einverstanden.
Weitere Informationen zu Cookies finden Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.
Wenn Sie das Setzen von Cookies z.B. durch Google Analytics unterbinden möchten, können Sie dies mithilfe dieses Browser Add-Ons einrichten.